Opinion on Marijuana and smoking.

[Mark6]

This thread, which seemed to have started simply as a troll, has turned into an interesting stance about smoking regular cigarettes and how strongly people feel about it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=205589

It leads me to think: it seems to me that the people who are for a blanket ban on smoking regular cigarettes are for the legalization of marijuana and the people who are against a blanket ban (even open up the laws more) are against the legalization of marijuana.

So far not a single person who wants to ban either has commented.

 

[Joey McGee]

Politically, calling out for banning at this point would be a bad move.

After the Dems took the house in 2006 we see a steady, ever-increasing rise. At this rate the pro-legalization side will gain 12-15 points in 10 years. With Obama the former Buddha-head a shoo-in for another 4 years, it's pretty much a done deal.

Also, the 4 in 10 people who support legalization correlates with the 4 in 10 people who have actually smoked it. Shocking, really

 

[ArcturusA]

I don't think either tobacco or marijuana should be banned outright, but I do think there should be some restrictions on their use. But since the research seems to show (AFAIK) that marijuana isn't any more dangerous than tobacco, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be subject to similar laws. I think it's pretty ridiculous that its an offence to carry or smoke pot.

As for the restrictions I mentioned earlier, I like the situation we have the in UK currently. I much prefer the clean air we have in pubs and restaurants these days, and so I'm in favour of maintaining a ban on smoking (both tobacco and pot) in enclosed or busy public spaces. I've got no problem with people smoking in wide open spaces like parks and in the street, though..

 

[Dani]

My opinion:

If you mean totally banned, neither of the two.

If you mean banned in public indoor spaces, both.

 

[Swagomatic]

High people piss me off, drunk people piss me off, smokers piss me off. I am against banning any of it, though, as long as I can eat in a restaurant without some stoned drunk blowing his cigarette smoke in my face.

 

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

I think all drugs should be legal but subject to regulation. Banning things that so many people seem to want just never works out very well.

 

[pipelineaudio]

It leads me to think: it seems to me that the people who are for a blanket ban on smoking regular cigarettes are for the legalization of marijuana.

I've claimed this and been met with scornful derision on this forum many times. Strangely alcohol is often put on the tobacco side as well

and the people who are against a blanket ban (even open up the laws more) are against the legalization of marijuana.

In regular life I don't see this one as much as the other stance. People who want pot banned seem to want it banned whether they smoke or not

 

[Joey McGee]

I'm for banning ideological reasoning, can we enforce that?

Regulating a plant is the stupidest joke ever. Beyond the right to not have to have it in your face, or around your kids at a playground, you have no right to tell me what to do with a plant. They will first try and regulate the sale, the quality, the source, , the tax, just the worst reasoning ever. It's going to be really sad to see the stiffs in suits try and please their aging constituents with this one. A really, sad joke. Almost as stupid as busting a little kids lemonade stand. Seriously!

 

[portlandatheist]

I'm for banning ideological reasoning, can we enforce that?

Regulating a plant is the stupidest joke ever. Beyond the right to not have to have it in your face, or around your kids at a playground, you have no right to tell me what to do with a plant. They will first try and regulate the sale, the quality, the source, , the tax, just the worst reasoning ever. It's going to be really sad to see the stiffs in suits try and please their aging constituents with this one. A really, sad joke. Almost as stupid as busting a little kids lemonade stand. Seriously!

Totally agree. In the debate whether things should be legal or illegal, both opponents and proponents talk about the relative dangers and safety but few address a simple fundamental problem and that is that there is no hope of effective enforcement, regardless of how well intentioned the law may be. The inability to enforce these laws and the uneven nature of the consequences of breaking the law only builds contempt.

 

[mysteronyx]

I have a thought experiment going on in my head. How about these scenarios:

Marijuana would be legalized, but one or more of the following mandates would be enforced:

1. Registered businesses would not be allowed to sell it.

2. Registered businesses would be allowed to sell but not advertise it in any way (signs, TV ads, newspaper ads, radio ads, etc). It would simply have a place in the store with a price tag.

3. Smoking it in public areas would not be allowed. Private areas would have the option.

4. Public intoxication, toking and driving, and intoxication in the work place would not be allowed.

I wonder what impact it would have for businesses to be barred from either selling it or advertising it. My current train of thought is that I disagree with completely banning a plant; but I don't know if I support the commercial advertising of it.

 

[Joey McGee]

I have a thought experiment going on in my head. How about these scenarios:

Marijuana would be legalized, but one or more of the following mandates would be enforced:

1. Registered businesses would not be allowed to sell it.

2. Registered businesses would be allowed to sell but not advertise it in any way (signs, TV ads, newspaper ads, radio ads, etc). It would simply have a place in the store with a price tag.

3. Smoking it in public areas would not be allowed. Private areas would have the option.

4. Public intoxication, toking and driving, and intoxication in the work place would not be allowed.

I wonder what impact it would have for businesses to be barred from either selling it or advertising it. My current train of thought is that I disagree with completely banning a plant; but I don't know if I support the commercial advertising of it.

I agree with your concerns about advertising, assuming you mean to protect children and the generally vulnerable from being influenced by glamor instead of a science-based, health conscious decision to use the plant. People need to know that not everyone responds well to it. You might reject it one year, but enjoy it the next and vice versa. Maybe your brain changed or you aren't sick anymore. You might get allergic to it, or develop a rare syndrome. These are just the well-documented facts it's kind of stupid that people don't know about it. Wow, who's fault is that? But this is about being rational, and to treat pot different from liquor is beneath us. It would be stupid, I daresay humiliating to humanity to do so.

I am also concerned for communities that end up with an unwanted element due to clusters of these shops. I mean, objectively, sometimes it is a real, unnecessary disturbance. If the culture was normalized to it and it was available every major hub like liquor, this would be minimal so in the meantime I support regulating where they are cropping up, and trying to guide the first few waves into healthy locations for the community. You can't just set up a liquor store anywhere you want in most places either.

So unless you're for a) not educating the public perfectly on all known science regarding cannabis b) changing the laws on alcohol c) trying to prove pot is somehow more dangerous and frightening than alcohol is in it's medically optimized form (as all alcohol sold is) you'll have to agree with me that radical legalization and tolerance is the only rational outcome. Plus, alcohol is only banned in public because it makes people violent. If you're not bothering someone with the smell or smoke society has no right to say "I don't like what you're doing so you're not allowed to do it where people can see you" The rational thing to do is say you can't smoke it where some person might inhale some. A tiny bit of smoke inhaled standing beside someone at a bustop could be enough to have an effect on your mind sometimes. People shouldn't be ignorant of other people's right not to have an involuntary psychedelic experiences however mild or barely noticeable. And they shouldn't have to be creeped out worried bout that. So in public places sure but a good distance away from anyone else. Just how most people do it in the park now anyway.

Another huge problem is strains, if we have medical scientists growing pot, people won't be going crazy and stuff because the chemical components will be balanced etc. Some of the weed that goes around looks high-quality but it just blows your mind apart because there is next to no CBD or something. People generally know virtually nothing about strains and the realities of what they are smoking. When they find out they are seriously pissed. It's my favorite argument for legalization, mostly because I like thinking about all of those marvelous strains. If you could rewrite history where every person who ever smoked it got the best possible quality, people would have a radically different vision of what the plant does.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

I voted for both to be banned in a perfect world, but realistically, as long as I don't have to smell either, I don't care.

 

[JFrankA]

I have a thought experiment going on in my head. How about these scenarios:

Marijuana would be legalized, but one or more of the following mandates would be enforced:

1. Registered businesses would not be allowed to sell it.

2. Registered businesses would be allowed to sell but not advertise it in any way (signs, TV ads, newspaper ads, radio ads, etc). It would simply have a place in the store with a price tag.

3. Smoking it in public areas would not be allowed. Private areas would have the option.

4. Public intoxication, toking and driving, and intoxication in the work place would not be allowed.

I wonder what impact it would have for businesses to be barred from either selling it or advertising it. My current train of thought is that I disagree with completely banning a plant; but I don't know if I support the commercial advertising of it.

You know, the US has all of those restrictions on marijuana already - except for number two and the last part of number three. If number two and the last part of number three were made to be legal, then nothing else would change.

For tobacco, all of them are true except for, again, the last part of number three. The first part of number three may be coming true soon.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

There are actually advertisements for Medical Marijuana here. And I've had to yell at someone trying to sell it in the store before.

 

[JFrankA]

There are actually advertisements for Medical Marijuana here. And I've had to yell at someone trying to sell it in the store before.

Oh, okay.

I stand corrected on number 2 and marijuana.

Why did you have to yell at someone? Sorry, I am not understanding what you said.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

No soliciting in our store. (I was the clerk on duty)

Also, my company bans all drug users, even if it's legal (which is illegal, ha!)

 

[JFrankA]

No soliciting in our store. (I was the clerk on duty)

Also, my company bans all drug users, even if it's legal (which is illegal, ha!)

Including Acetaminophen? Caffeine?

 

[Travis]

I've never used it. I don't have any particular plans to try it. But I can't really see why it should be illegal.


By the way has anyone seen the TV ads for medical marijuana dispensaries here in California? They are a tidal wave of cliches and stereotypes right down to a hippy van and 420 actually being in the website name.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I voted for both to be banned in a perfect world,

Marijuana is already banned in my imperfect world, so we're halfway there already. And in time, I think tobacco will go the same way.

Tobacco firms are some of the worst drug pushers out there, they will do anything they can to get young people hooked on their cancer sticks.

Tobacco firms eye Facebook push

"tobacco companies will divert their marketing efforts into unregulated channels, such as internet social networks and product placement in entertainment media, such as Facebook, YouTube, films and video games"

 

[mysteronyx]

You know, the US has all of those restrictions on marijuana already - except for number two and the last part of number three. If number two and the last part of number three were made to be legal, then nothing else would change.

The basic idea is that people would be allowed to grow and use marijuana privately, which is currently illegal and takes up a lot of police / court time and money.