Pot Vote: Legalizing Marijuana Could Be On 2010 Ballot

[Colonel Ronan]

Because one is legally done in the open and one is illegally done. BTW, your reference point of Portland, OR is not really representative of how easy it is to score pot. Try buying seeds in Montana or Kansas.

Is it really your argument that it's just as easy to buy marijuana seeds/plants as it is to go to your local grocery store?

I don't get your point.

Are you trying to say that marijuana shouldn't be made legal because it's already illegal?

 

[barfo]

Because one is legally done in the open and one is illegally done.

No, that isn't it. You've been arguing that booze should be legal because it is easier to obtain. You can't now argue that it is easier to obtain because it is legal. That's a little too circular.

BTW, your reference point of Portland, OR is not really representative of how easy it is to score pot. Try buying seeds in Montana or Kansas.

Yeah, there aren't any pot smokers in Montana or Kansas.

Is it really your argument that it's just as easy to buy marijuana seeds/plants as it is to go to your local grocery store?

Is it really your argument that it is as easy to make bathtub gin as it is to plant a pot seed?

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Okay. Go to a grocery store and buy seeds.

I can go to Albertson's and buy everything I need to make beer, wine or hard alcohol. That's what I'm talking about, not the ability to grow a plant.

The reason that's the case is because one is currently illegal and the other isn't. You're essentially begging the question.

If pot were legal and alcohol weren't, you probably could buy the seeds to grow marijuana in Albertson's, and something like hops wouldn't be available there (assuming it is currently).

That doesn't seem to differentiate them in terms of which one should be outlawed.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Also, I thought brewing alcohol was or is illegal is some states/countries.

 

[MickZagger]

I love smoking the buds.

I master NBA live when I'm stoned. Then again thats the only time I play it. I'm by no means a stoner, but I enjoy puffin the bleezies on a lazy Sunday of football, with take out Chinese or a nice pizza every once in awhile. Nothings better.

Legalize the shit immediately. Not that it really matters though.

 

[maxiep]

I don't get your point.

Are you trying to say that marijuana shouldn't be made legal because it's already illegal?

That is exactly what I'm trying to say. We have enough legal drugs in society to get you feeling however you want to feel. Adding more will only encourage more drug use.

 

[RR7]

Do you have studies to back up your theories stated above, about more crime because of higher pot use, the long term physical and mental effects, and worst of all, it being a gateway drug?

 

[maxiep]

No, that isn't it. You've been arguing that booze should be legal because it is easier to obtain. You can't now argue that it is easier to obtain because it is legal. That's a little too circular.

I've been arguing that fewer drugs available in society is preferable to more drugs available in society. If alcohol had ingredients that could be controlled, I'd be in favor of making it illegal, too. However, people have been making their own alcohol for millennia. That's not the same with marijuana.

Yeah, there aren't any pot smokers in Montana or Kansas.

And more people drink. When did I say that there was no marijuana in those areas? All I said was that it was harder to obtain.

Is it really your argument that it is as easy to make bathtub gin as it is to plant a pot seed?

barfo

It is my argument that it is easier for the average person to obtain the ingredients and more lawful to make homebrew, homemade wine or distill alcohol in one's own home than it is to procure marijuana seeds. Ask the average person to obtain yeast, water and some grain and more people will know how to do that than to obtain a marijuana seed.

 

[maxiep]

The reason that's the case is because one is currently illegal and the other isn't. You're essentially begging the question.

If pot were legal and alcohol weren't, you probably could buy the seeds to grow marijuana in Albertson's, and something like hops wouldn't be available there (assuming it is currently).

That doesn't seem to differentiate them in terms of which one should be outlawed.

One has many uses; the other has one (please don't give me the hemp argument as marijuana seeds are a specific strain). The ingredients to make alcohol are made from staples we eat every day.

Again, to me fewer drugs in society for recreational use are preferable to more. It's not an "either/or" argument to me' it's an "and" argument. The number of recreational drugs legally available in my opinion are sufficient. The downside to legalizing marijuana outweighs the upside, in my opinion. That conclusion is in conflict with my political philosophy, but one can't always be consistent.

 

[maxiep]

Do you have studies to back up your theories stated above, about more crime because of higher pot use, the long term physical and mental effects, and worst of all, it being a gateway drug?

Am I a drug expert? No, I'm a guy posting in a forum. If you want to call yourself the big winner in this debate, you go ahead. I've stated my reasoning. If I cared more, I would go find some. However, I haven't read them, so I would just be posting links.

Like I said, it's simply easier to agree to disagree.

 

[maxiep]

Also, I thought brewing alcohol was or is illegal is some states/countries.

I don't know. I think distilling your own alcohol is illegal in many states, but why would you distill your own when you can go to the liquor store and buy some? If we had Prohibition again--which I don't embrace--you couldn't possibly outlaw the input ingredients or the mechanisms to manufacture alcohol. With marijuana, you can outlaw the seed pretty easily. It's not 100% effective, but it's more effective than outlawing yeast and grain.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

That is exactly what I'm trying to say. We have enough legal drugs in society to get you feeling however you want to feel. Adding more will only encourage more drug use.

Now I understand, and I see where you're coming from.

 

[maxiep]

I love smoking the buds.

I master NBA live when I'm stoned. Then again thats the only time I play it. I'm by no means a stoner, but I enjoy puffin the bleezies on a lazy Sunday of football, with take out Chinese or a nice pizza every once in awhile. Nothings better.

Legalize the shit immediately. Not that it really matters though.

Most people I knew growing up smoke all the time. In fact, I'm just about the only one of my friends growing up who didn't partake. More power to you.

And as you said, legalizing it likely isn't going to make your acquisition of the product much easier. Such is life in the Willamette Valley.

 

[maxiep]

Now I understand, and I see where you're coming from.

I apologize for not being clearer, but a lot of people were asking me to address a lot of points, so the most fundamental one often gets lost.

 

[RR7]

Am I a drug expert? No, I'm a guy posting in a forum. If you want to call yourself the big winner in this debate, you go ahead. I've stated my reasoning. If I cared more, I would go find some. However, I haven't read them, so I would just be posting links.

Like I said, it's simply easier to agree to disagree.

Sweet, I'll remember in debates with you, that opinion is worth more than fact. Don't ask for sources if I cite stuff as fact, please. I'm sure you'll understand.

 

[maxiep]

Sweet, I'll remember in debates with you, that opinion is worth more than fact. Don't ask for sources if I cite stuff as fact, please. I'm sure you'll understand.

All I'm doing is offering my opinion. In most other subjects, I care enough to provide definitive proof. And without providing studies yourself, you're just offering your opinion as well. That's why we'll agree to disagree.

 

[RR7]

What do I have to offer studies of? You made a claim. I asked for proof of that claim. Why should I do your work for you?

 

[maxiep]

What do I have to offer studies of? You made a claim. I asked for proof of that claim. Why should I do your work for you?

You misunderstand me. Your opinion is that the opposite is true. Until you provide studies that you've read and understand, it's just an opinion, just like mine. That's why it's easier for us to agree to disagree. We both haven't seen enough evidence to change our views.

Did the above explain my position better?

 

[RR7]

Where did I state my claim that the opposite is true? You provided information that I haven't seen proof of, and as you were stating it, I thought maybe you had actually seen proof of this.

 

[maxiep]

Where did I state my claim that the opposite is true? You provided information that I haven't seen proof of, and as you were stating it, I thought maybe you had actually seen proof of this.

Then that's my error. I made the mistaken assumption that you were contending the opposite of what I stated. I apologize.

If it makes you happy, later tonight or this weekend, when I'm bored and have some time, I'll provide some links. However, my position is based on logic, not studies.

 

[Colonel Ronan]

Well, lets call it experience, not logic.

We'll assume you have known people who's lives have become enslaved by marijuana, but there are other people here who smoke and are living life quite normally. Opinions are obviously changed by experiences, and it seems like your experiences with marijuana are negative.

 

[maxiep]

Well, lets call it experience, not logic.

We'll assume you have known people who's lives have become enslaved by marijuana, but there are other people here who smoke and are living life quite normally. Opinions are obviously changed by experiences, and it seems like your experiences with marijuana are negative.

I was going to go back and add "observation" and "experience" to logic. As for my experiences with marijuana, they've either been negative or benign. I don't really see the non-medicinal positive aspect of marijuana that can't be replicated with other legal drugs.

 

[Denny Crane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization_of_non-medical_cannabis_in_the_United_States

Research shows that the actual “gateway” is the illegal drug market. The World Health Organization noted that any gateway effect associated with marijuana use may actually be due to marijuana prohibition because “exposure to other drugs when purchasing cannabis on the black-market increases the opportunity to use other illicit drugs.” A study comparing experienced marijuana users in Amsterdam, where adults can purchase small amounts of marijuana from regulated businesses, with similarly experienced marijuana users in San Francisco, where non-medical possession and sale of marijuana remains completely illegal, bolstered this hypothesis: The San Francisco marijuana users were twice as likely to use crack cocaine as their Dutch counterparts, more than twice as likely to use amphetamines, and five times as likely to be current users of opiates. If anything, regulating marijuana will reduce hard drug use.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm not so sure that less drugs in society is any sort of ideal. I'm not sure why a libertarian would want to hassle people via laws over this sort of thing.

Cannabis grows wild along the farm roads in Southern Illinois, though it's not very good for smoking. The seeds are that plentiful, though, and through all the same sorts of growing and cross breeding, those plants would turn into pretty powerful stuff.

Seeds are trivial to get, you can order them online, or you can get some from the pot growers in Humboldt County just like grape plants for wine are sold.

While I'm totally in favor of legalizing pot and every other drug, I also favor strict laws against driving under the influence, selling to minors, and that sort of thing. Using is a victimless crime, those other things are not.

It's a medical problem, not a criminal one. The govt. has greatly reduced the number of tobacco smokers over decades through mostly advertising (and advertising the results of studies). That's what they should do if they really think use/abuse is a problem.

Let's stop throwing otherwise fine young black men in prison over this bullshit.

The cost would surely go down and availability and quality of it would surely go up. It's a multi-$billion industry, largest cash crop in California, and it's underground (not taxed) and attracts the real criminal element (gangs, crime families, etc.).

 

[maxiep]

I'm not so sure that less drugs in society is any sort of ideal. I'm not sure why a libertarian would want to hassle people via laws over this sort of thing.

I didn't claim to be a Libertarian. I have laissez-faire attitudes, but I'm not consistent.

Cannabis grows wild along the farm roads in Southern Illinois, though it's not very good for smoking. The seeds are that plentiful, though, and through all the same sorts of growing and cross breeding, those plants would turn into pretty powerful stuff.

Seeds are trivial to get, you can order them online, or you can get some from the pot growers in Humboldt County just like grape plants for wine are sold.

Again, it's not as easy as going to the grocery store.

While I'm totally in favor of legalizing pot and every other drug, I also favor strict laws against driving under the influence, selling to minors, and that sort of thing. Using is a victimless crime, those other things are not.

There will simply be too many offenders to adequately punish those impaired drivers or people that sell to minors. As for being victimless, how do you feel about parents smoking around kids? Is giving them a contact high still a victimless crime? You can have a beer around kids and they don't get drunk.

It's a medical problem, not a criminal one. The govt. has greatly reduced the number of tobacco smokers over decades through mostly advertising (and advertising the results of studies). That's what they should do if they really think use/abuse is a problem.

Let's stop throwing otherwise fine young black men in prison over this bullshit.

Race has nothing to do with it. And if they're dealing drugs, they're not fine young men. They're miscreants. And none of these studies have looked at the loss of productivity in society. Sure, I'm a Weberian in my outlook on life, but seeing people waste their lives in a THC haze shouldn't be something that's encouraged.

The cost would surely go down and availability and quality of it would surely go up. It's a multi-$billion industry, largest cash crop in California, and it's underground (not taxed) and attracts the real criminal element (gangs, crime families, etc.).

And the criminal element would move onto other drugs as people got a taste for them.

 

[RR7]

There will simply be too many offenders to adequately punish those impaired drivers or people that sell to minors. As for being victimless, how do you feel about parents smoking around kids? Is giving them a contact high still a victimless crime? You can have a beer around kids and they don't get drunk.

How do you figure there'd be too many offenders to actually punish anyone caught. That same argument could be made about alcohol as well. Not everyone on the road is drunk, the same way not everyone would be high.

Parents smoking around kids would be bad. Obviously, second hand smoke is a bad thing. But so is smoking cigarettes around them, which is legal.

I understand you said it' smore the fact you don't see the need to make more things legal, but if you have those attitudes about driving, and about smoke around kids, why aren't you more a proponent for making cigarettes and alcohol illegal? We can't regulate who uses and abuses them, whether they are sold to minors, and whether people smoke their cigarettes around their kids, so why not ban them, and eliminate those problems?

 

[RR7]

And the criminal element would move onto other drugs as people got a taste for them.

As people got a taste for them?

 

[Haakzilla]

Like I said, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I don't know how I'm "out of touch with reality" or "way off base". Perhaps you could explain it to me.

I think the following things:

1. Legalization would result in lower prices and higher quantity, meaning more people would likely use marijuana. The fewer people using drugs, the better for society.

2. Drug use begets harder drug use. Marijuana has always been an intro drug to other more serious ones.

3. We have the ability to control the manufacture of marijuana we don't have with alcohol. The prohibition argument isn't the same.

4. Legalization of marijuana means it would be easier for kids to get their hands on.

5. Long term mental and physical effects are harmful to users.

6. More drug use has other impacts on society: less productivity, higher crime, increased accidents due to impairment, etc.

As for what I would do if cannibis were easy to manufacture from household ingredients, was legal and had controlled distributed in stores; and alcohol required special plants to manufacture, was illegal and whose distribution resulted in jail time? I'd probably smoke and be against the legalization of alcohol.

1.] More people wouldn't be using cannabis because it is cheaper and more abundant. More people would use cannabis simply because it is finally "legal" and the overall effects on ones body are much "healthier" than that of alcohol, cigarettes, and a lot of prescription meds that are being prescribed these days. If alcohol and cigarettes were "cheaper" and more abundant, then do you think more people would use them? You might have to define "drugs" for the society that will be better off by not using them ["It’s reasonable to expect a certain percentage of adults, respectful or fearful of the current prohibition, would give pot a first try if it were made legal. But, given that the U.S. is already the world’s leading per capita marijuana consumer (despite our relatively harsh penalties), it’s hard to imagine a large and lasting surge in consumption. Further, under a system of regulated legalization and taxation, the government would be in a position to offer both prevention programs and medical treatment and counseling for those currently abusing the drug. It’s even possible we’d see an actual reduction in use and abuse, just as we’ve halved tobacco consumption through public education–without a single arrest." http://blog.norml.org/2009/07/20/new-york-times-blog-if-marijuana-is-legal-will-addiction-rise/]

2.] False. Urban Myth. [this is just one example of how out of touch and off-base you are; "5 Things the Corporate Media Don’t Want You to Know About Cannabis
via Alternet.org

1. Marijuana Use Is Not Associated With a Rise in Incidences of Schizophrenia

2. Marijuana Smoke Doesn’t Damage the Lungs Like Tobacco

3. Cannabis Use Potentially Protects, Rather Than Harms, the Brain

4. Marijuana Is a Terminus, Not a ‘Gateway,’ to Hard Drug Use

5. Government’s Anti-Pot Ads Encourage, Rather Than Discourage, Marijuana Use" http://www.alternet.org/media/14281..._media_don't_want_you_to_know_about_cannabis/]

3.] We do?

4.] It is much easier for kids to get their hands on cannabis than it is for them to get their hands on alcohol and/or cigarettes. ["In their study, they found that 40 percent of teens could get marijuana within a day; another quarter said they could get it within an hour. In another portion of the survey, teens between the ages of 12 and 17 say it’s easier to get marijuana than buy cigarettes**, beer or prescription drugs. That number is up 37 percent from 2007." http://blog.norml.org/2009/08/28/study-says-its-easier-for-teens-to-buy-marijuana-than-beer/]

5.] False. Another urban myth. [reefer madness propaganda has jaded your better judgement and common sense yet again...see above link(s)]

6. Obviously those claims are only based on your assumption that legalization would increase drug use...again, please see link(s) above

***that is your only argument that holds any weight...you are against it because our gov't made it illegal...the rest of your opinions all fall into the category of the severely misinformed***

 

[maxiep]

How do you figure there'd be too many offenders to actually punish anyone caught. That same argument could be made about alcohol as well. Not everyone on the road is drunk, the same way not everyone would be high.

You now have drunk drivers, and you would also have stoned drivers. It's additive.

Parents smoking around kids would be bad. Obviously, second hand smoke is a bad thing. But so is smoking cigarettes around them, which is legal.

Pot is worse for kids than cigarette smoke. It's all the cancer risk with a hit of THC. Why do it?

I understand you said it' smore the fact you don't see the need to make more things legal, but if you have those attitudes about driving, and about smoke around kids, why aren't you more a proponent for making cigarettes and alcohol illegal? We can't regulate who uses and abuses them, whether they are sold to minors, and whether people smoke their cigarettes around their kids, so why not ban them, and eliminate those problems?

Because for reasons I've outlined previously, you can't ban alcohol. As for cigarettes, one doesn't get become impaired from tobacco.

 

[maxiep]

As people got a taste for them?

Yep. It's the stepping stone idea of drug use. Every single cocaine and heroin user I know started smoking pot first. They liked getting high, so they tried other drugs. It's a gateway.