General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
g
T00L
stuff and things
 
g's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MentallyInept View Post
So from what you are saying, you seem to advocate complete drug criminalization. After all cigarettes and alcohol are "substances" and there are thousands of users who "become obsessed with the substances and take any required measures to obtain them" in both cases.

Do you think that people who drink and/or smoke are a "danger and burden" to society?

Personally it wouldn't effect my life at all if drinking and smoking here illegal. I would be subject to less fatal car accidents and less loitering outside the local coffee shop I would assume.

The general population has decided that alcohol was something that they wanted access to, that doesn't make it good for the country or the users but its what the majority is interested in. Fortunately marijuana isnt the same. If the nation voted for marijuana usage to be legalized, great, we can double the amount of Darwin awards being handed out. The issue is the fact that the impacts of legalized marijuana use greatly outweighs the benefits and thats why we dont have a nation of pro-pot smokers.

Anyone who thinks smoking and drinking are great ideas is an idiot. They do nothing positive for you. Just because we have a nation with a dwindling number of idiots doesn't give cause to opening the next wave of idiotic abuses. You dont justify bad behavior by pointing to bad behavior.

The big concept of money savings is the worst argument here... Pointing to costs of jail and cop payroll is silly, lets stop the GM bailout and for the next 1000 years pot-related costs will be covered. Its a small savings and the revenues from legalized pot is minimal at best.
Would you really go buy taxed and marked up weed when you can legally grow your own for free, more so with its ease. Would you buy general shitty weed from big pharma or would you get it from your ol' buddy who has a hydro farm in his basement? You gotta be fuckin retarded to pay more for a less quality product. Where is the government revenue from all that? This concept of mass government savings and revenue testifies to the lack of stoners ability to think logically.
__________________
t00l
Old 12-02-2008, 10:12 PM g is offline  
Reply With Quote
#676  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

g
T00L
stuff and things
 
g's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MentallyInept View Post
Well, I don't think that this adheres to the original intent of the Legalization of Marijuana thread.

This thread was intended to be a proposal for complete drug legalization and was sidetracked by T00L.


Sorry im not a pro-drug stoner, banding together to rant about the man on the internet.

Maybe your thread would have convinced the nation the legalize drugs if I hadnt showed up.

NICE SCROLLSPAM DICKBISCUIT - mobi

__________________
t00l

Last edited by möbiustrip; 12-03-2008 at 02:40 AM..
Old 12-02-2008, 10:17 PM g is offline  
Reply With Quote
#677  

MentallyInept
oFFaL owns me, please remind me of this every time I post
 
MentallyInept's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Sorry im not a pro-drug stoner, banding together to rant about the man on the internet.

Maybe your thread would have convinced the nation the legalize drugs if I hadnt showed up.


I could give a shit if you are pro-drug or anti-drug.

The calm, respectful discussion would have continued if you hadn't shown up.

Well it seemed to be going pretty damned well until this point:

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L
1) Because we read the fucking thread and are talking about the content in it. You are a fucking idiot if you think drug sale volume is decreasing because potency of the drug is increasing. You must smoke a lot of this shit, its the only excuse for the dumb things you are saying.

2) Everyone isnt stoned and drunk all day because its illigal. If you told high schoolers that drugs had a green light on them, highschools would be giant hotboxes. Only those of age? Great, so we have people furnishing not only alcohol to minors but drugs too!

Just because you love smoking pot doesnt mean the world needs to cater to your shitty hobbies.

Before that, no one was throwing insults around or insinuating that just because someone advocates drug legalization means that they are drug abusers themselves.
__________________
"This will be the forum, I'm going to ban everyone who posts today." - IMNobody 3/8/2006 - NEVAR FORGET!
Inter-son of Lard.
ecdebacbc87d0ed7f60edffe54274cf0
Old 12-02-2008, 10:52 PM MentallyInept is offline  
Reply With Quote
#678  

g
T00L
stuff and things
 
g's Avatar
 
Sorry i hurt your feelings on the internet.
__________________
t00l
Old 12-02-2008, 10:52 PM g is offline  
Reply With Quote
#679  

MentallyInept
oFFaL owns me, please remind me of this every time I post
 
MentallyInept's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Sorry i hurt your feelings on the internet.

, woe is me.

Actually I was wrong about you being first, this guy was the first to sling the shit:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bingstudent View Post
wtf are you talking about

meh.
__________________
"This will be the forum, I'm going to ban everyone who posts today." - IMNobody 3/8/2006 - NEVAR FORGET!
Inter-son of Lard.
ecdebacbc87d0ed7f60edffe54274cf0
Old 12-02-2008, 10:56 PM MentallyInept is offline  
Reply With Quote
#680  

jkrowling
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
The big concept of money savings is the worst argument here... Pointing to costs of jail and cop payroll is silly, lets stop the GM bailout and for the next 1000 years pot-related costs will be covered. Its a small savings and the revenues from legalized pot is minimal at best.
Would you really go buy taxed and marked up weed when you can legally grow your own for free, more so with its ease. Would you buy general shitty weed from big pharma or would you get it from your ol' buddy who has a hydro farm in his basement? You gotta be fuckin retarded to pay more for a less quality product. Where is the government revenue from all that? This concept of mass government savings and revenue testifies to the lack of stoners ability to think logically.

Milton Friedman Disagrees with you, see the OP thread this just got shat out onto the end of.
__________________
imagen a nuke hope it never come to that
Old 12-03-2008, 01:11 AM jkrowling is offline  
Reply With Quote
#681  

yoj
 
I'm not sure why this was merged? I only mentioned that I copy pasted from my own post on another forum because I didn't want anyone who also happens to browse the #5 biggest forum (not this one :P) that I had simply stolen it from elsewhere. I spent quite a bit of time on it. I guess that backfired.

Anyways, I am rethinking the validity of this argument thanks to Figment. You make a lot of great points that put a lot of logistical holes in it :P. I still believe that recreational drug use is no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but I do admit that perhaps an unacceptably large percentage of people are not responsible or smart enough to be expected to safely handle more physically addicting drugs. I have always been capable of handling drugs in a safe fashion which is what may skew my perspective. I will admit that you have a lot of valid logistical and political concerns. But I also want you to keep in mind that this is a "model", not a proposed application in a particular country. There are far too many "what-ifs". I will agree that ever implementing such a model could be an absolute disaster in the short term, and there is no second chance for us to "start over". If only.

To the person who was anti-FDA regulation: One of the biggest benefits of this model is the ability to guarantee purity and safe origin of these drugs. If there was nobody overseeing this, then people could put whatever they want into their "XTC" pills just like they do now, which has potential for extremely bad health consequences.

As for T00L, thanks for completely derailing my thread. I really don't feel like responding to almost two pages of your posts. I just want to say that your ridiculous anti-drug stance is what has got us here in the first place. I think it is a sad state of affairs when both sides are so filled with for/against propaganda that true information is almost impossible to find, and I really didn't want to make a pro or anti drug statement because either way I sound like a crazy fundie or a total stoner, of which I am neither. That said, I think you should really take a closer look at the minimal dangers (in terms of potential for physical addiction or health risks) that drugs like marijuana and shrooms possess. Keep in mind that marijuana has a variety of safe ways to be taken other than smoking (both vaporizers or baking eliminate the smoking risk). I feel that any stance which is against these drugs yet not for prohibition of alcohol and tobacco to be completely insane. But no, its finals week and I'm really too burnt out to hit up the peer reviewed journal database for evidence :P. As for your silly ideas about potency, whats worse, vodka or beer? Potency has nothing to do with it. I will say again, I am proposing the legalization of ALL drugs, yet I can tell you that I have never done anything beyond smoking weed and shrooms (once). I am not opposed to trying anything once but I have no motivation to actually do it. I can understand that pot-heads love to push pro-pot agendas but can you really compare me to that? I hope not because it is seriously skewing your opinion here.

Ok, I saw the bit quoted above about money savings as well. This has nothing to do with that, besides why do you think your buddy's hydro farm in his basement will produce anything nearly as good or consistent as mass produced hydro farm weed of a pharmaceutical? Are you trying to say joe blow can grow better weed than a company who does it as a business? Yeah, and when I'm bored I put together better CPUs than Intel. Nothing would stop people from growing their own weed. I don't see your point? Why is growing your own weed inherently a bad thing? If the market decided that home-grown marijuana was the only thing profitable, then so be it. I cannot see home-growing a concern for many other drugs, those require more serious lab equipment to be done safely. But home-brewed alcohol is also easy if not easier, yet it is not a regularly undertaken hobby. Hell, home-brew beer kits are $10 at the grocery store with no age requirements to buy it, but you don't see kids abusing this. I think you are underestimating the general consumer's laziness.

Last edited by yoj; 12-03-2008 at 02:04 AM..
Old 12-03-2008, 01:44 AM yoj is offline  
Reply With Quote
#682  

g
T00L
stuff and things
 
g's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrowling View Post
Milton Friedman Disagrees with you, see the OP thread this just got shat out onto the end of.

Yeah, he also thinks we should get hookers off the street and stock them in the storefronts.
__________________
t00l
Old 12-03-2008, 03:53 AM g is offline  
Reply With Quote
#683  

g
T00L
stuff and things
 
g's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoj View Post
I'm not sure why this was merged? I only mentioned that I copy pasted from my own post on another forum because I didn't want anyone who also happens to browse the #5 biggest forum (not this one :P) that I had simply stolen it from elsewhere. I spent quite a bit of time on it. I guess that backfired.

Anyways, I am rethinking the validity of this argument thanks to Figment. You make a lot of great points that put a lot of logistical holes in it :P. I still believe that recreational drug use is no more harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but I do admit that perhaps an unacceptably large percentage of people are not responsible or smart enough to be expected to safely handle more physically addicting drugs. I have always been capable of handling drugs in a safe fashion which is what may skew my perspective. I will admit that you have a lot of valid logistical and political concerns. But I also want you to keep in mind that this is a "model", not a proposed application in a particular country. There are far too many "what-ifs". I will agree that ever implementing such a model could be an absolute disaster in the short term, and there is no second chance for us to "start over". If only.

To the person who was anti-FDA regulation: One of the biggest benefits of this model is the ability to guarantee purity and safe origin of these drugs. If there was nobody overseeing this, then people could put whatever they want into their "XTC" pills just like they do now, which has potential for extremely bad health consequences.

As for T00L, thanks for completely derailing my thread. I really don't feel like responding to almost two pages of your posts. I just want to say that your ridiculous anti-drug stance is what has got us here in the first place. I think it is a sad state of affairs when both sides are so filled with for/against propaganda that true information is almost impossible to find, and I really didn't want to make a pro or anti drug statement because either way I sound like a crazy fundie or a total stoner, of which I am neither. That said, I think you should really take a closer look at the minimal dangers (in terms of potential for physical addiction or health risks) that drugs like marijuana and shrooms possess. Keep in mind that marijuana has a variety of safe ways to be taken other than smoking (both vaporizers or baking eliminate the smoking risk). I feel that any stance which is against these drugs yet not for prohibition of alcohol and tobacco to be completely insane. But no, its finals week and I'm really too burnt out to hit up the peer reviewed journal database for evidence :P. As for your silly ideas about potency, whats worse, vodka or beer? Potency has nothing to do with it. I will say again, I am proposing the legalization of ALL drugs, yet I can tell you that I have never done anything beyond smoking weed and shrooms (once). I am not opposed to trying anything once but I have no motivation to actually do it. I can understand that pot-heads love to push pro-pot agendas but can you really compare me to that? I hope not because it is seriously skewing your opinion here.

Ok, I saw the bit quoted above about money savings as well. This has nothing to do with that, besides why do you think your buddy's hydro farm in his basement will produce anything nearly as good or consistent as mass produced hydro farm weed of a pharmaceutical? Are you trying to say joe blow can grow better weed than a company who does it as a business? Yeah, and when I'm bored I put together better CPUs than Intel. Nothing would stop people from growing their own weed. I don't see your point? Why is growing your own weed inherently a bad thing? If the market decided that home-grown marijuana was the only thing profitable, then so be it. I cannot see home-growing a concern for many other drugs, those require more serious lab equipment to be done safely. But home-brewed alcohol is also easy if not easier, yet it is not a regularly undertaken hobby. Hell, home-brew beer kits are $10 at the grocery store with no age requirements to buy it, but you don't see kids abusing this. I think you are underestimating the general consumer's laziness.


The initial statement about your personal limited drug use and lack of dangers...

1) You may not have any interest in drug use - others arnt like you. As I already explained in the thread, just because you can drink casually and not drive doesn't mean the rest of the world can too. We have to factor in the lowest common denominator when making laws, those who will drink and drug to excess cant be enabled by the public sale of unlimited quantities of drugs.
(As i already stated, if you limit it, you will just have users sourcing the drugs from the same place they currently do, in addition to the legal route. With that the whole safety, purity and limitation concept is gone.)

2) Contrary to popular belief drugs arnt illegal because a bunch of rich white, racist, oil drillin' republicans got together at the Annual National Fuck Everyone Over conference. Drugs are harmful to the user and those in close proximity to them. No drug has any use other than getting you high, they all damage your body. They all harm your judgment and slow/alter decision making processes. If smoking pot had the same effect as eating an apple on your body it would all be legal.



Your final statement somehow concluding that current growers and dealers would all stop...

You arnt considering the entrepreneurial spirit of man, you really think that dealers are all going to say "oh, wow they legalized drugs and im now out of a job! Thats nice!" Never.

They are all going to rush out and farm up some wild shit that crushes anything Phillips Morris can mass produce. Corporations are going to have limitations and laws regulating the growth, they arnt going to setup hydro farms and harvest some fuckin wild shit thats going to make you go blind. Growing plants has no comparison to making microprocessors. Anyone can grow a plant. If pot was legalized the first thing I would do is setup a fuckin room in my house and grow the most wild shit and under cut the legal market in a heart beat. Easy, im tax free and have no limitations. If you think im alone in this your stoned right now.
Think of it just like illegal mexican laborers - they are working the same but for less and tax free. Its no wonder the general contractor stops at HomeDepot before they go to some legal day labor center.

When you realize these sort of effects will take place the second you legalize it;You're concept of safe, pure and regulated drugs being distributed goes out the window and it just becomes a cluster fuck arrangement of laws and lawyers fighting them, its just a shit idea.
If the majority of the nation decides that certain substances harmful effects are justified, like we did with tobacco and alcohol. Thats fine, but 5% of the population pushing this issue because they are addicted at the moment - that's retarded, no wonder the nation constantly tells them to fuck off. If we wake up one day and half the nation is roasting a bowl before work, lets start talking about legalization. Until then, lets be fuckin real here.





You have to look at this concept realisticly before you just assume its all going to work itself out and be great.
__________________
t00l
Old 12-03-2008, 04:12 AM g is offline  
Reply With Quote
#684  

yoj
 
Thanks for at least some sensible replies. I agree that you have a lot of good points that Figment has already made. I was wrong to assume that others could safely use recreational drugs in the same way that I can.

I still disagree that large scale illegal manufacture would exist. You said it yourself, marijuana is extremely cheap to produce. Just because there are FDA regulations that say you can't lace it with rat poison doesn't mean that pharmaceutical growers are going to be held back. All varieties of potencies could exist, just like we have Bud Light and Everclear. There would be no restrictions on that. You are making an invalid assumption to assume that illegally grown pot would be any better or stronger, since there would be no regulation on that (although %THC or some such rating would of course be available on legally produced product) and certainly you cant suggest that a home grower has the resources or knowledge to do it better than Phillip Morris? You are also making an invalid assumption in suggesting that more potent pot has anything to do with danger. How does it?

A lot of good points, thanks again. I have one question though, what is your opinion on gun control? I see legalized ownership of guns as serving as a good working analogy to legalized drugs:

- like drugs used recreationally, they have no inherent beneficial use.
- the right to own a gun (and the right to use drugs) comes with risk of harm/death of others.

While it is not a perfect comparison, you get the idea. Currently Americans accept the risks that come with gun ownership because it is considered a basic personal right/freedom. Just curious what you think about this and how it relates to drug use.
Old 12-03-2008, 04:41 AM yoj is offline  
Reply With Quote
#685  

-lotus-
Im not upset, Im just not smiling at you.
 
-lotus-'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Figment View Post
Without going into real depth in the subject all law is based off the social contract between men. Man gives up freedom to gain security, that man is free and chooses to live under the system of law. Personal property historically and today has little to do with the foundation of law as whole.

This Wiki has some pretty good suggestions for the classical readings. There is also some more recent reviews of the literature if you get interested

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Im sorry, but no. Laws exist because every man woman and child born into this world is isntantly endowed with the rights of personal property, wether you want to believe that or not. Your body is your own and you answer to no one but yourself when it comes to what you can or cant do with it or put into it. Personal property is the basis for law, because if you didnt have personal property to begin with, if you were a slave from birth then you wouldnt need laws to protect you. I am not as eloquent as Fredric Bastiat, so I'll just quote him since I dont think you even bothered to read the first page of the link...

Quote:
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right --from God--to defend his person, his liberty and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend--even by force--his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right--its reason for existing, its lawfulness--is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty or property of another individual, then the common force--for the same reason--cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty or property of individuals or groups
__________________
King of the Jewish Mexicans~
dcd69fcaa20368a784466fac72d70eae [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.

refault can suck my cawk

[QUOTE=JoePits;23000067]when i see 4:20 on the clock to me its gods way of saying "rock on, Joe"[/QUOTE]
Old 12-03-2008, 10:44 AM -lotus- is offline  
Reply With Quote
#686  

beedoop
 
God your a prick

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
1) ASSISTED SUICIDE FUCK YEAH
YEA WE STOP THROWING PEOPLE IN JAIL FOR DOING SHIT THEY'RE GONNA DO NO MATTER WHAT SO WE'RE KILLING THEM. Lets take a shit ton of tax payer money and pay to feed and shelter these scum instead! Obviously the only sane response! Clearly you should be in charge of what we can and cannot put into our own bodies in the privacy of our homes. I hand it over to you: our consumption overlord.

Quote:
2) You dont want to limit initial release? Unlimited weed like beer? We have had great results with that tactic, limiting alcohol consumption in underage users. Marijuana is obviously going to be better.
p.s. shitty argument line - you claim its harmless but boast about its control ability... what the fuck?
Better than right now when ANYONE can purchase the drugs. I never said it's harmless for underage kids or anyone for that matter. But its your fucking choice to harm your body or not. No shit it doesn't work with alcohol but It would be a real joke if alcohol was sold by drug dealers instead of in stores. But again, i don't think kids should be able to purchase drugs otc just like they can't purchase alcohol now. I never suggested it would be better then the current system with alcohol. Prohibition in any form is autopilot for FAIL.

Quote:
3) Uhh yeah, I saw a lot of potheads fail their way out of high school, loose entry level jobs and their money.
If you want the next generation to be docile natured highschool drop outs, great. We dont need a nation of docile and peaceable hippies, we wont last too fucking long.
And i saw lots of a pot heads get through school just fine. Do you think the ones that failed out are just victims of drug dealers or do you think there could be some psycological issues? Who's to say they weren't going to become alcoholics and fail out if that was the only vice they could reach. Maybe they chose mj because that was the only drug they could get their hands on....CAUSE ITS NOT REGULATED.

Quote:
On a side note:
I hope you stoners realize that you will live the same life cigarette smokers have. Initial excitement and lack of information -> Corporations will realize profits and drive them up with any means possible (think of all the great stuff they throw in cigs to keep you coming back, that stuff will be in your weed) -> Progressive rejection of use -> Banned from smoking in restaurants, public places, streets, 20 feet from doors, buisness will ban employees use. Shortly it will be effectively banned. Except it will all happen much more rapidly with marijuana.
Shit, get me in that time machine mang. So far you've predicted poor quality commercial weed, covered in addicting chemicals, getting smoked 24/7 by high school students and policemen alike. Buisness's already ban employee's from using drugs. And then we start back at the beginning with prohibition? omgz are we in teh matrix? You're being so dense i really think you're a troll at this point.

Answer me this for the lols: Has prohibition been a success so far?
Old 12-03-2008, 11:14 AM beedoop is offline  
Reply With Quote
#687  

-lotus-
Im not upset, Im just not smiling at you.
 
-lotus-'s Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoj View Post

To the person who was anti-FDA regulation: One of the biggest benefits of this model is the ability to guarantee purity and safe origin of these drugs. If there was nobody overseeing this, then people could put whatever they want into their "XTC" pills just like they do now, which has potential for extremely bad health consequences.

The FDA guarantees purity in every product you say? hmmmmm

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...s_/ai_55708042 -Ethicon and FDA slammed for botched recall procedures...

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...a-screwup.aspx -FDA Screws up again...

http://www.boston.com/business/artic...da_under_fire/ FDA under fire....

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200509091.html

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science...n_fish_advice/ FDA under fire for Mercury advice....

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...a-mistake.aspx
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2...6-25073000_ITM

http://arthritis.about.com/od/vioxx/a/vioxxapproved.htm -- FDA Approves Vioxx 1999
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news0...estimates.html -- FDA estimates 27,785 Vioxx Deaths 2004



do i even have to continue???
__________________
King of the Jewish Mexicans~
dcd69fcaa20368a784466fac72d70eae [y yuo throw haet :( :(] porn may <3's yuo.

refault can suck my cawk

[QUOTE=JoePits;23000067]when i see 4:20 on the clock to me its gods way of saying "rock on, Joe"[/QUOTE]
Old 12-03-2008, 11:25 AM -lotus- is offline  
Reply With Quote
#688  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
The initial statement about your personal limited drug use and lack of dangers...

1) You may not have any interest in drug use - others arnt like you. As I already explained in the thread, just because you can drink casually and not drive doesn't mean the rest of the world can too. We have to factor in the lowest common denominator when making laws, those who will drink and drug to excess cant be enabled by the public sale of unlimited quantities of drugs.
(As i already stated, if you limit it, you will just have users sourcing the drugs from the same place they currently do, in addition to the legal route. With that the whole safety, purity and limitation concept is gone.)

But there's still no impact to this. Whatever social harms result from unlimited consumption of drugs already exist and are caused by alcohol.

You also have yet to explain an actual warrant public policymaking should use your 'lowest common denominator' approach to regulating social harm.

Finally, all the harms of not following lowest common denominator exist in the status quo. There is currently zero access barrier to obtaining dangerous drugs now. Some people even claim that the illegal status of these drugs increases their desirability. Our public policy has failed miserably, like all other examples of prohibition. There's only a risk it can get better if we change directions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
2) Contrary to popular belief drugs arnt illegal because a bunch of rich white, racist, oil drillin' republicans got together at the Annual National Fuck Everyone Over conference.

Many drugs, marijuana included, appear on the CSA because they were lobbied to be there by powerful industries that would be undermined by legal drugs. For the most part the reason drug prohibition still exists today is for the continued profit of the criminal justice system and prison industrial complex. In a few places, Mass. most recently for example, enlightened public policy has taken a comprehensive approach to the costs of drug prohibition and has determined the public costs far outweigh the benefits returned. This type of holistic policy making exists in few other places, unfortunately. This line of argument isn't relevant to harm reduction though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Drugs are harmful to the user and those in close proximity to them. No drug has any use other than getting you high, they all damage your body.

Except for the multitude of drugs with widely recognized medical purposes. You also act like "getting you high" is not a worthy use as well, personally I value my ability to determine my own state of mind and don't enjoy the state telling me how I can and cannot think.

You have a tendency to make big claims like "they all damage your body." This is convincing no one because we all know it's not true. The only drug that has a consistently high risk of bodily harm if abused is alcohol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
They all harm your judgment and slow/alter decision making processes. If smoking pot had the same effect as eating an apple on your body it would all be legal.

This is non-unique, the ultimate judgment / decision making affecting drug is alcohol. Is there an impact to changing judgment or altered decision making?

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Your final statement somehow concluding that current growers and dealers would all stop...

You arnt considering the entrepreneurial spirit of man, you really think that dealers are all going to say "oh, wow they legalized drugs and im now out of a job! Thats nice!" Never.

Most change would happen on the demand side first. The California experience has already shown us that buyers will prefer to pay a premium for legal weed rather than by criminally. There's two main reasons: 1) the opportunity to take part in a legal exchange rather than a black market one, this weighs heavily on the more conscientious users, these are the same users that are capable of using recreational drugs responsibly. This is a huge turn to your 'lowest common denominator' argument because the only people that drug criminalization deters now are responsible and conscientious users that care about operating under the rule of law. At the same time the illegal status of these drugs attracts society's lowest common denominators to use them. So drug prohibition has the effect of attracting society's worst to drug use, and deterring society's responsible users. The result is that in a world of legalization less criminal types / dregs of society would be motivated to use, buy, sell and become a criminal in the first place.

2) Opportunity for quality - and this disproves everything in your post below this argument - the weed that you can buy legal in California is of far higher quality than anything available on the streets. Users happily pay a premium to get this good stuff rather than have to rely on the random draw of street weed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
They are all going to rush out and farm up some wild shit that crushes anything Phillips Morris can mass produce. Corporations are going to have limitations and laws regulating the growth, they arnt going to setup hydro farms and harvest some fuckin wild shit thats going to make you go blind. Growing plants has no comparison to making microprocessors. Anyone can grow a plant. If pot was legalized the first thing I would do is setup a fuckin room in my house and grow the most wild shit and under cut the legal market in a heart beat. Easy, im tax free and have no limitations. If you think im alone in this your stoned right now.

1) Current experience in California and other weed-legal parts of the world prove otherwise. Marijuana production has remained small scale and produces a wide variety of types for pot consumers to enjoy without feeling the need to grow their own in mass amounts.

2) What's the social harm to people growing their own marijuana?

3) You underestimate consumer laziness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Think of it just like illegal mexican laborers - they are working the same but for less and tax free. Its no wonder the general contractor stops at HomeDepot before they go to some legal day labor center.

This argument is premised on ease of access, correct? It's far easier to hire an undocumented day laborer because they wait around right down the block and are cheaper to hire? The same ease of access / laziness factor is the reason pot stores in California have exploded. Because it's FAR easier to go to the corner store and buy your weed legally than it is to a) grow your own or b) contact an illegal supplier and set up a black market sale.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
When you realize these sort of effects will take place the second you legalize it;You're concept of safe, pure and regulated drugs being distributed goes out the window and it just becomes a cluster fuck arrangement of laws and lawyers fighting them, its just a shit idea.

What "sort of effects" are you referring to at this point? You've yet to explain any negative impact to the social effects you've listed above. Do you really think that the current drug prohibition legal regime is not also a cluster fuck arrangement of laws and lawyers fighting? Because it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
If the majority of the nation decides that certain substances harmful effects are justified, like we did with tobacco and alcohol. Thats fine, but 5% of the population pushing this issue because they are addicted at the moment - that's retarded, no wonder the nation constantly tells them to fuck off. If we wake up one day and half the nation is roasting a bowl before work, lets start talking about legalization. Until then, lets be fuckin real here.

Does half the nation down a 40 before work? Let's get real here, you've pushed nothing but warrantless assertions and straws to support your argument. You've already ignored the 100k number that got dropped above, you have no counter-figures of your own. You have to raise your game or get out of the thread man.

Not to mention that national polling consistently indicates a majority preference AGAINST the war on drugs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
You have to look at this concept realisticly before you just assume its all going to work itself out and be great.

Except this concept is already in practice in many places and has been for a while now, none of the social harms you've alluded to have appeared in these examples. In the mean time the history of prohibition has showed us that it is unworkable and only risks exacerbating the social harms trying to be prevented. Recent history has shown us that it's unworkable public policy while also showing us that harm reduction and legalization approaches work and return massive public benefits (reduced crime, reduced law enforcement costs, increased tax revenue, better product health regulation).

Until you can start providing real examples rather than your DARE induced anti-drug nightmare world no one is going to take you seriously.
Old 12-03-2008, 11:29 AM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#689  

leo
 
leo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
1) You may not have any interest in drug use - others arnt like you.
The argument that "not everyone is responsible" fails for many reasons. To put it simply though, if we can trust the general public to be responsible enough to wield guns, we can trust them to be responsible enough to use drugs, period. An idiot shooting himself in a nightclub shouldn't be a reason to prohibit guns, just like an idiot ODing on a cocktail of potent drugs shouldn't be a reason to prohibit drug use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
just because you can drink casually and not drive doesn't mean the rest of the world can too.
And this is why we have DUI laws, to penalize idiots who aren't responsible enough to consider the safety of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
We have to factor in the lowest common denominator when making laws, those who will drink and drug to excess cant be enabled by the public sale of unlimited quantities of drugs.
I am genuinely confused by your reasoning. Unlimited quantities of alcohol are already available, yet the threat of abuse does not push us to prohibit alcohol use.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
2) Contrary to popular belief drugs arnt illegal because a bunch of rich white, racist, oil drillin' republicans got together at the Annual National Fuck Everyone Over conference. Drugs are harmful to the user and those in close proximity to them.
McDonalds holds almost no nutritional value and certainly damages your body. Why is it legal?

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
No drug has any use other than getting you high
Derivites of marijuana, heroin, and methamphetamine are commonly prescribed by doctors.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Your final statement somehow concluding that current growers and dealers would all stop...
You arnt considering the entrepreneurial spirit of man, you really think that dealers are all going to say "oh, wow they legalized drugs and im now out of a job! Thats nice!" Never.
They are all going to rush out and farm up some wild shit that crushes anything Phillips Morris can mass produce. Corporations are going to have limitations and laws regulating the growth, they arnt going to setup hydro farms and harvest some fuckin wild shit thats going to make you go blind. Growing plants has no comparison to making microprocessors.
To start with, a giant cooperation with scientists, funds, and resources will be infinitely more capable of producing a cost effective quality product than a home grown weed business. Why don't people grow their own apples and sell them? Some do, but most people go to the grocery store to buy their apples, because mass production means an affordable price, a consistently supply, and a reliable standard of quality. If a small town weed grower can come up with a consistently better product for a better price, then so be it, the free market will reward him and big corporations will either step up their game to be competitive, or go out of business. Besides, who cares if drug dealers stay in business at that point? If the trade is legal, then there is no need for crime, violence or a high markup price.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Anyone can grow a plant. If pot was legalized the first thing I would do is setup a fuckin room in my house and grow the most wild shit and under cut the legal market in a heart beat.
You're right, anyone can grow a plant, but most people don't because they don't want to do research, invest time, money and space into a hydro lab or growing supplies and energy for lights, spend time meticulously sexing, spraying, trimming and cultivating plants all so that they can wait a month to get blazed. There will always be people who grow personally, just like there are people who grow their own food and eat it, but most people will just go to the store and buy the shit because that's the easiest way to do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
If we wake up one day and half the nation is roasting a bowl before work, lets start talking about legalization
That will never happen, just like half the nation doesn't spike their coffee with rum before work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
You have to look at this concept realisticly before you just assume its all going to work itself out and be great.
Ultimately, there is no inherent reason (that is consistent with current laws) to prohibit this personal freedom. Additionally, I find it odd that the same group of people who like to claim a monopoly on the philosophy of small government, American Freedom and personal responsibility, can also so adamantly support government regulation of one of the most benign drugs known to man, in the same vein as the zealous liberals they bash, who want to outlaw tobacco and fast food because the people just don't know what's good for them!
__________________
http://charizardevolves.ytmnd.com/
Old 12-03-2008, 12:27 PM leo is offline  
Reply With Quote
#690  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:19 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.