MORE Act. Legal Weed?

[Belz...]

you seem very sympathetic for an abstainer.

And?

I've never had drugs in my life, and I'm all for people doing whatever they want with their bodies, even if I disagree with some of their choices. So long as it doesn't impact me/others directly, have fun.

 

[3point14]

Ah, yes. The all-or-nothing logic.

There's nothing all or nothing about it. There's me investigationg a line of flawed logic.

No one said that you shouldn't do anything that could ever potentially have negative effects. But you knew that.

You literally asked the question. It's in the post I was responding to:

Are you saying that anything that may have lasting effects on one's health are, de facto, things one should not do?

If one holds this and also that these things should not be illegal, how is that not a good opinion?

 

[rockysmith76]

And?

I've never had drugs in my life, and I'm all for people doing whatever they want with their bodies, even if I disagree with some of their choices. So long as it doesn't impact me/others directly, have fun.

another pretender

 

[plague311]

Well, this guy:

I didn't know calling out arguments that I found factually inaccurate was considered getting defensive, but I learn new things around here every single day.

No he doesn't. And as much as I don't like marijuana, I know the consumption of alcohol is a far greater detriment to society than canabis use probably ever could be and it is legal.

I don't need to worry about it. Anything under a half ounce in North Dakota is a fine, and a shrug of the shoulders. I'm not going to jail for weed, but I did learn that people are called "abstainers".

 

[Belz...]

There's nothing all or nothing about it. There's me investigationg a line of flawed logic.

There's a difference between disagreeing with the parameters of an opinion, and that opinion's logic being broken. Just because one thinks that it's 'wrong' to mess up with your brain doesn't mean they think the potential harm of ******* walking around is just as bad. It doesn't follow. You either know it doesn't follow and weren't arguing in good faith, or think it does follow and have broken logic yourself.

You literally asked the question. It's in the post I was responding to:

You should be more careful with the use of the word "literally", when you then quote me not saying that at all.

FYI, "These things" refered to taking drugs. You know, the topic of the thread.

 

[acbytesla]

What exactly have I said that's disinformation? Just quote what I said, and a link proving me wrong. The only argument against you and your points I've made is that it's a waste of anyone's mental faculties. Which certainly hasn't been proven as I think it's truly opinion based. You made a blanket claim, I don't believe it's true (something you even said when you said "not everyone" in a previous post), and that's about it.

Anyone can look at only the ******* negative affects of any product ever and say it's terrible. It's actually pretty god damned easy to do.

As far as being too optimistic, you can certainly believe that. The speed of recreational legalization tends to favor my outlook, but we'll see.



If seeing clearly means I view the world like you I'd rather be the dirtiest son of a bitch in the world.

I've been in jail, and worse and I've still come out better than most.

I think you're clearly rationizing the use of a drug because you like it.

I have seen far too many people under the influence of canabis to not believe that it has negative effects on cognition at least while under the immediate influence. For example, I play a lot of chess. I also have a friend of mine who also plays a lot of chess. I'm a good player. He's a great player. The only time I ever seem to beat him is when he's been smoking. Now it wouldn't surprise me that light use of the drug might help some people do even better. I've read some anecdotal evidence that some people drive better having had one glass of wine, but after that, their motor skills and cognitive abilities decline rapidly.

I do believe it is the waste of one's mental faculties. Maybe you're so smart you can afford to lose a lot of them. Maybe I'm not that clever and I need to keep my mind as sharp as it can be.

 

[Belz...]

I didn't know calling out arguments that I found factually inaccurate was considered getting defensive, but I learn new things around here every single day.

And I didn't know flipping out over a joke was considered calling out factually inaccurate arguments.

What part of "LoL Jesus ******* Christ, what a ******** thing to say." was calling out counter-factual elements of acbytesla's post?

 

[3point14]

There's a difference between disagreeing with the parameters of an opinion, and that opinion's logic being broken. Just because one thinks that it's 'wrong' to mess up with your brain doesn't mean they think the potential harm of ******* walking around is just as bad. It doesn't follow. You either know it doesn't follow and weren't arguing in good faith, or think it does follow and have broken logic yourself.



You should be more careful with the use of the word "literally", when you then quote me not saying that at all.

FYI, "These things" refered to taking drugs. You know, the topic of the thread.

Oh, I see.

I thought you were referring to those things in the post you were actually quoting. Silly me, how could I possibly have been mistaken...

 

[Belz...]

I also have a friend of mind who also plays a lot of chess.

Nice.

 

[plague311]

I've noticed that most people with negative views, or assume that there are only negative affects of marijuana, either haven't done it before at all, or haven't done it for 20+ years.

It's like me giving my opinion on an 8 track having never heard music played on one or don't compare it to the sound of a current mp3.

 

[3point14]

I think you're clearly rationizing the use of a drug because you like it.

I have seen far too many people under the influence of canabis to not believe that it has negative effects on cognition

(the rest of the post snipped)

Ever heard of statistics? Sampling? Self selecting samples? Anecdotes?

I may have mentioned it before, but you really, really need a stats course.

 

[Belz...]

Oh, I see.

I thought you were referring to those things in the post you were actually quoting. Silly me, how could I possibly have been mistaken...

Why are you so damned adversarial here? I was addressing acbytesla's post and your response to it. So you thought I meant something else. Why is it the end of the world, suddenly?

 

[acbytesla]

He's basically trolling at this point, you're better off ignoring him. I have seen little, if any, genuine discord in his 400 posts. Most are attention grabbers to rile people up.

That's what Rocky does. If ever there was a definition of trolling, Rocky's posts would be prime examples.

 

[Belz...]

I've noticed that most people with negative views, or assume that there are only negative affects of marijuana, either haven't done it before at all, or haven't done it for 20+ years.

One could just as well say that the people with positive views are the ones doing too much of it. It's an ad hominem either way.

Personally I haven't seen any evidence of long-term damage caused by pot. I know it impairs judgment just like alcohol does for a short while after use, but that's it. That's why I think it's silly to make it illegal. It doesn't mean I agree with its use, just like I don't agree with people getting drunk even though it's their decision and I won't interfere so long as it's not putting anyone at risk.

 

[plague311]

I think you're clearly rationizing the use of a drug because you like it.

I must have phrased something strangely in my previous post. I don't have to "rationize" anything to anyone. I'm perfectly comfortable in my life, my decisions, and where I'm at. "Rationizing" means that I feel what I'm doing is wrong. Kind of tough for me to agree with considering medical reviews are showing the positives of weed outweigh the negatives. It's called "progress"

I have seen far too many people under the influence of canabis to not believe that it has negative effects on cognition at least while under the immediate influence.

Dunno what this has to do with me, but ok. Thanks.

For example, I play a lot of chess. I also have a friend of mind who also plays a lot of chess. I'm a good player. He's a great player. The only time I ever seem to beat him is when he's been smoking.

Yes, I get it. More random ass stories from you about your personal experiences that have exactly nothing to do with anything, but ok. Now I get one. I have a friend that was in Vietnam. He couldn't get help from anywhere, and he finally found someone that could get him some weed. He took it to his lake cabin and then informed that person that after smoking it was the first time in 10 years he hadn't gone "back to a foxhole".

So great, your friend sucks at chess when he's stoned. And? You seem to keep telling me these stories and I seem to continue to not care about your anecdotal tales.

Now it wouldn't surprise me that light use of the drug might help some people do even better. I've read some anecdotal evidence that some people drive better having had one glass of wine, but after that, their motor skills and cognitive abilities decline rapidly.

k.

I do believe it is the waste of one's mental faculties. Maybe you're so smart you can afford to lose a lot of them. Maybe I'm not that clever and I need to keep my mind as sharp as it can be.

 

[3point14]

Why are you so damned adversarial here? I was addressing acbytesla's post and your response to it. So you thought I meant something else. Why is it the end of the world, suddenly?

It's not the end of the world. I am frustrated by what I see as your poor communication and your blaming me for it afterwards.

When I am less frustrated I shall go back and read, for my own satisfaction, to discover which of us was communicating poorly*, but, at the moment, the frustration is caused by my perception that you were communicating badly and blaming me for it.

Whether or not I have cause remains to be seen. Ho hum.





*The clever money is on 'both of them', but not all the polls have come in

 

[acbytesla]

you seem very sympathetic for an abstainer.

I wouldn't call it sympathy. I'd just say that imprisoning people for drug use has been an abject failure. It doesn't work. It's costly, a waste of time and is ineffective.

 

[plague311]

And I didn't know flipping out over a joke was considered calling out factually inaccurate arguments.

What part of "LoL Jesus ******* Christ, what a ******** thing to say." was calling out counter-factual elements of acbytesla's post?

I'm sorry. There appears to be some more confusion. You seem to be thinking I was trying to correct his argument or his logic. As I said, I was just calling it out as ********. I hope that helps. Let me know if I can help further.

 

[3point14]

I wouldn't call it sympathy. I'd just say that imprisoning people for drug use has been an abject failure. It doesn't work. It's costly, a waste of time and is ineffective.

Amen.

https://cdn.theatlantic.com/assets/.../10/12/drug-spending-addiction/lead_large.png

 

[Belz...]

It's not the end of the world.

Good. I was worried, for a moment.

I am frustrated by what I see as your poor communication and your blaming me for it afterwards.

Wait a second. First of all I'll be the first to admit that I'm unclear with some regularity. But I never blamed you for the misunderstanding. I don't know where you're getting that from.

But even if your interpretation of my meaning was correct, it need not have been literal. "I see it as a moral imperative to avoid potentially harmful acts" may sound all-encompassing but nobody on the planet would utter that sentence and mean it literally. Obviously it's a general principle that applies under a host of other, unspoken premises, and humans often shorthand those or omit them entirely, thinking that they are obvious enough for those they address.

Alas, on the internet, we're at the point where we must go back to the Big Bang for every story we tell, etc.