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
Vendetta
That's "Doctor Vendetta" to you
 
Vendetta's Avatar
 
I dont smoke it, nor do I plan to--but I certainly dont give a shit if its legalized. Who the fuck cares, really. Just have the laws regarding driving and machine operation while under influence, fine with me.
Old 07-15-2005, 11:06 AM Vendetta is offline  
Reply With Quote
#46  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nubius
The problem with all the studies presented as arguments for the legalization of marijuana is that they are biased.
Yes yes, everyone is biased but cold hard facts aren't. Most of the information you can get at a pro-marijuana site is from government studies into the matter. The problem is most people have never even heard the truth because when the government gets a study back that doesn't find the harm they want they don't go "hey, look everybody, we were totally wrong on that whole marijuana thing. It's not as bad as we thought or we told you..."

They bury that shit and never say anything about it again. They have no problem with lying to you and all you have to do to see that they are lying is go look at their own damn studies that they ignore or pretend don't exist. http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/

Quote:
Here is my problem with legalizing weed. Imagine a thirty year old mother sitting down watching soap operas in the middle of the afternoon smoking a blunt. She gets high and completely forgets about her children.
Yes, it's fun to make up "what if" scenarios that could play out badly but there is nothing stopping that scenario from happening right now. That is what makes the argument so silly.

Quote:
Best case scenario, the children stay put and are safe. Worst case scenario, they explore outside the house and get lost, maybe killed.
Completely hypothetical scenarios you pulled out your ass are fun. Why couldn't mom smoke a little weed and then tend to her kids just like any other mom? You don't instantly become a drooling useless tard just because you smoked some weed.

Quote:
Imagine productivity rates at work if people decided to take smoke breaks to get high.
OMG, imagine if everyone was completely irresponsible and drank alcohol on their breaks...

Imagine how many people would be out of a job for being morons.

Quote:
Yes, America is a free country and in theory marijuana should be legal, but in order to maintain our way of life it is more beneficial for it to stay illegal.
Why? You haven't made one good argument to the effect that legalizing marijuana would lead to the downfall of the country. What is beneficial about spending tens of billions of dollars arresting people who don't need to be and creating black markets that thrive spreading corruption and crime across the land? Do you know how many people we arrest a year on drug charges? 1.5 Million, every year. About half of those (700,000) are for marijuana. About 85-90% of those are for simple possesion alone. That isn't making us safer or maintaining our way of life, it's a waste of law enforcement resources that could have been spent trying to curb actual crime.

Quote:
I believe someone else said it earlier, but if you have a stick up your butt because marijuana isnít legal, either move to where it is legal or accept the fact it is illegal.
Why don't you move to country that doesn't claim to be the land of the free then. That is the dumbest argument ever. If you don't like the fact that we live in a free country why don't you get the fuck out. If you like oppressing innocent people for moronic reasons, go move somewhere that doesn't have a constitution guaranteeing people their rights. Have a blast.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 07-15-2005, 11:45 AM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#47  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by frika
Unfortunately I think this would only work in an ideal world as there are problems of association involved in habitual drug use. What about the child or family of a heroin addict?
What about the child of someone who is a functional addict? Should we take their mom or dad away because we disagree with what they do to themselves even thought they manage to take care of their family? Will that child be better off when their parent(s) are in jail serving a mandatory minimum sentence for drug possesion? Will we be better off when all those kids we put into foster care become adults and are far more likely to turn out to be criminals?

Yes, there are a lot of people who's lives are made worse by someone they know abusing alcohol, but making alcohol illegal doesn't make those lives better. It makes them even worse. The people with problems need help, not jail. It would be just as effective a solution to cure cancer by putting all people with cancer in jail as it is to cure addiction by putting addicts in jail.

yes, there are problems with habitual drug use. Unfortunately prohibition solves none of those problems and in fact makes them worse. That is why it is a total failure.

Does prohibition do away with addiction? No.
Does prohibition do away with drugs? No.
Does prohibition do away with the desire to alter consciousness? No.
Does prohibition decrease the amount of illicit drugs that are being consumed? No!

What does it do?

it makes drugs more expensive - this is supposedly a good thing because if people can't afford drugs then they just won't do them anymore, right? wrong. Consumers just turn to crime to support addictive habbits that they cannot support through legitimate means. Cheaper drugs means less crime as most illicit drug crimes are committed in order to get more drugs. There aren't many crimes committed so that people can get their addictive cigarettes and alcohol. Why? They are legal, cheap, and available everywhere.

It makes drugs more dangerous- so what, right? wrong. Many of the much baleyhooed dangers of drug use are actually dangers of prohibition. Uncertainty of product, unclean production, dangerous byproducts, unsanitary needles, unscrupulous dealers, unknown purity or dose... they are all products of prohibition. Prohibition increases the number of people who die from using drugs. That is the exact opposite effect it is supposed to have. Your kids are MORE LIKELY to die from drugs thanks to prohibition. It that doesn't spell out the failure of our policy I don't know what will.

It provides economic incentive to break the law and puts hundreds of billions of dollars into the hands of criminals every year. We are losing the war economically. We are spending tens of billions of dollars to make sure that criminals continue to profit from our bad policy. Also, even though illicit drugs are more expensive than their licit counterparts they are not necessarily more expensive to produce. This means that over time drugs have gotten cheaper and more pure on the production side which means that the economic incentive for major drug cartels is even greater. They make more product for less money meaning we would need to intercept even more of their product to economically hurt them. Our drug control efforts remove maybe 10-15% of the illicit drug supply a year but in order for our drug control efforts to even affect drug cartels negetively we would need to intercept 75+% of all drug shipments. That's not going to happen.

Prohibition has none of the positive effects it is supposed to and many unintended effects that actually make our drug situation worse, not better. Crminal prohibition just isn't the best way to get people to live healthy happy addiction free lives.
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street
Old 07-15-2005, 12:28 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#48  

Markus
 
People will just smoke it even if it's illegal, so it doesnt really matter
Old 07-15-2005, 12:52 PM Markus is offline  
Reply With Quote
#49  

kindred
 
I absolutely hate arguments that go something like:

Do laws trying to prevent something illegal work? No. so why bother having/enforcing them?

As far as I'm concerned, you might as well be spouting: Do having cops, courtrooms, and jail prevent crime and criminals? no, so why bother having them?
__________________
Lord, Grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
Old 07-15-2005, 01:02 PM kindred is offline  
Reply With Quote
#50  

lukeswall
 
lukeswall's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindred
I absolutely hate arguments that go something like:

Do laws trying to prevent something illegal work? No. so why bother having/enforcing them?

As far as I'm concerned, you might as well be spouting: Do having cops, courtrooms, and jail prevent crime and criminals? no, so why bother having them?

I absolutely hate it when people don't really analize what they are saying. The way I see it, making pot illegal wouldn't be so ridiculous if every single psychoative substance was illegal, also. By letting alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and chocolate (for example) be freely sold, the governments make it very clear that they have no problem letting you affect you own mind with some pretty hard substances, but they just don't want you to do the exact same thing with another substance that has been proven to be much less harmful than some of those psychoatives listed above. It's the same as letting you legally steal some thing and not others or kill certain kinds of people and not others.
Old 07-15-2005, 01:17 PM lukeswall is offline  
Reply With Quote
#51  

kindred
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeswall
I absolutely hate it when people don't really analize what they are saying. The way I see it, making pot illegal wouldn't be so ridiculous if every single psychoative substance was illegal, also. By letting alcohol, tobacco, caffeine and chocolate (for example) be freely sold, the governments make it very clear that they have no problem letting you affect you own mind with some pretty hard substances, but they just don't want you to do the exact same thing with another substance that has been proven to be much less harmful than some of those psychoatives listed above. It's the same as letting you legally steal some thing and not others or kill certain kinds of people and not others.

I KNOW what I'm saying, you apparantly dont however. The debate over whether something should be illegal or not is completely seperate from the cop out of 'Enforcing our laws to prevent something illegal is inneffective so therefore we shouldnt bother enforcing them or we should therefore make the illegal thing legal'
__________________
Lord, Grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
Old 07-15-2005, 01:25 PM kindred is offline  
Reply With Quote
#52  

Quinine
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindred
I absolutely hate arguments that go something like:

Do laws trying to prevent something illegal work? No. so why bother having/enforcing them?

As far as I'm concerned, you might as well be spouting: Do having cops, courtrooms, and jail prevent crime and criminals? no, so why bother having them?
The difference with drug laws is that there is no victim in the crime. The most basic foundation of criminal law is "Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you." Basically, don't steal if you don't want to be stolen from, don't kill if you don't want to be killed, etc. People don't just follow laws because they are "the LAW," they follow them more likely because they are a part of their basic morality. Drug laws do not follow this basic principle. The law is unenforcable simply because there is no moral backing to it.
__________________
Careful! Magic shiitake radiation has the power to warp time and space, and I'm not just whistling dixie here.
Old 07-15-2005, 01:25 PM Quinine is offline  
Reply With Quote
#53  

lukeswall
 
lukeswall's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindred
I KNOW what I'm saying, you apparantly dont however. The debate over whether something should be illegal or not is completely seperate from the cop out of 'Enforcing our laws to prevent something illegal is inneffective so therefore we shouldnt bother enforcing them or we should therefore make the illegal thing legal'

On your other reply, you said "having/enforcing". I talked about the "having" part, argumenting that we shouldn't really "have" such laws.. If the law exists, of course it should be enforced, I would never doubt that, but this discussion is focused on the existance of the law, and not so much on it's enforcement.
Old 07-15-2005, 01:32 PM lukeswall is offline  
Reply With Quote
#54  

kindred
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quinine
The difference with drug laws is that there is no victim in the crime. The most basic foundation of criminal law is "Do not do unto others as you would not have others do unto you." Basically, don't steal if you don't want to be stolen from, don't kill if you don't want to be killed, etc. People don't just follow laws because they are "the LAW," they follow them more likely because they are a part of their basic morality. Drug laws do not follow this basic principle. The law is unenforcable simply because there is no moral backing to it.

So you're saying people only need to obey the law and law enforcement only needs to uphold the law if they feel it has moral backing???
__________________
Lord, Grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
Old 07-15-2005, 01:36 PM kindred is offline  
Reply With Quote
#55  

kindred
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by lukeswall
On your other reply, you said "having/enforcing". I talked about the "having" part, argumenting that we shouldn't really "have" such laws.. If the law exists, of course it should be enforced, I would never doubt that, but this discussion is focused on the existance of the law, and not so much on it's enforcement.

Right, but his argument is that enforcing a law is useless so why bother? and that pisses me off because its such a limp cop out justification that could apply to almost anything.. cyber crime, pedophelia, etc.
__________________
Lord, Grant me the patience to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I cannot accept and the wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
Old 07-15-2005, 01:46 PM kindred is offline  
Reply With Quote
#56  

Nubius
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barney
The problem with all the studies presented as arguments for the legalization of alcohol is that they are biased. This bias is also present in studies presented for the ban of alcohol . Someone brought up every other country, but places like that cannot be compared to America.

Here is my problem with legalizing alcohol. Imagine a thirty year old mother sitting down watching soap operas in the middle of the afternoon drinking a bottle of wine. She gets tipsy and completely forgets about her children. Best case scenario, the children stay put and are safe. Worst case scenario, they explore outside the house and get lost, maybe killed. Imagine productivity rates at work if people decided to take drink breaks to get tipsy. Yes, America is a free country and in theory alcohol should be legal, but in order to maintain our way of life it is more beneficial for it to stay illegal. I believe someone else said it earlier, but if you have a stick up your butt because alcohol isnít legal, either move to where it is legal or accept the fact it is illegal.

still feel like defending your argument, or do you see your hypocrisy?

also the "accept it or move" arugment is SO FUCKING BULLSHIT I WANT TO PUNCH PEOPLE WHO SAY IT. i forgot, were not allowed in america to disagree with laws and the government, this place is about passive acceptance and if you dont like it hell we can make you dissappear too, am i rite?

fuck you and fuck anyone who says "shut up if you dont like it". get the FUCK out of my country.

/edit: and why the fuck does everyone assume its going to be like chocolate or something? nobody is arguing the laws with alcohol, nobody argues the laws about alcohol! dont drive when under ANY influence and dont be irresponsible. god, if your only argument is what an irresponsible asshole would do then sorry you have no argument.

There needs to be a line drawn. If you get an 89.9% the professor has ever right to give you a B and if you take it to the office of the dean, he will probably tell you the same. There needs to be a line drawn at some point, and in this case it is marijuana. If you legalize marijuana then in Ďxí amount of years people will want opium legalized, and so forth. I have many friends who smoke weed and Iíd venture to guess it played a role in their failure out of school and basically ruined their life. I also have a few friends that smoke weed that are incredibly intelligent and will probably do well in life, but in the past two years Iíve observed noticeable changes in their habits including progression or at least experimentation with harder drugs.

On the legal end of this issue, the government probably doesnít want to be liable. If marijuana is a gateway drug, which I believe it is, then the government could be held liable for putting people on the path to more dangerous drugs. Alcohol and cigarettes do not, for the most part, promote drug use thus they cannot be compared in this context. You wonít let a child play with a loaded gun, and the government isnít going to risk legalizing marijuana if it can, even in the slightest percentage, promote someone to do harder drugs. They canít do much with alcohol because it has become such an integrated part of our lives, but since marijuana is already illegal it makes it easier.
Old 07-15-2005, 01:47 PM Nubius is offline  
Reply With Quote
#57  

lukeswall
 
lukeswall's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindred
Right, but his argument is that enforcing a law is useless so why bother? and that pisses me off because its such a limp cop out justification that could apply to almost anything.. cyber crime, pedophelia, etc.

Yeah, I see what you're saying.
Old 07-15-2005, 01:57 PM lukeswall is offline  
Reply With Quote
#58  

nD[ - Slayer
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nubius
If you legalize marijuana then in Ďxí amount of years people will want opium legalized, and so forth.

That's pure speculation, not to mention the fact that most people understand that opiates are hard, and very dangerous drugs that can lead to serious abuse. Marijuana is relatively safe and not chemically addicitive.

Apples and oranges.

Quote:
Alcohol and cigarettes do not, for the most part, promote drug use thus they cannot be compared in this context.
That's simply not ture.
Old 07-15-2005, 02:07 PM nD[ - Slayer is offline  
Reply With Quote
#59  

pyramid
COORS LIGHTSPEED: ENGAGED
 
pyramid's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kindred
I absolutely hate arguments that go something like:

Do laws trying to prevent something illegal work? No. so why bother having/enforcing them?

As far as I'm concerned, you might as well be spouting: Do having cops, courtrooms, and jail prevent crime and criminals? no, so why bother having them?
Well, it shouldn't be illegal in the first place, add to that the fact that the laws restricting access are totally ineffectual and you have to wonder what good they are doing. Now, not everyone follows the law against murder either but that doesn't mean we should do away with laws against it. You have to look at the harm, the benefits, and the effectiveness of your strategy. The smoking of marijuana does very little harm to our society, certainly not enough to warrant spending tens of billions of dollars in a completely unsuccessful attempt to erradicate it. If you just take the part about our laws being ineffectual then it's not a very good argument. Put it all together and it is part of a very good argument.

1. there is no good reason for it to be illegal in the first place: See pretty much any scientific or government study on the matter. The worst thing they can even say about marijuana is that it can potentially be unhealthy if you overindulge in it. That is no reason for anyone to go to jail. Water can hurt you if you over indulge in it.
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...es/studies.htm

2. we put enormous amounts of time, money and effort into unecessary prohibition: We have spent Trillions of dollars on the drug war, arrested millions of american citizens, siezed property from millions of americans, broken up who knows how many families...
http://www.briancbennett.com/charts/...ta/failure.htm

3. Despite the enormous amount of time, money, and effort we put into prohibition it cannot demonstrate that it has ever actually been effective or successful: Drugs are available everywhere and no amount of spending or arresting seems to alter that. Don't believe me? Ask the OMB:

Quote:
Rating: Results Not Demonstrated

Program Summary:

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) enforces the nationís drug laws. This includes preventing, deterring, and investigating the illegal growing, manufacture, or distribution of controlled substances in, or destined for, the U.S. The assessment indicates that the overall purpose of the program is clear but DEA activities are not unique in that other Federal agencies (e.g. FBI, Customs Service, Coast Guard) and State and local entities have drug law enforcement responsibilities. Additional findings include:

1. DEA is unable to demonstrate its progress in reducing the availability of illegal drugs in the U.S. While DEA has developed some strategic goals and objectives, these goals lack specificity in targets and time frames.

2. DEA recently developed two annual performance measures to assess its impact on disrupting the drug supply. However, these measures need further refinement to establish links to an impact on drug availability, baseline data, and ambitious targets.

3. DEA managers are not held accountable for achieving results.
from: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/PMA.pdf pg:181

That all points to the conclusion that at the very least perhaps we should debate the merits of this policy in congress, not just agree that everything is going smashingly because the DEA says so and oh yeah, they say they will need a bigger check next year, same as the year before...
__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monsters_Are_Due_on_Maple_Street

Last edited by pyramid; 07-15-2005 at 02:26 PM..
Old 07-15-2005, 02:17 PM pyramid is offline  
Reply With Quote
#60  

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 05:10 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.