The Marijuana Thread

[brodski]

I keep hearing this argument. And while I agree that pot is probably less dangerous than alcohol, and certainly less dangerous than tobacco, I don't understand how that becomes a justification for its legalization.

"Smoke dope: It probably won't kill you."

Ideological consistency.

Drugs laws are about the government legislating to protect people from themselves.
If we do not accept that as a valid use of legislative power, then all drugs should be legal, if we do accept that as a valid sue of legislative power, then there need to be some criteria by which various substances are judged in decide whether they should be legal or illegal.

If someone where to argue that cannabis should be banned (or remain banned) because it is dangerous, it would be logical to extend that ban to all substances which are as, or more, dangerous than cannabis.
If The point of the legislation is to protect people from dangerous substances, wouldn't it make more sense to start with the most dangerous first. If banning cannabis has nothing to do with protecting the public, then why sit i banned?

Now, this argument doesn’t actually support the legalisation of cannabis by itself, it could also be used to support the banning of alcohol and tobacco (and possibly caffeine). But suggest that to most people and they will counter with "but prohibition didn't work". To which the legalisation advocate will answer "yes, and your point is…"

 

[bigred]

Thanks for the ad hom Big Red!

Likewise!

I am an ex-user.

Likewise.

I have not encouraged use, I am making the point that there is no good reason to keep marijuana illegal. It is much less harmful than alcohol.

If that's your best shot at justification for legalization, don't become a lawyer.

This is a bulletin board for people who like to argue after all.

At least in part. We agree on that much.

Evidence and data

Links have already been given for evidence and a 'net search would provide plenty more if you really want it. If all you're interested in is "winning the argument," I'll concede your victory and let's get back to the discussion, OK? Really though, if you're an ex-user, you have plenty of evidence already so pls let's not play that game; it's a waste of time as you very well know what I say is true.

Uh huh and it is short term but of course alcohol toxicty lasts a life time?

"Evidence and data" Actually I'm not sure what you mean there, can you clarify pls. Alcohol certainly does not stay in your system forever.

and so what are the benefits of alcohol?

In moderation, there are in fact health benefits...but for the sake of argument, let's say none. So? Is this yet another one of those "2 wrongs make a right" justifications?

If people use cocaine and never smoke marijuans what does that mean?

It could mean a lot of things, but I'd be curious to see some study/polls on that very topic. I think you would find most by far have used both, with most of those having tried pot first.

What is the majority of people who use cocaine used alocholo first in thier lifes.

Couldn't say for sure, but I'd bet heavy money the % is notably less than the coke/pot combo. But again, when you get down to it, so what? This "but alcohol is bad too" is an weak justification for legalization.

Is going to church a gateway to drugs use.

Oh joy another lame shot at religion. giggle giggle. I guess you're back to bouncing all over the place.

Tomatos cause cancer?

uhhh no. But you go ahead and keep dancing if it makes you happy.

And BTW you doubt on the lethality of alcohol withdrawl is foolish. Why don't you call your local detox center and ask them?

Because it was a lot easier to ask here. Excuse me for asking a question. And given the extreme rarity of such an event, it's hardly "foolish." Talking about justification for legalization of pot by suggesting tomatos cause cancer and religion makes people do drugs, however.....

In another thread we have you doubting the medicaly established fact that alcohol withdrawl can lead to death.

um no, it was the same thread actually. In fact, you'd already addressed this above.


But you go Dancin Dave!

 

[BPSCG]

If someone where to argue that cannabis should be banned (or remain banned) because it is dangerous, it would be logical to extend that ban to all substances which are as, or more, dangerous than cannabis.
If The point of the legislation is to protect people from dangerous substances, wouldn't it make more sense to start with the most dangerous first. If banning cannabis has nothing to do with protecting the public, then why sit i banned?

Emphasis mine.

Problem is, we aren't starting. Tobacco is legal now, even though it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to provide a fix for an addiction. You could argue that tobacco should not be legal, that legalization (or, rather, the failure to make it illegal before it became popular) was a mistake.

That failure, combined with tobacco's relative popularity, makes criminalization impossible now. Using that mistake as the justification for legalizing another substance on the grounds that it's less dangerous, is a weak argument.

 

[brodski]

Emphasis mine.

Problem is, we aren't starting. Tobacco is legal now, even though it serves no purpose whatsoever other than to provide a fix for an addiction. You could argue that tobacco should not be legal, that legalization (or, rather, the failure to make it illegal before it became popular) was a mistake.

That failure, combined with tobacco's relative popularity, makes criminalization impossible now. Using that mistake as the justification for legalizing another substance on the grounds that it's less dangerous, is a weak argument.

Making tobacco illegal, or alcohol illegal isn't impossible. All that's lacking is the political will.
However as your nation demonstrated to the world, in the early 20th century banning popular drugs just pushes use underground, supports organised crime and doesn’t dramatically reduce the social problems associated with the drug.

Just as the continued illegal status of cannabis has not supped people from using it, but has meant that all revenue from cannabis goes to criminals, usually organised.

Now I agree that the "it's not as bad as alcohol" argument isn't the strongest arguments in favour of legalisation on its own, however it does serve to put the risks and costs of use into context. Especially given the amount of disinformation out there by those who draw an artificial diving line between legal and illegal drugs, with the assumption that one category will mess your life up but the other is perfectly fine .

 

[bigred]

Ideological consistency.

Drugs laws are about the government legislating to protect people from themselves.
If we do not accept that as a valid use of legislative power, then all drugs should be legal, if we do accept that as a valid sue of legislative power, then there need to be some criteria by which various substances are judged in decide whether they should be legal or illegal.

If someone where to argue that cannabis should be banned (or remain banned) because it is dangerous, it would be logical to extend that ban to all substances which are as, or more, dangerous than cannabis.
If The point of the legislation is to protect people from dangerous substances, wouldn't it make more sense to start with the most dangerous first. If banning cannabis has nothing to do with protecting the public, then why sit i banned?

Now, this argument doesn’t actually support the legalisation of cannabis by itself, it could also be used to support the banning of alcohol and tobacco (and possibly caffeine). But suggest that to most people and they will counter with "but prohibition didn't work". To which the legalisation advocate will answer "yes, and your point is…"

....the point is....well you could make 2 points here I think...

1 - Alcohol is only dangerous when abused. Many people drink alcohol in moderation and it's not only not harmful, but physically beneficial. Even in small doses, pot provides no health benefit (extreme cases notwithstanding of course, for which exceptions are already being made).

2 - As I mentioned earlier, while I agree it's inconsistent/unfair/whatever, alcohol gets a "free pass" due to being so ingrained in our culture since even long before we were a country. If our country was created from a split off of Jamaica, it would've been legalized long ago.


Anyway, nice post.

The thing I've little doubt most people who think it should be be legalized think so because they want to be able to smoke it and not worry about getting busted; I wish they'd just admit it. (in fact if you'd talked to me many years ago and I would've been one of them)

 

[jimlintott]

I keep hearing this argument. And while I agree that pot is probably less dangerous than alcohol, and certainly less dangerous than tobacco, I don't understand how that becomes a justification for its legalization.

"Smoke dope: It probably won't kill you."

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"

It's about the freedom of personal choice.

I like alcohol in small amounts but in larger amounts it puts me to sleep and makes me feel ill. As I mentioned before many people cannot use alcohol due to medical reasons. I and many others would like the freedom to choose pot as a recreational drug.

The thing I've little doubt most people who think it should be be legalized think so because they want to be able to smoke it and not worry about getting busted; I wish they'd just admit it. (in fact if you'd talked to me many years ago and I would've been one of them)

I'll admit it. I would like the personal freedom to choose a recreational drug that is better suited to my own physiology without encountering legal problems.

I don't buy the concept of gateway drug. I think the term sounds too much like transitional fossil. If everyone who tried pot or cigarrettes (the first drug I ever tried) went on to harder drugs then the term might be valid. I believe the reality is that for each hard drug addict there is a different story on how they got there. Calling pot a gateway drug is simply an attempt to make it look bad.

 

[BPSCG]

business objects

I like alcohol in small amounts but in larger amounts it puts me to sleep and makes me feel ill. As I mentioned before many people cannot use alcohol due to medical reasons. I and many others would like the freedom to choose pot as a recreational drug.

So your argument essentially boils down to, "It should be legal because I want it."

That being the case, do you believe there are any drugs that should not be legal, if someone, somewhere wants to use them?

I would like the freedom to choose heroin as a recreational drug.

 

[steverino]

Folks here keep busting me for making only emotional, not scientific arguments. Maybe these people have not read my earlier posts on this thread. I have supplied links to show the harms of marijuana. I even brought SLINGBLADE into this argument with her data to help support my claim that marijuana is not a gateway drug.

I am being mischaracterized and am not sure why. My main points are:

1) Marijuana is physically and mentally harmful to some who smoke it.
2) Marijuana is not as harmful as heroin, (or a heroine. )
3) With all the evidence that alcohol can be harmful, why embrace another substance problem?

4) Medical marijuana should be legal and acceptable. We are discussing recreational use here.

We all add our emotional POV on this forum, in addition to the evidence. I brought up my brother who fried his brains out with pot. Others talked about their children, mother, brother, cousin, etc. Why I am singled out for anecdotes I do not know.

 

[Dancing David]

I keep hearing this argument. And while I agree that pot is probably less dangerous than alcohol, and certainly less dangerous than tobacco, I don't understand how that becomes a justification for its legalization.

"Smoke dope: It probably won't kill you."

I agree, yet I recall that the original post requested that people give a reason to keep mj illegal.

And I don't understand why if much worse drugs are openly tolerated and encouraged, mj should remain illegal. If mj is illegal because of the potential societal cost then it makes no sense. I am not saying that there are any good reasons to make it legal, otehr than generating more revenue for government and removing any contact from the drug cartels. But if we tolerate alcohol and tobacco use, it doesn't makes sense that mj should be illegal just 'because'. Gambling and compulsive spending are dangerous habits as well.

And it is a lame argument to say that laws should have some sort of legal sense in terms of the application of laws. That laws should be equal in some sense would make an even worse hodge podge of the existing mish mash. It is a matter for the Cnogress and courts to resolve, if they choose to do so.

Unlike many in past discussions I do not believe that all substances should be made legal.

However, evidence that suggests if mj makes it dangerous to drive should be ressearched before legalization would occur.

 

[Dancing David]

Likewise!

Likewise.


If that's your best shot at justification for legalization, don't become a lawyer.

I do understand the law better than that, and as I said to Beeps, the idea that laws should be consistant would make little sense.

The justification for making it legal is equal to the justification for keeping it illegal. They are both poor arguments.

At least in part. We agree on that much.


Links have already been given for evidence and a 'net search would provide plenty more if you really want it.

On this board the burden is on those who make the claim, not on those who doubt it. If there is some pressing medical and societal danger from marijuana use , let us see it and evaluate it.

Drinving in traffic gives some people panic attacks, shouls we outlaw driving?

Yeah, I know, don't ask for the law to be consistant.

If all you're interested in is "winning the argument," I'll concede your victory and let's get back to the discussion, OK? Really though, if you're an ex-user, you have plenty of evidence already so pls let's not play that game; it's a waste of time as you very well know what I say is true.

And the evidence that I see is that most of the mj users I know keep the law , go to work, love thier families, pay thier bills and are not a burden to society. But it is a limited sample.

"Evidence and data" Actually I'm not sure what you mean there, can you clarify pls. Alcohol certainly does not stay in your system forever.

yes but the death of brain cells is permanent. Although most of the damgae caused by alcohol is result of the lack of vitamin B leading to nerve damage along with the alcohol toxicty.

In moderation, there are in fact health benefits...but for the sake of argument, let's say none. So? Is this yet another one of those "2 wrongs make a right" justifications?

I have agreed that the two wrongs don't make a right is not a valid point and than one should expect consistancy from the law.

But the question is "Why should marijuana be illegal?"

It could mean a lot of things, but I'd be curious to see some study/polls on that very topic. I think you would find most by far have used both, with most of those having tried pot first.

Most people use alcohol first, and eat tomatos and go to church before they smoke marijuana. that is the problem with the gateway term, it is meaningless.

Correlation hasn't been proven much less causation.

Couldn't say for sure, but I'd bet heavy money the % is notably less than the coke/pot combo. But again, when you get down to it, so what? This "but alcohol is bad too" is an weak justification for legalization.

them what is the reason for it to be illegal?

Oh joy another lame shot at religion. giggle giggle. I guess you're back to bouncing all over the place.

it is a shot at the gateway theory. Everyone makes the same lame argument.

Religion doesn't need any shots. I could have chosen something more innocent: ridin bikes is a gateway to drug use?

uhhh no. But you go ahead and keep dancing if it makes you happy.


Because it was a lot easier to ask here. Excuse me for asking a question. And given the extreme rarity of such an event, it's hardly "foolish." Talking about justification for legalization of pot by suggesting tomatos cause cancer and religion makes people do drugs, however.....

But saying, "I doubt it". while sceptical is not much of an argument. Alcohol related death due to withdrawl is a real thing, the major damage is much slower and not usualy lethal.

um no, it was the same thread actually. In fact, you'd already addressed this above.


But you go Dancin Dave!

Because of my work schedule and family I don't dance as much anymore!

But I feel that if it makes you happy to think that flexibilty makes one wrong, that is cool.

 

[Dancing David]

....the point is....well you could make 2 points here I think...

1 - Alcohol is only dangerous when abused. Many people drink alcohol in moderation and it's not only not harmful, but physically beneficial. Even in small doses, pot provides no health benefit (extreme cases notwithstanding of course, for which exceptions are already being made).

2 - As I mentioned earlier, while I agree it's inconsistent/unfair/whatever, alcohol gets a "free pass" due to being so ingrained in our culture since even long before we were a country. If our country was created from a split off of Jamaica, it would've been legalized long ago.


Anyway, nice post.

The thing I've little doubt most people who think it should be be legalized think so because they want to be able to smoke it and not worry about getting busted; I wish they'd just admit it. (in fact if you'd talked to me many years ago and I would've been one of them)

I am not sure of that, I personal would not want to have a pregnancy terminated that i was involved in. But then I do feel other people should have the right to medicaly terminate preganancy.

Alcohol should remain legal.

 

[Dancing David]

Why I am singled out for anecdotes I do not know.

Because we like you! We only pick on the smart posters. Baiting trolls is no fun.

 

[Wheezebucket]

Why do you suppose your mom hid her marijuana use from you?

For a lot of reasons really, but mostly just because of some bad information and worse advice. It wasn't really easy for her to admit it at first because she had been convinced over the years that it was something she SHOULD hide for some reason, and not just from me. But she finally did decide to stop lying to me and to herself, and we're all better off for it. I've helped her stop punishing herself for no reason whatsoever and relieve some stress, and she's taught me how to conserve properly and roll a decent joint, and that stereotypes are rarely all they're cracked up to be.

I'm thinking of getting her a vaporizer for her birthday.

 

[jimlintott]

So your argument essentially boils down to, "It should be legal because I want it."

No, it boils down to I would like to choose my own poison. Instead of being legally restricted to a single poison.

That being the case, do you believe there are any drugs that should not be legal, if someone, somewhere wants to use them?

This really is an excellent point and probably the crux of this whole debate. No I don't think it should just be a free for all. I don't think we need people at pharmacies ordering up party favours for Friday night. Where and who draws the line are important. With alcohol being the popular, legal recreational drug I have no problem with using it as a baseline. Similar or less harmful gets legalised and handled like booze.

As to who draws the line. It shouldn't be the DEA or ATF or any law enforcement agency but I think a group like the FDA are probably in a good position to draw the lines.

We'd probably have to grandfather in tobacco as it is likely to fail miserably. Highly addictive and slowly kills you should fall on the bad side of the line.

I would like the freedom to choose heroin as a recreational drug.

I support that freedom. I'm not expert enough to say whether heroin would become legal under my 'draw the line' plan.

 

[steverino]

Because we like you! We only pick on the smart posters. Baiting trolls is no fun.

Hey, thanks. In that case, keep on pickin'!

 

[steverino]

... she's taught me how to conserve properly and roll a decent joint.

I'm thinking of getting her a vaporizer for her birthday.

That's very touching. Evokes a Norman Rockwell painting.

 

[brodski]

....the point is....well you could make 2 points here I think...

1 - Alcohol is only dangerous when abused. Many people drink alcohol in moderation and it's not only not harmful, but physically beneficial. Even in small doses, pot provides no health benefit (extreme cases notwithstanding of course, for which exceptions are already being made).

And tobacco?

2 - As I mentioned earlier, while I agree it's inconsistent/unfair/whatever, alcohol gets a "free pass" due to being so ingrained in our culture since even long before we were a country. If our country was created from a split off of Jamaica, it would've been legalized long ago.

But in your nation, alcohol was specifically legalized, because it was shown that prohibition did not work. Now you are facing a similar situation with other drugs. Appeals to history don't favor the prohibitionists...

Anyway, nice post.

thanks

The thing I've little doubt most people who think it should be be legalized think so because they want to be able to smoke it and not worry about getting busted; I wish they'd just admit it. (in fact if you'd talked to me many years ago and I would've been one of them)

Well, even if that where true, that's not an argument against legalization.
there are those that argue for increased speed limits (indeed one of them appears to have started a bombing campaign in the UK, but i digress)
But you wouldn't say that arguments about raising the speed limit to 80 all wrong because most of the people who make them are people who want to drive at 80mph without getting busted.

I also don't think that your generalizations generally true , you have a whole range of people supporting legalization, including those who smoke dope, those edging towards (or at) the libertarian end of the political spectrum, those that want drug enforcement focused on the more socially destructive drugs (it was actually the latter of these which lead to the almost, sort of- but the gov won't really admit it, de facto decriminalization of cannabis in this country).

 

[bigred]

I am not saying that there are any good reasons to make it legal, otehr than generating more revenue for government and removing any contact from the drug cartels.

Actually I think reduced crime is probably the best "pro MJ" argument (revenue generation isn't per se but would be a benefit also).

But if we tolerate alcohol and tobacco use, it doesn't makes sense that mj should be illegal just 'because'. Gambling and compulsive spending are dangerous habits as well.

Except that it's not "just because." The reasoning behind that has been explained numerous times here....

However, evidence that suggests if mj makes it dangerous to drive should be ressearched before legalization would occur. I

doubt that that would matter to the pro-MJ camp anyway, because again the argument of "well alcohol does that or worse and it's still legal" etc.

 

[Wheezebucket]

That's very touching. Evokes a Norman Rockwell painting.

Well it's no vaccuum, but I think she'd like it.

 

[bigred]

I do understand the law better than that, and as I said to Beeps, the idea that laws should be consistant would make little sense.

Not following.....I thought the whole "alcohol and tobacco are drugs and bad so they should get same treatment as MJ" was aimed at having legal consistency - ??

The justification for making it legal is equal to the justification for keeping it illegal. They are both poor arguments.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

On this board the burden is on those who make the claim, not on those who doubt it. If there is some pressing medical and societal danger from marijuana use , let us see it and evaluate it.

I could turn that around and say the claim has been made that MJ is (relatively) safe and where's the proof of that, but anyway the medical issues have already been covered and again while I have no concrete proof of "societal danger" (conveniently hard to prove anyway) I think anyone who can walk and chew gum at the same time that knows anything about MJ and isn't burying their head in the sand dune of pro-MJ bias knows darn well the dangers (though to what degree is of course debatable).

Drinving in traffic gives some people panic attacks, shouls we outlaw driving?

Weak analogy which I'm sure you know.

And the evidence that I see is that most of the mj users I know keep the law , go to work, love thier families, pay thier bills and are not a burden to society. But it is a limited sample.

Fair enough.

yes but the death of brain cells is permanent. Although most of the damgae caused by alcohol is result of the lack of vitamin B leading to nerve damage along with the alcohol toxicty.

Alcohol ABUSE, I think you mean. Brain cells killed and nerve damage done by light-to-moderate drinking is quite negligible.

I have agreed that the two wrongs don't make a right is not a valid point and than one should expect consistancy from the law.

Sorry missed it, thx for the correction.

Most people use alcohol first, and eat tomatos and go to church before they smoke marijuana. that is the problem with the gateway term, it is meaningless.

Hardly. Whether one agrees that MJ qualifies or not, lesser drugs leading to harder ones (ie the whole gateway thing) does exist. Tomatos/etc leading to drug use does not.

them what is the reason for it to be illegal?

Sorry I'm not into repeating what I or others have already said; this has already been covered.