Medicinal purpose?

[NBVegita]

You, like everyone else who is trying to legalize pot has NO VALID ARGUEMENT. It is not a valid arguement to prove that pot is better or worse than alcohol in any way. I have stated this in almost every post, and you all seem to ignore that fact. Pot will never, and I mean never be legalized by just using the fact that it may or may not be better than alcohol.

 

Alcohol = BAD.

Smoking = BAD.

Pot = BAD.

 

We don't need to legalize another bad mind altering substance. Being it has no positive effect, it does not matter if it is better than any of the others. You could argue a valid point upon making alcohol illegal, but it is no point to make pot legal.

 

Why would you pay taxes on alcohol when you can get it from a dealer? Obviously that's not how it works when the government regulates things.

 

You really are lacking logic. Anyone can grow pot, even in a basement. There is not currently a huge alcohol smuggling ring accross the entire country. When it was made illegal, and people tried to make their own, they got terribly sick and or died, along with many other effects including blindness. This was a huge reason why it was made legal again, because of the fact that its better to regulate it than have people killing themselves over terrible tasting booze. Being there is no safe way to make your own alcohol, or at least by the means of most of americans, and anyone with a pot (I mean the one filled with dirt for plants) who can get their hands on seeds can grow pot, great comparison. Awesome comparison. Because obviously getting illegal alcohol is just as simple as getting pot. I mean duh! everyone knows that. I guess I was silly to think otherwise. Thank you oh so much wise one for opening my eyes. I will no longer have to purchase it from a store, because I'll just find that "vodka dealer" or maybe I can find the "Molson dealer" hangin around midtown. Thank you for enlightening me in ways I can save hundreds of dollars every year. It's a shame I didn't hear about this sooner in life...maybe I'd have chosen a different career.

[AstroProdigy]

I've stated quite a few reasons.

1. It would save room in our jail cells for real crimes.

2. It would provide revenue for the government.

3. It can be held up to government standards and be safer to smoke.

 

The fact that pot is no worse than alcohol or nicotine is just another point.

Alcohol is mind altering by the way. If you've ever been drunk you'll know it is. Nicotine is also mind altering.

 

Growing pot isn't as easy as you think and people would much rather buy pot from a company that's help up to government regulations. The reason alcohol was made legal again was that having it illegal didn't stop it's use and it was still widely used just like marijuana is today. People don't want to buy drugs or alcohol for a small dealer they want it from a company that can be held up to federal standards. The fact that they do this with pot is simply because there is no company selling pot. Have you ever grown pot?

[Yoink]

NBVegita, you come up with these 'facts' that you use to back your argument, that are really nothing more than the result of a stigma that says, "Oh noes, my Mommy said it's bad!" - with no substantial backing.

 

There are significant advantages to legalizing pot, and significant disadvantages for keeping it illegal.

 

Stop trying to simplify others' arguments when you don't interpret them correctly \=.

[NBVegita]

I never post anything as fact, unless I quote a study, so if I have to quote all of my posts and explain them to you like a child, as I have had to do with some of them already, I will.

 

All of your positive effects of having it legalized are speculation. You cannot PROVE that any of those would happen. Remember, the government does not have to prove that they won't, you would have to prove that they will.

 

If you knew anything about law in the state you are in, unless you are caught in possesion of a good amount of pot, or selling a good amount of pot, you get a slap on the hand and a fine. The majority of the pot users don't have with them/sell good amounts of pot.

 

You guys just don't seem to get it. You have nothing but speculation. Plain and simple. If it was proven to be an advantage to making it legal, and a disadvantage for keeping illegal, it would be legal by now. You have failed at any time to argue anything beyond opinion.

 

It is a fact, and I will state this as a fact, that there is no conclusive evidence that making marijuana legal would be good for the country. Because as you even stated in one of your posts, for every study that proves pot is good, there is one that disputes it. The problem is, at least from my personal research on the matter, is that the sources that are denouncing pot are more internationally accredited than the ones supporting it.

 

I mean simple anology, a prosecuter lets two fellons off who have killed poeple. Now a third fellon comes up to bat, but he did bad things, just didn't kill anyone. Its ok to let him go because the other two got off, and he didn't do things as bad as them?

 

And you yell at me for quoting things as fact, plain and simple astro there is no conclusive evidence that pot is better or worse as a whole than alcohol and or smoking.

[NBVegita]

Plain and simple, without conclusive evidence it will never be legalized. So try to step outside of that little liberal box you are living in and realize that you need conclusive evidence to make anything, pot included, legal. Our entire judicial system is based on this. I really thought it was common knowledge.

 

When it comes down to it, it would not effect my life in anyway for it to stay illegal, or become legal. I think smoking pot is a terribly dumb thing to do, the act of smoking pot has no positive to it besides medicinal means. It's not my idea of a good time to inhale smoke containing thousands of carcinogens into my system, just to they can distort my brain function. But you know what, my opinion means squat. Your opinion means squat. In this arguement there is no room for opinion. And as long as evidence is credibly disputed there will be no legalization.

 

I will ask you this, what do you not understand about that?

[AstroProdigy]

I don't know how you can dispute people getting arrested for marijuana posession and going to jail and how if marijuana was legal they would not get arrested and go to jail. I don't see how this obvious fact is conceivably even up to debate. Enough people go to jail for dealing marijuana that it'll free up some jail cells. A small percentage of the public is in jail right now. If you put all marijuana users in jail you'd be cramming huge numbers of people into a very lacking number of jail cells.

 

The other 2 are logical conclusions. Nothing is 100% certain and acting under the idea that everything has to be 100% certain is counter productive.

 

I gave you a fact and you said "Well how do you know? I mean anything can be wrong so you're just speculating." Am I breathing or is that just speculation?

 

Comparing marijuana smoking to murder is a simple analogy...right.

 

I never said the actual smoking of marijuana is good for your health (except maybe medical marijuana). I don't know what straw man you're building up to take down, but this isn't what I'm saying.

 

There is very conclusive evidence that you can never overdose on marijuana. There is no real debate on this. You'd have to smoke such ridiculous quan!@#$%^&*ies of marijuana that even hundreds of people can't sit there and smoke it all. You can overdrink and die of alcohol poisoning. This is not speculation. It's fact.

 

It's also fact that cigarrettes are much more addictive than marijuana can be. I mean gees it's common knowledge.

 

It's not that there isn't evidence that it's not worse than nicotine or alcohol, it's that people have managed to create the illusion of a debate. The same thing happened with the "debate" about whether nicotine was bad for you or the "debate" that goes on now about whether global warming is real.

[NBVegita]

The other 2 are logical conclusions. Nothing is 100% certain and acting under the idea that everything has to be 100% certain is counter productive.

 

In this arguement there is no room for opinion. And as long as evidence is credibly disputed there will be no legalization.

 

 

I gave you a fact and you said "Well how do you know? I mean anything can be wrong so you're just speculating." Am I breathing or is that just speculation?

 

You don't present a case study that proves this, so I'm taking your statement as completely false.

 

Just an ironic quote from someone who's been debating on your side.

 

 

I never said the actual smoking of marijuana is good for your health (except maybe medical marijuana). I don't know what straw man you're building up to take down, but this isn't what I'm saying.

 

I've never once even suggested that you think marijuana is good. I have in every post just simply been stating that it is bad. And just by the post I see that you seem to realize what my arguement is!

 

No matter if you disagree or agree with the legalization of marijuana, it will never become legal by trying to prove if it is better or worse than smoking or alcohol. What part of that don't you understand!? Concerning my entire thesis of debate, why don't you understand that no matter how blue in the face you get trying to argue that this bad drug is better or worse than 2 other bad drugs, it is no arguement to have it legalized. This goes beyond if you agree or disagree with it.

[AstroProdigy]

!@#$%^&*ociating someone debating on my "side" who I don't correlate points with proves nothing of my posts just avoids it.

 

You've been making the !@#$%^&*umption that my opinion is that marijuana is good because that makes your argument easy. I've made more points other than how it's not worse than cigarrettes and alcohol. Please look at those points before you oversimplify my argument to a manageable level.

[NBVegita]

You're trying to pull something out of your !@#$%^&*. I'm not oversimplifying, nor did I ever try to infer that you think pot is good. All I have been doing in every single post is restating my thesis that pot is bad, and will never become legal by just proving its not as bad as two other bad drugs. Whats over simple, or inferring in that?

[»Ducky]

He's not oversimplifying anything, that's the exact arguement you are making.

 

"This should be ok because that's ok."

All the other small little tidbits you throw in are completely trivial.

 

"More jail space" How is this accomplished? People don't get jailed for having a joint. They get jailed for having quan!@#$%^&*ies over what a normal person should have. That's intent to sell. Same jail space.

 

"Revenue for the government" The goverment has enough !@#$%^&*ing money, worry about how they spend it instead of giving them more.

The government isn't making !@#$%^&* when there's a complete underground already established.

 

"Government standards" Making is safer to smoke? Is that a complete joke. Cigarettes aren't safe to smoke, wtf does the government care.

 

If they null the effects of the drug, who the !@#$%^&* would want to buy it then.

---------

 

These aren't valid points, they are just something little kids sitting around watching cartoons with the bong think up while they're high.

[SeVeR]

Alcohol = BAD.

Smoking = BAD.

Pot = BAD.

Mmmkay?

 

By the way, if you legalise all drugs and sell them through the government at a profitless price you'll end up removing all the drug dealers and therefore the vast acquisition of new customers. By then splashing various media outlets with the idea that drug-use is an illness rather than a crime you'll do more to stop the possibility of new-users than the police can ever do. Drug-users will get their dope at less than a quarter of the price from drug-clinics, where they can accept or refuse help offered to them. If drug dealers happen to get any new customers they'll immediately lose them to the clinics, putting them completely out of business. The reduced price of drugs will vastly reduce other crimes such as robbery and violent !@#$%^&*ualt. The idea is simple and logically it would work if we could all get beyond this pathetic ideal of "drugs are bad... Mmmkay?"

[»Ducky]

Let's trade some crimes for some addictions and deaths.

Logically it works out. Just not for the people who are addicted to the drugs.

 

People quitting because the media says it's an illness instead of a crime is illogical though. I guess that kinda puts the idea out the window.

 

Drugs are bad, simply put. I pound an 8 ball every so often for ASSS and giggles and even I realize this. I'm not as inane as to attempt to justify it with bad 'facts' though.

[SeVeR]

People quitting because the media says it's an illness instead of a crime is illogical though. I guess that kinda puts the idea out the window.

Good thing i never said that then.

 

I was saying that drug-use being construed as an illness rather than a crime would deter more people from taking up drug-use. It'll be less popular and more a sign of weakness. I don't expect any existing users to quit over that. Perfectly logical if you don't use dismissive interpretation.

 

Let's trade some crimes for some addictions and deaths.

Logically it works out. Just not for the people who are addicted to the drugs.

How are there going to be more addictions and deaths? You think people will buy drugs because they're legal when they've had plenty of time to buy them when they're illegal? By removing drug dealers and changing the image of drugs you'll get fewer users in my opinion. To start taking drugs you'd have to walk into a clinic because there'll be no dealers and whats even better is its not too difiicult to develop a test to find out who is a drug-user and who isn't. You could quite easily give drugs only to existing users. With the dealers gone, the rate of new users will be cut to near zero. ...and of course yes, all in addition to less crime.

 

Drugs are bad, simply put.

Yea, but there's a line between something thats bad and something that should be illegal. Its perfectly legal for you to hit yourself over the head with a hammer but its still "bad".

[NBVegita]

Actually you would be committed to a mental hospital under the pretense of attempted suicide.

 

Plain and simple, something you intake into your body that negetively effects brain function and your body, some of which have long term effects, some causing death, all containing many volatile chemicals, it is bad. Even the guys who are advocates/use them say that they're bad. I don't see how they cannot be bad, even the other guys (or so it seems) at least agree with me on that point.

[»Ducky]

By then splashing various media outlets with the idea that drug-use is an illness rather than a crime you'll do more to stop the possibility of new-users than the police can ever do.

It being labeled as an illness does not deter anyone from using more than "any police could ever do". Yes, this is illogical.

People do quit and not do it because it is a crime and they have gotten caught.

 

How are there going to be more addictions and deaths? You think people will buy drugs because they're legal when they've had plenty of time to buy them when they're illegal?

You have users who bought them when they were illegal regardless of any detriment (socially) on thier part.

These people are not going to quit when it becomes legal.

 

You have people who did not buy them because they were illegal (Detrimental to them socially). Are people from this group going to start doing thwem because they no longer have social reprecussion? Yes. It's the exact same concept of speed limits. A road has a speed limit of 40 MPH. Now, there are those that will never go above that limit and there are those who hit 60 on a daily basis passing through there. Some of those people who went under 40 did so because they don't like the effects fast driving can have. Others did so because they did not want a 300$ speeding ticket. Now, let's increase that road speed to 60 MPH by law. The same amount of people who drove slow from safety still do. The same amount of people who drove 60 originally still do. What group of people change? The group who drove slowly only because it was the law.

 

You can remove the drug dealers, but you aren't going to 'change the image of the drug' That's some type of idealistic bs you're trying to push.

 

How are you determining the drug rate cuts to zero? Dealers don't push drugs on people, people seek them out of thier own curiosity. Not only do they no longer have to actively search for them illegally, they can get them for a cheap as !@#$%^&* price. This isn't cutting new users in any way, this is an advertising campaign Try our new and bold flavored chocolate for 1/4 of the price and we'll deliver it to your mailbox.

 

Yea, but there's a line between something thats bad and something that should be illegal. Its perfectly legal for you to hit yourself over the head with a hammer but its still "bad".

Something is only legal until it's made illegal. That's the trick about laws and there's no !@#$%^&*footing around it.

[AstroProdigy]

You go back and only look at 1 point and then say that only that point isn't enough justification. Then you say you're not oversimplifying what I said and then restate only one point I made and saying it's not enough. Wow.

 

I'm making that as PART of the argument. Please read the full length of my posts. Arresting drug dealers takes jail space. Is that a fact or is that up to debate too?

 

The government has enough money? Umm no actually we're running on growing deficits. Incase you haven't noticed they cut taxes for the rich and then tried to ruin social security because they needed the money to pay for things.

 

If you know something about drug dealing then you'll know that sometimes stronger drugs are added to the lighter drug to make it more addictive. Government regulations on marijuana stops this.

 

Marijuana is very different from drugs like cocaine. It's not addictive. My friend was a chronic marijuana smoker and then he moved to Georgia and he just stopped cold turkey and never smokes at all.

 

Putting drugs up on a pedestal and calling it the forbidden fruit isn't going to stop people from using drugs though. Isn't that what the Bible says with the story of Adam and Eve? Making something forbidden just makes people want it more.

[jacob hunter!]

Humans are imperfect beings.

[NBVegita]

I can't be oversimplifying what you say because what you have to say makes no difference on my thesis. Until you can provide evidence that cannot be disputed reputably, that legalization will be good for the country, then my thesis stands. The beauty of a thesis is that it is your job to prove it wrong, not my job to prove it right.

[SeVeR]

NBV:

Plain and simple, something you intake into your body that negetively effects brain function and your body, some of which have long term effects, some causing death, all containing many volatile chemicals, it is bad. Even the guys who are advocates/use them say that they're bad. I don't see how they cannot be bad, even the other guys (or so it seems) at least agree with me on that point.

Yea, its bad, even i can use that word because it has such a broad definition. Having sex five times a day for a month is probably bad too... as is unprotected sex with a stranger. But should it therefore be illegal? Who is it bad for? And if you think its bad for other people (than the user) then how do you think that happens? Do you have an alternative solution other than the system that has failed to work for decades?

 

Ducky:

It being labeled as an illness does not deter anyone from using more than "any police could ever do".

Then you don't understand much about psychology and the effect of perceived weakness.

 

You have users who bought them when they were illegal regardless of any detriment (socially) on thier part.

These people are not going to quit when it becomes legal.

True. The point of making it legal for them is to cut the price down to the bare minimum thereby removing the drug-dealers and removing the need for drug-related crimes to supply their habit. Two benefits, the drug-users personal situation doesn't change, except they now have a much easier avenue to get help if they want it.

 

You have people who did not buy them because they were illegal (Detrimental to them socially). Are people from this group going to start doing thwem because they no longer have social reprecussion? Yes.

Hah! No is the answer you were looking for, would you be stupid enough to do this, would anyone on this board be that stupid? People don't have a switch whereby they immediately do something if it becomes legal. We all have reasons that go beyond legality.

 

The same amount of people who drove slow from safety still do. The same amount of people who drove 60 originally still do. What group of people change? The group who drove slowly only because it was the law.

There would be other reasons to change than legality in this situation. It's not an analogy.

 

You can remove the drug dealers, but you aren't going to 'change the image of the drug' That's some type of idealistic bs you're trying to push.

By removing the crime of drug-use you are pretty much halfway to changing the image anyway. Opening "clinics" to supply the drugs at rock-bottom prices would go a step further (its all in the choice of language), the publicity from such a huge change in legislation would then do the rest... so in actuality you don't really have to do anything to "push" the image.

 

This isn't cutting new users in any way, this is an advertising campaign Try our new and bold flavored chocolate for 1/4 of the price and we'll deliver it to your mailbox.

You mean in the same way STD clinics are an advertising campaign for having un-controlled sex? Please...

[NBVegita]

Actually having too much sex is not detrimental to your health. It's been proven that if a man ejaculates 3-5 times a week he is at a much lower chance to get prostate and testicular cancer.

[SeVeR]

Yeah but 150 times a month? You could dehydrate and die... or your balls could shrink and dissolve and ... need i go any further! Anyway, i'm sure unprotected sex with strangers can be considered "bad" and "detrimental to your health" AND the health of others! - Yet its not illegal. Not everything bad is illegal.

[Muskrat]

Umm, I have a very good friend who has cancer and he cannot hold down hardly any food, getting skinnier each time I see him. Marijuana can ease the nausea and provide an appe!@#$%^&*e, so why can't he use it? I'm sure that if it were taken down a schedule or two, actually allowing experimentation, then forms could be developed that byp!@#$%^&*es the need to smoke it(carcinogens) and other detrimental effects.

[NBVegita]

Note I've stated many times that I have no problems with it being used for medicinal purposes.

 

And sever, you can't win on the arguement that "well other things that are bad are legal, so why not make everything thats bad legal!" Because if the government used that ideal, it sure as !@#$%^&* wouldn't stop at pot.

 

It's just plain naive.

[»Ducky]

You really do bore me Astro.

 

Arresting drug dealers takes jail space. Is that a fact or is that up to debate too?

Your 'solution' to this is to make the illegal things they are doing legal.

Not build more jails or space, but to simply make it legal.

What's your arguement exactly? These people sell !@#$%^&* to children, lock them the !@#$%^&* up.

 

The government has enough money? Umm no actually we're running on growing deficits. Incase you haven't noticed they cut taxes for the rich and then tried to ruin social security because they needed the money to pay for things.

 

The money is there, take out the war debt and this is plain as day. It's money efficiency that hurts our governement, not the lack there of.

 

If you know something about drug dealing then you'll know that sometimes stronger drugs are added to the lighter drug to make it more addictive. Government regulations on marijuana stops this.

What weed have you smoked where you're insanely addicted that you need a third party to 'nerf' it? That's some awesome bud that I've never come across.

 

Marijuana is very different from drugs like cocaine. It's not addictive. My friend was a chronic marijuana smoker and then he moved to Georgia and he just stopped cold turkey and never smokes at all.

Alchohol isn't addictive either. It's still bad

 

Putting drugs up on a pedestal and calling it the forbidden fruit isn't going to stop people from using drugs though. Isn't that what the Bible says with the story of Adam and Eve? Making something forbidden just makes people want it more.

Put a snake in a cage and it bites only those stupid enough to stick thier fingers in. Put a snake on the floor and it bites everyone.

 

Your analogies fail as does your arguements. Again.

[»Ducky]

You next Sever.

 

Then you don't understand much about psychology and the effect of perceived weakness.

Enlighten me, I like listening to theoretical crap. When a book can tell me more about a person than experiencing life as a person and witnessing lives spent as a person, then I've no longer a reason to live.

 

You're attempting to change a fundamental persona of an object that has existed traditionally for numerous years. Good luck with that.

 

True. The point of making it legal for them is to cut the price down to the bare minimum thereby removing the drug-dealers and removing the need for drug-related crimes to supply their habit. Two benefits, the drug-users personal situation doesn't change, except they now have a much easier avenue to get help if they want it.

Your explanation offers nothing on the part of them getting help.

You just distinctly said "We are going to make the drugs easily accessable and cheaper to the public." And threw in "This will allow them to recieve easier help."

 

Help is derived from rehabilitation programs, not making it more cost efficient to ruin your life. You can add more rehabilitation without doing any of the prementioned things.

Take Cocaine for example. The largest drawback of this drug is not addiction (though it is) or even availability of decent stuff ( a rarity in some locations) But instead the cost.

 

Let's take a generic price in Southwest PA to work with. (We'll use $ a gram as a median) This is a rather large price compared to down south.

Reduce that price to profitless (I can't possibly fathom what this would be, so let's just use 1/4)

That's 20$ a gram.

 

I can't speak for you, but that's 4 times the amount that I could get legally now than I could before. What possible incentive do I have to quit.

You just made it so affordable, I could do it in complete leisure anytime I desired.

 

Hah! No is the answer you were looking for, would you be stupid enough to do this, would anyone on this board be that stupid? People don't have a switch whereby they immediately do something if it becomes legal. We all have reasons that go beyond legality.

The answer was yes, I found the answer just fine.

This is not theory either, but rather watching others play out thier life.

I have friends who drink now that they are 21 who did not previously to that age. Complete yuppies in my opinion, but it's truth. So truthful, that it's enough to completely validate this statement.

 

Your arguement hinges desperately on the idea that everyone drinks, smokes, cusses and has premarital sex before they are of age. Not true at all.

 

There would be other reasons to change than legality in this situation. It's not an analogy.

The legality of the change effecting those who decide to now drive fast was part of my analogy. Could there be other reasons to change? Sure. Late for work, emergency.. anything. That still does not change the fact that people WILL go faster because it's now legal to do so. The former was part of my analogy, I didn't need to add exceptions into my claus.

 

By removing the crime of drug-use you are pretty much halfway to changing the image anyway. Opening "clinics" to supply the drugs at rock-bottom prices would go a step further (its all in the choice of language), the publicity from such a huge change in legislation would then do the rest... so in actuality you don't really have to do anything to "push" the image.

You'll have to reword it or elaborate.

Taken from your own words, how is the next scenerio plausable.

We open up clinics, legislation changes and things become legal. Prices drop. Everyone now thinks drug use is a sickness.

 

Don't have to push the image? You have a huge !@#$%^&*ing gap where I've lost all understanding. How are you getting to your final outcome? I see no logical flow at all.

 

You mean in the same way STD clinics are an advertising campaign for having un-controlled sex? Please...

Your analogy doesn't work. You don't get legal profitless sex at an std clinic.