The Marijuana Thread

[clarsct]

It simply occured to me that most drugs create the high using the brain's own chemistry. So any pleasurable experience might be considered a 'gateway'.

Stop having fun! Stop those antics! Dress in black and contemplate a boring-ass, illogical, 3000 yr old book from now until your eyes BLEED! Stop that horrific DANCING!!! Won't anyone think of the CHILDREN?!


But thanks to slingblade, I do not have to rely on my own ....er...um

'Reasoning'


methods..

 

[pgwenthold]

No. My brother's drug of choice is cocaine.

My brother's drug of choice is alcohol. In fact, far more people's brothers have screwed up their lives with alcohol than they ever did with pot or cocaine. Yet, it remains legal.

Thus, it is apparent that "it can screw up someone's brother's life" is not a basis for outlawing anything. That's not why pot is illegal.

 

[Darth Rotor]

A person who is willing to smoke marijuana is already likely to try drugs. If the "gateway" theory is in any way sound, then what was the gateway for the initial choice to use marijuana?

Mother's Milk. (old George Carlin joke)

It simply occured to me that most drugs create the high using the brain's own chemistry. So any pleasurable experience might be considered a 'gateway'.

Stop having fun! Stop those antics! Dress in black and contemplate a boring-ass, illogical, 3000 yr old book from now until your eyes BLEED! Stop that horrific DANCING!!! Won't anyone think of the CHILDREN?!

What is this, Amish Goth week?

DR

 

[billydkid]

I think you need a forth option similar to the planet X one. It should say that the burden of proof is on those who think something should be illegal. The positive assertion is that some people have the right to decide other people should not be allowed to have access to a certain weed. Not a very defensible position except to idiots.

 

[Overman]

I heart pot.

 

[WildCat]

How is the gateway drug thing a myth?

I dont know any crackheads or methheads or cokeheads who dont also smoke pot, and didnt start at pot

I've known a few cokeheads in my time that have never smoked pot.

 

[WildCat]

If I'm not mistaken, asset forfeiture has nothing to do with growing, and only with possession (and intent to sell, quantity, etc). They'll still take your stuff (and your wife/girlfriend will still be made) if you bought the bud from someone else.

No, manufacturing (growing) is grounds for forfeiture.

 

[brodski]

How is the gateway drug thing a myth?

I dont know any crackheads or methheads or cokeheads who dont also smoke pot, and didnt start at pot

How many of them started on booze and fags before pot?

 

[WildCat]

How many of them started on booze and fags before pot?

Actually, it all starts w/ caffeine. Coca-cola is the gateway drug that leads to everything else.

 

[brodski]

I think you need a forth option similar to the planet X one. It should say that the burden of proof is on those who think something should be illegal. The positive assertion is that some people have the right to decide other people should not be allowed to have access to a certain weed. Not a very defensible position except to idiots.

Um yes it is, it's the entire basis of almost every legal system ever implemented, in a society of laws society has the right/power to ban things.
The question is whether they have good reasons in this case.
But this is all at risk of de-railing this thread, can I recommend the "natural rights- begging the question" thread.

 

[brodski]

Actually, it all starts w/ caffeine. Coca-cola is the gateway drug that leads to everything else.

Not for me, I was exposed to alcoholic drinks before I was exposed to caffeinated drinks.

 

[Athyrio]

I really doubt that it would be much of a boon to farmers or gov't coffers, it's too easy to grow yourself. And it doesn't need any processing (other than drying) post-harvest, unlike tobacco.

And that's why it is illegal. If the government can't make any money off of it then you can't have it.

 

[brodski]

And that's why it is illegal. If the government can't make any money off of it then you can't have it.

Yes, the government was making no money from the sales of booze before prohibition…

And the analogy with booze is appropriate in another respect, homebrew kits have made making your own beer pretty easy, and they probably cost less, and need less user input that a good quality home grow kit, but the breweries are still in business, pumping millions into government coffers.

 

[Dancing David]

As to legalizing pot: do it as soon as a breathalizer (or similarly effective field sobriety test) for weed is perfected. That protects me from "driving while stoned" as effectively as the breathalizer, which meets the "good enough" test.

This is not as likely to happen as much as it might be beneficial to use. The latency of marijuana products in the body is fairly long, the halflife of mj is 3-days. So smoke ten joints, and three days later you will have the equivalent of five joints in your body. Someone who is a 'stoner' may be able to coordinate movements and not lack judgement when stned, someone who has no tolerance or little exposure might get stupid and unco-ordinated from one puff. major road bloak to the breathalyzer idea.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes, the government was making no money from the sales of booze before prohibition…

And the analogy with booze is appropriate in another respect, homebrew kits have made making your own beer pretty easy, and they probably cost less, and need less user input that a good quality home grow kit, but the breweries are still in business, pumping millions into government coffers.

I believe there may be a limit on home production. Like fifty gallons.

 

[Dancing David]

I remember in junior high school, around '72, when the health teacher warned that heavy pot smoking would cause boys to grow breasts. So are we deciding that one is not accurate?

When they demonstrate it was true to begin with? I heard it makes you grow horns.

 

[Dancing David]

How is the gateway drug thing a myth?

I dont know any crackheads or methheads or cokeheads who dont also smoke pot, and didnt start at pot

Everyone with cancer eats tomatos?

All drug user drink alcohol first?

There are statistical studies done of VietNam US soldiers, many went straight to heroin and never smoked marijuana?

 

[Vorticity]

OK, let's sum up what we have so far:

As of this post, the poll results for the question "Should marijuana be made legal?" are:

Yes - 51 (87.93%)
No - 2 (3.45%)
On Planet X, we believe that the burden of proof is on those who want something to be legal. - 5 (8.62%)

So, it looks like the vast majority of those who replied to the poll favor legalization. In fact, these results make it look like the "Keep pot illegal" position is not a "mainstream" position (whatever that means).
Some questions for people:

Does this forum accurately sample the population at large on this topic?

If so, then why is marijuana still illegal?

If not, then what do you think the results of such a poll, nationwide, would be?


Regarding actual, serious arguments against the legalization of pot, these seem to be few and far between in this thread. I'll address what seem to be the best contenders:

Originally posted by tkingdoll
BUT if we argue that we'd want to discourage use, and legalising it would have the opposite effect, then it is better off illegal. That may be the reason it still is, who knows?

I'd argue that if the government wants to discourage use of any harmful substance, the solution is to make information about that substance and its effects freely available, not to make it illegal. If people derive enjoyment from something, are aware of its harmful effects, and still choose to do it, then who is being helped by prohibiting them? (Excluding, of course, scenarios like drunk driving, where the harm also lands on others.)

Originally posted by tkingdoll
Ah, but if being obese was illegal, and the government then made it legal, would it not be condonation then?

Now this gets down to very fundamental questions about the nature and purpose of law, really.

To your question, I'd reply no, all it would mean is that there is no compelling reason for keeping it illegal. Again, just because something is bad doesn't mean it should be illegal. Just because a government doesn't make something illegal, doesn't mean that government is supporting or endorsing it.

Originally posted by Tmy
pot really doesnt have any legit use. Other than to get your high. We frown on highness cause it causes people to do goofy things. Even alcohol has its uses as a food/drink. It only messes you up when you drink to access.

So what if it doesn't have any "legit use"? How is that a basis for law? And who is to say that getting high is not a "legit use"?

As for "doing goofy" things, there are any number of substances that cause that. Furthermore, why should "doing goofy things" necessarily be bad? If governments tried to legislate "doing goofy things", they'd legislate themselves out of existence.

Originally posted by Pardalis
No, simply because it stinks.

I'm not sure if this is supposed to be a serious argument or not. The obvious reply is that there are any number of things and/or people that stink. Shall we outlaw them all?

Originally posted by steverino
I remember in junior high school, around '72, when the health teacher warned that heavy pot smoking would cause boys to grow breasts. So are we deciding that one is not accurate?

Regardless of whether it is accurate or not, I don't see "deleterious health effects" as a valid argument. How many things are harmful to our health and yet legal?

Law should be consistent, as well as rational.

Originally posted by pipelineaudio
How is the gateway drug thing a myth?

I dont know any crackheads or methheads or cokeheads who dont also smoke pot, and didnt start at pot

Ah, the "gateway" thing.

First of all, what does this even mean? That there should be a correlation between marijuana smoking and the use of other illegal drugs should come as no surprise: Someone who is willing to break one drug law is more likely to be willing to break another. Furthermore, it makes sense that such a person should choose pot first. After all, it's easier to get (I think) and less frowned on by society than other drugs.

Correlation does not imply causation. But suppose there was some kind of causal connection. In other words, suppose there was something about marijuana that physiologically caused someone to seek out other illegal drugs (a proposition that I find highly unlikely, and for which there is no evidence). So what? Just because A leads to B, and B is illegal, is no rationale for making A illegal. Just enforce the existing laws against B!


One last point, I note that my poll may be poorly constructed. Perhaps some of the 5 people who voted for my "Planet X" option are serious. I put "we believe that the burden of proof is on those who want something to be legal" as the Planet X option because I thought it was such an absurd point of view that no one would seriously espouse it. Just in case, my response would be:

If the burden of proof is on those who would like something to be legal, then we are lead to the absurd conclusion that compelling arguments must be produced for the legalization of an infinite number of things, a ridiculous requirement! We'd have conversations like:

A: I'm outlawing pie.
B: Why?
A: I don't have to produce reasons why. The burden is on you.
B: But I like pie.
A: Not compelling.

If you think that B's second reply is compelling, then why couldn't the same thing be said of pot? Furthermore, we might then have the following conversation:

A: I'm outlawing pie.
B: Why?
A: I don't have to produce reasons why. The burden is on you.
B: But I like pie.
A: OK, that's compelling. Instead, I'm outlawing pie with sugar in it.

Repeat ad infinitum.

 

[Vorticity]

There are statistical studies done of VietNam US soldiers, many went straight to heroin and never smoked marijuana?

Interesting that you should bring this up, actually. It's slightly off-topic, but:

My father, who served in the army in Vietnam in '67 and '68, has told me that the problem with drugs and Vietnam was that anyone who came there with even the slightest drug habit of any kind had it blown all out of proportion while there. The reason for this was the easy availability of just about anything. You could walk into an "herbal pharmacy" and buy large amounts of marijuana, heroin, opium, anything you can think of, for the equivalent of a handful of pennies. That's one of the reasons why so many people came back so srewed up.

 

[Ziggurat]

Except that despite its uncertain dosage levels, smoked marijuana is still more effective than any oral version for the medicinal purposes for which it's desired. It's like self-administered morphine in the hospital: the patient will know how much is needed.

I think you're conflating two issues: self-dosage and ingestion method. Orally taken drugs, including THC, get absorbed through the intestines and filtered through the liver. The liver metabolizes a significant fraction of many drugs, including THC, which pass through it. Orally ingested THC is therefore less potent than inhaled THC, and so must be administered in correspondingly larger dosages. But nothing about oral ingestion in pill form means that the patient cannot self-dose. Just take more pills. But at least you'll know what your dosage actually is. With inhaled marijuana smoke, neither the patient nor their doctor have any way of monitoring dosage. Which just doesn't make any sense.