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 -lotus- View Post
you poor sad fool.

Sorry, I should have elaborated, I forgot that we have international users here. - I live in America.
__________________
t00l
Old 12-04-2008, 02:50 PM g is offline  
Reply With Quote
#706  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
1) Individual growers matter to this issue because they defeat 90% of the arguments for the legalization (safety, regulation, increased revenue, money saved on the falsely assumed enormous amount of time pot smokers/dealers spend in jail, etc.)

Your continued insistence on this assertion only shows everyone else reading the thread that you have no idea what you're talking about.

I'll repeat:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bingstudent View Post
Safety and regulation does not apply to weed. It is the safest drug you can consume and requires no regulation if legalized.

Safety and regulation does apply to drugs where potency and purity are important to the safety of the user: cocaine, heroin, MDMA, the list goes on. These are drugs that are not easily constituted by an amateur grower the same way weed is. These are the drugs that are most likely to be corporate produced and regulated for safety post-legalization. You're confusing two totally different concepts and claiming that it makes you right, in actuality it makes you fucking retarded and shows everyone here that you can barely read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
When you say "so what if people grow on their own" you have no reasons to legalize pot other than "Hey i wanna fuckin smoke dog"

The reason to legalize pot is two fold: 1) it's use is inevitable, successfully limiting it is impossible; 2) the only result of attempting to limit it's sale and use is an increase in social harm.

It has nothing to do with wanting to get high, it has to do with wanting sound public policy. If you can't understand this you're a fucking idiot. Even if you could understand it there's a huge risk of you being a fucking idiot but your failure to grasp this point specifically really puts the nail in the fucking coffin on the "is T00L a fucking idiot?" debate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Micro-brews have a major impact on the market.

Wrong:

Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-microbrewery.htm
While microbreweries are not real competition for the major breweries, they do claim approximately 3 percent of the market share.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
They are also highly regulated. They came to existence through the owners passion for unique beer and follow strict government regulations and pay taxes and are licensed.

Those aren't similar ideas at all. A microbrewery is a lot more comparatively similar to a marijuana boutique or small farm. In the status quo these types of weedpubs exist in California where they are public places of business that follow all the applicable laws and pay sales taxes to the tune of 100 million dollars a year. That's before a 7.25% marijuana tax that's currently in consideration.

You're comparing home growing to microbrewing, which are not similar at all. A microbrewery is a business and far more similar to the weed shops I described above. A better comparison is home brewing kits, which are totally legal and probably pretty popular with some folks. Unfortunately for your argument they have yet to be identified as somehow uniquely harmful for their 'do it at home' properties. Just like home grown pot has no uniquely harmful properties either, yet you can't seem to grasp this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
You really think that some crip drug dealer is going to register his illegal farms and start paying taxes and let state inspectors come check out the crops, ditch the guns and become a fucking upstanding citizen? Its like a fucking fantasy land with you.

1) "some crip drug dealer" is not likely to be the one with illegal farms in the first place. This is one of the things you repeatedly have shown you don't understand about prohibition. Where pot remains illegal is also where it attracts society's undesirable elements to the business. This is because a law-abiding responsible citizen is not going to waste their education, money and time engaging in an illegal enterprise because they can make easier money with less risk in a legal profession. In places where pot is defacto-legal the marijuana industry attracts those very same law-abiding responsible citizens as entrepreneurs because the industry has such a huge potential for profits. Post legalization there will simply be no room for criminals in the industry, they will be pushed out by decreased demand for non-legal bud and inability to compete with real businesspeople with actual educations that decide to go into the business. We've seen proof of this both in Europe and California. We've seen proof of your argument ... nowhere.

2) You have still yet to articular one reason it's bad for people to grow pot in their homes post-legalization. I don't think you can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
2) Yes, pot is illegal because its good for you and regardless of volume consumed its effects on your body are that of eating an apple.

I challenge you to find one credible study that says marijuana consumption causes long term harm to you body's health.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Just because you like smokin' doesnt mean that you need to start making shit up to justify it.

Haven't made anything up. You on the other hand ....

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
I like how you continue to try and tell me that the government is regulating pot because they are just a bunch of dicks that want to fuck you over.

Nobody here said this. I think either 1) you can't read so you're taking guesses at what we type; or 2) the voices in your head are getting to you again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Fantasy land again.



Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
3) Yes, the legalization of pot is just making great strides forward. I wonder whats going on with that whole gay movement these days? Everyone just always talking about this legalization of pot issues these days! looooooooooooool

Huge strides, for instance: medical marijuana provisions in 13 states, decriminalization of small amounts possessed for non-medical purposes in 12 states. Not to mention a House Resolution to federally decriminalize up to 100 grams introduced this past year that will be debated come spring.

Yet you sit there and continue to assert that America, our medical establishments, and our politicians have not undergone a shift in opinion about marijuana since the 50s, and you're wrong. Do you not read newspapers or something? That's rhetorical, I already know the answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
4) I wonder the fuck why. It has no negative effects on the user and isnt harmful to anyone around them. tard:

No one here is claiming that pot should be combined with difficult tasks that require careful physical or mental precision. We have pointed out however, that even the slightest consumption of alcohol impairs the average person far more than heavy marijuana consumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
5) You: Oh wow your analogy about AIDS makes sense fuck, its uhhhhh humhuhmhuih nonsensical, yeah thats it. hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
If you cant argue the point just dont reply, what a waste of time to say something retarded like that.

It's not my fault you can't formulate your argument in an articulate way. Want to explain what exactly you were trying to argue with your AIDS example? I don't think you can to be honest, but my expectations of you are already really low so maybe you can surprise me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
6) you gotta start reading your posts before submitting them.

Irony?

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
7) I like your assumption that small time dealers are jailed and its a giant waste of time and money.
I would love to see some statistics as to why they where
A) Initially stopped by an officer.
B) What additional charges came along with the drug charges
C) How many are let go
D) What their criminal records look like.

1) I never assumed anything, I posted data from fbi.gov.

2) Once again, your reply has indicated a total lack of comprehension. I didn't quote any data about drug dealers, rather the data I quoted was about people convicted of drug POSSESSION. The data I quoted indicated that in 2007, out of the 872,720 federal drug abuse violations for marijuana 775,137 of those people were arrested for marijuana possession alone. While it's definitely true that the government wastes tons of money chasing down drug dealers the far bigger waste of funds and law enforcement resources comes in the form of basic marijuana possession enforcement. Why do you think Boston police celebrated the recent passage of the state ballot measure to decriminalize small amounts? Every police force in the US realizes small time enforcement is a huge waste of money, time and other resources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
You are trying to pass off this idea that dealers are dealing, cops come up and fuckin send em off to jail for selling drugs for all this time. That sounds pretty fuckin contradictory to every drug deal bust I have seen or heard about.
Most dealers/users in possession are pulled over for some kind of previous offense, sited and taken in for that and drugs are usually an addon offense. Its the driving on a suspended license that got them thrown in jail, the pot was just for good measure. I also hate these stats you are pushing... Sure, X amount where arrested but we have no clue how many are released. I have seen people have their shit taken away and released countless times and harder shit than some pot. Useless stats are useless.

Like I said before, not talking about dealing, talking about possession. Learn to read dumbass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
8) The state doesnt care how you think, we care about the fact that you are a walking hazard because your altered state of mind causes you to have poor judgment when walking across the street and the fucking signal has been telling you to stop for the last 30 seconds. Try and figure this out: We dont care about YOU or YOUR state of mind. We care about US. We dont want to fucking deal with your stoner passive walking acrost the street, getting in the way of EMT's because your impaired and want to "see whats going on, man" If you could get high and have no effect on thoes around you... this wouldnt even be an argument.

1) What you just described is already more than possible because of alcohol. It impairs the average user far more than pot does and as we've all seen the potential for social harm is huge.

2) Find an example of the scenario you outlined occurring anyplace in the world where pot is basically legal.

3) Until then, shut the fuck up because you're babbling like a retard trying to sing along to high school musical through headphones.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Great, nice to see that you conceded 7/8's of my points. You're defiantly learning and coming to understand how silly this all is.

Considering you have YET to cogently respond to any one thing I've typed in this thread, I don't think 'argument concessions' is how you want to be scoring this match.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
I kind of always assumed this: If the medical/professional opinion had changed on Marijuana's use and safety, we would have heard about it and bans lifted. I am yet to hear a majority consensus from the medical research community as to Marijuana lack of ill effects.

We all have heard about the medical community's new consensus about marijuana use being safe and we all have heard about the bans being lifted across the country. It's not our fault that you're too fucking stupid to pick up a newspaper or turn on the tv.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
To conclude this portion, we also had slaves, thought that tobacco was good for you, cocaine was a nice pain reliever and the list goes on. Lets talk about today, not some studies and conclusions drawn some 50 years ago. I dont care that the presentation of data regarding drug use in the 70's was sensationalized. The facts of the studies remain and have not changed since their initial research.

FACT: you can become demonically possessed by being in the same room as a bag of marijuana?

Because you just defended the validity of that "research" opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Finally, heres a little secret for you: We are the government. The government isnt above us, lording over us, trying to suppress us and our freedoms. We are a government for the people by the people. If free drug use was something the nation was interested in, we would legalize it, we wouldnt need to beg the fuhrer. I dont buy the whole "goverment is totally like fuckin with us all day, man" argument.

1) I totally agree that we can change the government, that's why we are currently doing it. Hundreds of lobbies and grassroots organizations exist for the very purpose of legalizing marijuana. We have achieved medical use in 13 states, decriminalized 12 states, will decriminalize one state per year from here on out and will have federal decriminalization by 2010. This is not fantasy land, it's America.

2) No one is arguing that the government is "totally like fucking with us all day" by not letting us smoke pot. Many of us already live in parts of the US where it's totally fine to smoke pot. We are arguing that the government's misguided war on drugs is fucking EVERY American citizen because it increases: crime and violence in our streets and the taxes we have to pay for increased law enforcement and criminal justice costs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
I'm not, nor have I argued the on merits of the personal damage to the user from pot consumption. Its a fact, yet not important to this argument.

If it is a fact then cite proof of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
The argument is the effects of a user on society. Give up and just come to terms with your only reason for your pro-legalization stance... you want to smoke weed freely.Your attempts at legitimate arguments are dwindling with every post.:tard

I can't speak for why other people want to legalize pot, you can look above for the reason I believe pot should be 100 percent legal.

However, the reasons someone has for wanting pot legalization has nothing to do with the credibility of their arguments for legalization. You'd be apt to respond to arguments rather than accuse everyone in favor of legalization of being a lazy stoner living in their parent's basement. We've already disproved the truth of this stereotype and I'm sure there are a ton of posters here that don't smoke pot but are pro-legalization. Your reliance on ad hominems is winning you neither fans nor arguments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Yes, studies have shown Marijuana use is good for you or has no effect on your body.

This is true:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grant, Igor, et al., "Non-Acute (Residual) Neurocognitive Effects Of Cannabis Use: A Meta-Analytic Study," Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (Cambridge University Press: July 2003), 9, p. 687
In conclusion, our meta-analysis of studies that have attempted to address the question of longer term neurocognitive disturbance in moderate and heavy cannabis users has failed to demonstrate a substantial, systematic, and detrimental effect of cannabis use on neuropsychological performance. It was surprising to find such few and small effects given that most of the potential biases inherent in our analyses actually increased the likelihood of finding a cannabis effect.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fried, Peter, Barbara Watkinson, Deborah James, and Robert Gray, "Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in young adults," Canadian Medical Association Journal, April 2, 2002, 166(7), p. 887
Current marijuana use had a negative effect on global IQ score only in subjects who smoked 5 or more joints per week. A negative effect was not observed among subjects who had previously been heavy users but were no longer using the substance. We conclude that marijuana does not have a long-term negative impact on global intelligence. Whether the absence of a residual marijuana effect would also be evident in more specific cognitive domains such as memory and attention remains to be ascertained.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9
A Johns Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis."

Quote:
Originally Posted by US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," (September 6, 1988), p. 57
The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hall, W., Room, R. & Bondy, S., WHO Project on Health Implications of Cannabis Use: A Comparative Appraisal of the Health and Psychological Consequences of Alcohol, Cannabis, Nicotine and Opiate Use, August 28, 1995
The World Health Organization released a study in March 1998 that states: "there are good reasons for saying that [the risks from cannabis] would be unlikely to seriously [compare to] the public health risks of alcohol and tobacco even if as many people used cannabis as now drink alcohol or smoke tobacco." The authors of a 1998 World Health Organization report comparing marijuana, alcohol, nicotine and opiates quote the Institute of Medicine's 1982 report stating that there is no evidence that smoking marijuana "exerts a permanently deleterious effect on the normal cardiovascular system."

But no, who needs facts and research? Not you certainly ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
The government is all in on it and perpetuates the lies,

No one here ever said that. I just quoted a slew of studies that includes even government sources. Where are you studies indicating marijuana is harmful?

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
rehab centers are just trying to push the anti-pot agenda to continue profitability,

No one said this, we're arguing for a least harm approach, that would include rehab centers for hard drugs. The war on drugs is what prevents rehab centers from helping drug users now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
ex-smokers all regret stopping,

Whether or not former pot smokers regret stopping has nothing to do with whether it should be legalized.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
everyone who claims to see users struggle with addiction are liars, users who are addicted can stop whenever they want,

Show me one credible study that indicates marijuana is physically addictive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
you would hire pot smokers at your business,

I have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
you want your doctor,

He is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
pilot and mechanic to be regular pot-smokers.

Because it's worse than being an alcoholic?

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Thats quite the argument you got there buddy...

Yeah, it is. So where are YOUR arguments? For all the posts you've made you seem to have very few worth repeating.

Last edited by bingstudent; 12-04-2008 at 06:15 PM..
Old 12-04-2008, 06:10 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#707  

g
T00L
stuff and things
 
g's Avatar
 
You just made the worlds most annoying and longest post, I cant even read it all. Try consolidating ideas into general themes instead of quoting things 2 words at a time and replying with emoticons.

- The worlds worst argument for anything is the one you are using: "__________ is inevitable, so lets just let it happen."
You cant really try and suggest that because people smoke pot, despite its legality, is reason enough to just legalize it. Many people fuck 17yr olds regardless of its illiegal status, should we just say "its inevitable, lets just lower the age of consent to 17? 16? 15? 14?)


- You just spent a ton of time arguing my analogy with the microbrewery comparison, and not the issue - I cant explain it again, I will just ask a question: The drug dealers / growers will do what after the drug is legalized? Get a job at Phillip Morris?
Apparently criminals arnt inherently bad people, they are just criminals because of a technicality. Dope dealers wouldnt need/use the guns and live a life of promiscuous sex, form gans, extort and so fourth if they could just legally deal drugs?


- Every study you find that suggests that Marijuana has no negative side effects, is less harmful than smoking tobacco, sucking a dick or collecting cans on the freeway... I can find one to counter it. this falls under the category of "There are 3 kinds of lies, lies, damn lies and statistics." If researchers have opposing results and viewpoints, it doesn't mean it defaults to your favor, in the best case for you it means that the jury is out still.


- I actually bothered to read one of the random snips you posted from a non medical research study, instead some dead judges opinion.
He was talking about harm to benefit ratio for those suffering with glaucoma, relative to the alternative drugs available, 20 years ago. Interestingly, he also was referring to the drugs use in "natural form", and the plant being orally ingested, not smoked and inhaled.
He also said in his recommendation:
Quote:
Marijuana can be harmful. Marijuana is abused. But the same is
true of dozens of drugs or substances which are listed in Schedule II so
that they can be employed in treatment by physicians in proper cases,
despite their abuse potential.
Thats a fucking flimsy 'study' to provide in this argument.
Not to mention this one little fact; we arnt arguing the validity of marijuana use in some medical circumstances, we are still talking about nation wide legalization.
__________________
t00l
Old 12-04-2008, 09:31 PM g is offline  
Reply With Quote
#708  

-lotus-
Im not upset, Im just not smiling at you.
 
-lotus-'s Avatar
 
You say that legalization would do no good for society.

I ask, what good has prohibition ever done for society?
__________________
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 12-05-2008, 09:38 AM -lotus- is offline  
Reply With Quote
#709  

yoj
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
- The worlds worst argument for anything is the one you are using: "__________ is inevitable, so lets just let it happen."

You are right, it is. My OP and most people's here is nothing of the sort. The only thing I mention is that drugs are already widely available, so a legalization would not result in a dramatic net increase of users because anyone who currently wants to, can.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
I will just ask a question: The drug dealers / growers will do what after the drug is legalized? Get a job at Phillip Morris? Apparently criminals arnt inherently bad people, they are just criminals because of a technicality. Dope dealers wouldnt need/use the guns and live a life of promiscuous sex, form gans, extort and so fourth if they could just legally deal drugs?

Good question. This is probably the biggest concern in my mind, what would happen in the short term to people involved in the drug trade. To that I would say, the criminal enterprise is the most basic and unadulterated form of capitalism that there is. If there was more profit to be had in a career of extortion, loan sharking, assassination, or any of the other extreme crimes you think the drug dealers will turn to, then more people would already be doing them.

I absolutely believe that people who commit crime for profit are not born evil. It is by nature of their circumstances that they are lead to these activities. Low moral fibre does not make one evil. It is simply a question of whether the risk is worth the reward. Everyone would commit "evil" for a large enough sum of money, but it just so happens that some people are in situations where they are out of other options/too dumb/too worthless/too greedy and the reward outweighs the risk. Removing the possibility of this opportunity to arise is fundamental to lowering crime in the long run.

The thing I really don't understand, is why do you think legalization would have such a big effect? Just because its legal to buy doesn't mean its automatically legal to be under the influence in public or that somehow we would be seeing any sort of public intoxication more than we see with alcohol right now. How are you reasoning this?

Anyways, I'm from BC and weed is already psuedo-legal. I've never been scared to smoke in public. What you don't seem to understand is that most people here have absolutely zero motivation to push the legalization of weed or any other drug for their own personal benefit. I already do whatever the fuck I want, this isn't about being able to smoke legally. Stop making that generalization because it is nothing more than an attack on character. What makes me so confused is your militant hostility to the idea of drug legalization. What inspired you to be so absolutely stubborn on the issue? I don't think any pot smokers are so concerned about smoking pot that they would be so enraged as you. Enraged that we are making futile attempts to enforce an unenforceable law? Yes. But enraged that the status of a joint is not legal? No.

I just don't understand how you can be so adamantly against this topic. I understand the religious motivations of homophobes against gay marriage, but I've never understood the personal motivation of people who are so stubbornly anti-drug.
Old 12-07-2008, 12:08 AM yoj is offline  
Reply With Quote
#710  

g
T00L
stuff and things
 
g's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by yoj View Post
You are right, it is. My OP and most people's here is nothing of the sort. The only thing I mention is that drugs are already widely available, so a legalization would not result in a dramatic net increase of users because anyone who currently wants to, can.
Thats a big assumption to say that everyone has easy access to drugs and despite legalization the user base wouldn't increase. You think that would happen if we legalized auto theft? Cars are even more available for theft than marijuana is available for purchase.... lets legalize it and see theft rates remain unchanged.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yoj View Post
Plenty of people have external reasons for not smoking, some people in the middle of nowhere don't have access, people have random drug screenings at work, etc. The user base would increase to levels somewhere within ranges of alcohol and tobacco use.
Good question. This is probably the biggest concern in my mind, what would happen in the short term to people involved in the drug trade. To that I would say, the criminal enterprise is the most basic and unadulterated form of capitalism that there is. If there was more profit to be had in a career of extortion, loan sharking, assassination, or any of the other extreme crimes you think the drug dealers will turn to, then more people would already be doing them.

I absolutely believe that people who commit crime for profit are not born evil. It is by nature of their circumstances that they are lead to these activities. Low moral fibre does not make one evil. It is simply a question of whether the risk is worth the reward. Everyone would commit "evil" for a large enough sum of money, but it just so happens that some people are in situations where they are out of other options/too dumb/too worthless/too greedy and the reward outweighs the risk. Removing the possibility of this opportunity to arise is fundamental to lowering crime in the long run.
Criminals are born of adverse life circumstances? Yeah, people who live hard lives like Ken Lay? Im sure you think Dick Cheney is a terrorist criminal too, it must have been his hard life circumstances - dont blame him.
People commit crimes, poor parents and bad influences dont commit crimes. You are essentially saying guns kill people, not the shooter. If we didnt have guns nobody would try killing anyone.
Regardless, there is no doubt that the volume of people who are 'forced' to commit crime to survive is drastically lower than the current crime rates of all variations.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yoj View Post
The thing I really don't understand, is why do you think legalization would have such a big effect? Just because its legal to buy doesn't mean its automatically legal to be under the influence in public or that somehow we would be seeing any sort of public intoxication more than we see with alcohol right now. How are you reasoning this?
I think the impacts would be noticeable and almost entirely negative but lets delete my opinion and just look at some obvious fiscal/legal impacts;

Consider the costs of re-writing laws, amending past legislation, etc.
Are all the past convictions grandfathered? Reparations for those who served jail time? What about pending cases? What about scenarios where drug related searches lead to the conviction of another crime? Will we enforce the gun crime found during a drug search that turned up no drugs? Search and seizure laws remain the same? Whats legal pot smoking age? 21 or 18? Why? Can underage employees handle/vendor the substance? Why / Why not?
Can you imagine the throngs of lawyers ready to work pro bono for these issues? Can you not see the financial impact? These cases would instantly run up to federal courts. I think we have many cooler issues for our current representatives and elected officials to debate and address such as bailouts, taxes, socialized medicine, gun rights, education, immigration, etc. -
Thats how im reasoning this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by yoj View Post
Anyways, I'm from BC and weed is already psuedo-legal. I've never been scared to smoke in public. What you don't seem to understand is that most people here have absolutely zero motivation to push the legalization of weed or any other drug for their own personal benefit. I already do whatever the fuck I want, this isn't about being able to smoke legally. Stop making that generalization because it is nothing more than an attack on character. What makes me so confused is your militant hostility to the idea of drug legalization. What inspired you to be so absolutely stubborn on the issue? I don't think any pot smokers are so concerned about smoking pot that they would be so enraged as you. Enraged that we are making futile attempts to enforce an unenforceable law? Yes. But enraged that the status of a joint is not legal? No.

I just don't understand how you can be so adamantly against this topic. I understand the religious motivations of homophobes against gay marriage, but I've never understood the personal motivation of people who are so stubbornly anti-drug.


Your closing statement contradicts your opening statement. Do you want to abandon drug laws because they are un-enforceable or not?

I understand that if something is psudo-legal that the motivation for action is weakened but if the expenditures of the enforcement outweigh the social benefit - take action. Doing nothing other than minor ranting on the internet and with friends does nothing but reinforce stereotypes of passive, lazy weed smokers.

You dont understand my militant stance? I dont understand your delusional stance.
We all do bad/illegal things. Marijuana use is one of them. Just because we do these things doesnt mean we have to justify our actions by legalizing or legitimizing them. Come to terms with the fact that you are doing something bad and either continue or stop. Its that easy.
I have done many bad things, I still do bad things. I make that choice regardless their legality. Just because I or thousands of others choose to act in those ways doesnt mean they should be legalized or even marginally legitimized.
__________________
t00l
Old 12-07-2008, 06:21 PM g is offline  
Reply With Quote
#711  

MentallyInept
oFFaL owns me, please remind me of this every time I post
 
MentallyInept's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Thats a big assumption to say that everyone has easy access to drugs and despite legalization the user base wouldn't increase. You think that would happen if we legalized auto theft? Cars are even more available for theft than marijuana is available for purchase.... lets legalize it and see theft rates remain unchanged.

You are comparing recreational drug use to personal property violations. Not exactly a good analogy.

Despite this, you are right, recreational use of marijuana would increase at least temporarily. But I would rather someone smoke something that doesn't cause lung cancer (with heavy use).

But that is just me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Criminals are born of adverse life circumstances? Yeah, people who live hard lives like Ken Lay? Im sure you think Dick Cheney is a terrorist criminal too, it must have been his hard life circumstances - dont blame him.
People commit crimes, poor parents and bad influences dont commit crimes. You are essentially saying guns kill people, not the shooter. If we didnt have guns nobody would try killing anyone.
Regardless, there is no doubt that the volume of people who are 'forced' to commit crime to survive is drastically lower than the current crime rates of all variations.

I don't think that people who commit violent crimes should be given a pass for any reason.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
I think the impacts would be noticeable and almost entirely negative but lets delete my opinion and just look at some obvious fiscal/legal impacts;

A good position to take.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Consider the costs of re-writing laws, amending past legislation, etc.
Are all the past convictions grandfathered? Reparations for those who served jail time? What about pending cases? What about scenarios where drug related searches lead to the conviction of another crime? Will we enforce the gun crime found during a drug search that turned up no drugs? Search and seizure laws remain the same? Whats legal pot smoking age? 21 or 18? Why? Can underage employees handle/vendor the substance? Why / Why not?
Can you imagine the throngs of lawyers ready to work pro bono for these issues? Can you not see the financial impact? These cases would instantly run up to federal courts. I think we have many cooler issues for our current representatives and elected officials to debate and address such as bailouts, taxes, socialized medicine, gun rights, education, immigration, etc. -
Thats how im reasoning this.

Whatever the cost of litigation to correct the loss of personal rights against the people is worth it.

Having said this the questions you raised will have to be answered. I don't have the answers to all of them but I can provide my opinions on them, because why not?

Consider the costs of re-writing laws, amending past legislation, etc. - Comes with the territory of social change.
Are all the past convictions grandfathered? - Most likely past convictions will stick, but there will be lots of lawyers arguing against this.
Reparations for those who served jail time? - Fuck reparations. 'Nuff said. If the violations against human rights were that bad, they will be tried as such. In this case... I don't see it happening.
What about pending cases? - Simple possession charges for pending cases could be thrown out. Most likely if they are arrested and indicted, they are there for more than just possession.
What about scenarios where drug related searches lead to the conviction of another crime? - Searches were legal at the time, charges stick.
Will we enforce the gun crime found during a drug search that turned up no drugs? - See above.
Search and seizure laws remain the same? - You can no longer search based on the assumption of drug use in the home. On the roads and other public places where your drug use could directly endanger the lives of others: yes.
Whats legal pot smoking age? 21 or 18? Why? - 18. If you can die, you can get high.
Can underage employees handle/vendor the substance? Why / Why not? - This is a state by state thing if I remember right. They will handle it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
I understand that if something is psudo-legal that the motivation for action is weakened but if the expenditures of the enforcement outweigh the social benefit - take action. Doing nothing other than minor ranting on the internet and with friends does nothing but reinforce stereotypes of passive, lazy weed smokers.

All we really have is our votes, and the people are speaking. There are not enough proponents of drug legalization yet to get immediate action.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
You dont understand my militant stance? I dont understand your delusional stance.
We all do bad/illegal things. Marijuana use is one of them. Just because we do these things doesnt mean we have to justify our actions by legalizing or legitimizing them. Come to terms with the fact that you are doing something bad and either continue or stop. Its that easy.
I have done many bad things, I still do bad things. I make that choice regardless their legality. Just because I or thousands of others choose to act in those ways doesnt mean they should be legalized or even marginally legitimized.

In this case, I am not personally trying to legitimize my own actions (I do not use any illegal drugs). But even if I did, my choice to do those drugs and then advocate their legalization could be filed under civil disobedience. The thing is, with civil disobedience, you have to pay the piper while your actions are still illegal.
__________________
"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 12-07-2008, 09:15 PM MentallyInept is offline  
Reply With Quote
#712  

g
T00L
stuff and things
 
g's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MentallyInept View Post
You are comparing recreational drug use to personal property violations. Not exactly a good analogy.

Despite this, you are right, recreational use of marijuana would increase at least temporarily. But I would rather someone smoke something that doesn't cause lung cancer (with heavy use).

But that is just me.



I don't think that people who commit violent crimes should be given a pass for any reason.



A good position to take.



Whatever the cost of litigation to correct the loss of personal rights against the people is worth it.

Having said this the questions you raised will have to be answered. I don't have the answers to all of them but I can provide my opinions on them, because why not?

Consider the costs of re-writing laws, amending past legislation, etc. - Comes with the territory of social change.
Are all the past convictions grandfathered? - Most likely past convictions will stick, but there will be lots of lawyers arguing against this.
Reparations for those who served jail time? - Fuck reparations. 'Nuff said. If the violations against human rights were that bad, they will be tried as such. In this case... I don't see it happening.
What about pending cases? - Simple possession charges for pending cases could be thrown out. Most likely if they are arrested and indicted, they are there for more than just possession.
What about scenarios where drug related searches lead to the conviction of another crime? - Searches were legal at the time, charges stick.
Will we enforce the gun crime found during a drug search that turned up no drugs? - See above.
Search and seizure laws remain the same? - You can no longer search based on the assumption of drug use in the home. On the roads and other public places where your drug use could directly endanger the lives of others: yes.
Whats legal pot smoking age? 21 or 18? Why? - 18. If you can die, you can get high.
Can underage employees handle/vendor the substance? Why / Why not? - This is a state by state thing if I remember right. They will handle it.



All we really have is our votes, and the people are speaking. There are not enough proponents of drug legalization yet to get immediate action.



In this case, I am not personally trying to legitimize my own actions (I do not use any illegal drugs). But even if I did, my choice to do those drugs and then advocate their legalization could be filed under civil disobedience. The thing is, with civil disobedience, you have to pay the piper while your actions are still illegal.


1) The first thought is incomplete, you would rather have people smoke something that doesnt cause lung cancer... vs.... what?

2) Ken Lay didnt commit any violent crimes. That doesnt matter anyway because violent crimes have nothing to do with the issue I addressed. He said criminals are born from a youth involving negative circumstances. I just gave an example of someone who had great a great life with every benefit in the world that went on to commit great crimes. Then went on to re-assure him that criminal actions are a choice, not a set of circumstances.

3) Sure you can rattle off your naive instant opinion of the small portion of issues that would arise - unfortunately we have to settle these things in big expensive time-strapped courts not on genmay. I disagree with half of your opinions anyway, that alone makes it obvious that each of those issues would be a huge under-taking to resolve in and of themselves.

4) Not enough proponents of drug legalization? I wonder why.

5) I have no idea what you said in the closing statement, but if you want something changed in America you have to stand up, make a strong case for your belief and take action.


Just a question... but going off the post alone... are you sure you dont smoke, just a little bit?
__________________
t00l
Old 12-08-2008, 02:21 AM g is offline  
Reply With Quote
#713  

MentallyInept
oFFaL owns me, please remind me of this every time I post
 
MentallyInept's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
1) The first thought is incomplete, you would rather have people smoke something that doesnt cause lung cancer... vs.... what?

I was making a comparison to cigarettes. Source

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
2) Ken Lay didnt commit any violent crimes. That doesnt matter anyway because violent crimes have nothing to do with the issue I addressed. He said criminals are born from a youth involving negative circumstances. I just gave an example of someone who had great a great life with every benefit in the world that went on to commit great crimes. Then went on to re-assure him that criminal actions are a choice, not a set of circumstances.

Not really sure why I wrote that response... I think it was something along these lines:

This section was responding to your notion of people being to blame for crimes as apposed to the tools that were used to commit those crimes. Your section specifically said: "You are essentially saying guns kill people, not the shooter."

I was saying that I don't think any person committing violent crime shouldn't get a pass, backing up your position... kinda.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
3) Sure you can rattle off your naive instant opinion of the small portion of issues that would arise - unfortunately we have to settle these things in big expensive time-strapped courts not on genmay. I disagree with half of your opinions anyway, that alone makes it obvious that each of those issues would be a huge under-taking to resolve in and of themselves.

In that case, I would again refer you to my original position of that section:

"Whatever the cost of litigation to correct the loss of personal rights against the people is worth it."

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
4) Not enough proponents of drug legalization? I wonder why.

It's a process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
5) I have no idea what you said in the closing statement, but if you want something changed in America you have to stand up, make a strong case for your belief and take action.

My point was that people choose to violate the law for several reasons. When people use recreational drugs and attempt to get said drugs legalized at the same time, that could be considered an act civil disobedience. But at the end of the day, you still committed a crime and you still go to jail, no matter how "noble" your acts are.

Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
Just a question... but going off the post alone... are you sure you dont smoke, just a little bit?

When I wrote my post last night, I was partially drunk and pissed off because of the 'Skins terrible outing in Baltimore. Not an excuse for incoherent rantings, but that was the situation.

And to respond to your question: I have tried MJ, not my cup 'o tea.
__________________
"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 12-08-2008, 09:20 AM MentallyInept is offline  
Reply With Quote
#714  

yoj
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by T00L View Post
...if the expenditures of the enforcement outweigh the social benefit - take action...

That was basically my point from the beginning. Unfortunately the time and place for a social revolution of this nature is not in the foreseeable future, if ever. I called it a "model" for a reason. Not a piece of legislation.

I will still hold my position that the majority of chronic offender low level violent crime is committed by people who enter through the drug trade originally. Yes, there are sick psychos in this world who kill for fun, but anyone I have ever known who has turned to a gangster/petty criminal lifestyle has started by selling weed. I will fully admit that this is purely anecdotal evidence on my part and that I have not thoroughly researched the topic.

I think it is fair to say that the vast majority people have a price for which they would do anything. Its simple risk vs reward and many people are in situations where the risk is worthwhile in their situation. Are some people naturally more inclined to do evil for less money than others? For sure. But by and large I think that eliminating the "entry point", the point for which the lowering of moral standard is not required, is a very valuable thing. Selling weed is a pretty harmless sounding activity, but once they make that choice it is extremely difficult to go back once you have made that choice and I would imagine they would become jaded to the idea of committing crime on some level. I think that far less people would be willing to go from janitor to killing for money rather than janitor to dealing weed to progressively more criminal activities. To me, drug dealing is kind of like the training wheels to becoming a criminal. Would you agree on that point?

By the way, marijuana was zero motivation for me suggesting this, which is why I think its too bad that it ended up in the marijuana legalization sticky. I already consider marijuana legal for all of my intents and purposes so I made these suggestions purely on a social benefit vs social cost reasoning (coupled with my own view that recreational drug use of any kind is not inherently harmful, although some drugs have a steeper slope into abuse). Is it the unequivocal answer? No. Is it something work thinking about, at least? I think so.

Thanks for actually bothering to make some reasonable posts. Let the mud slinging continue!
Old 12-09-2008, 12:40 AM yoj is offline  
Reply With Quote
#715  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.

+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
Old 12-10-2008, 01:08 AM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#716  

bingstudent
I am an idiot!
 
bingstudent's Avatar
 
Old 12-11-2008, 07:45 PM bingstudent is offline  
Reply With Quote
#717  

Vote McCain!
Retardism
 
Vote McCain!'s Avatar
 
The future of worldwide drug policy

Here in America, we all know that our drug policy is designed to scare old ladies and punish addicts rather than treat them. However, there is no end in sight to the black market for illicit substances, certainly not where I live. This goes for any substance that gets you high from weed to powders to opiates to moonshines. The bottom line is that there will always be addicts, and there will always be a drug for them to do.

Should governments just give up on the drug war? Should we switch to treatment based policies instead of repression based policies?

I think when it comes to weed, its time to regulate and tax the shit worldwide, that might help pull us out of this slump. Harder drug users, however, i think should be put into a more treatment based system instead of the traditional criminal justice system.

Thoughts?

merged -- mobi

Last edited by möbiustrip; 03-12-2009 at 02:54 PM..
Old 03-12-2009, 11:50 AM Vote McCain! is offline  
Reply With Quote
#718  

CharlieSheen
pwned
 
Grown men should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their bodies. If there isnt a ban on white bread, why should there be a ban on heroin
Old 03-12-2009, 12:14 PM CharlieSheen is offline  
Reply With Quote
#719  

Vote McCain!
Retardism
 
Vote McCain!'s Avatar
 
The problem I have is with the proliferation of harder drugs like meth. The production of meth not only seriously harms the people that make it, but also the surrounding environment is affected, so it seems like a pretty good reason to clamp down on the stuff. Not only that, but the people that do it are already hopeless addicts who commit tons of property crimes; they need hardcore drug treatment, not a prison where there is little to no treatment for addiction.
Old 03-12-2009, 01:02 PM Vote McCain! is offline  
Reply With Quote
#720  

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 07:27 AM.



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