The Marijuana Thread

[BPSCG]

Well, no. Maybe that's how you are using it, but most are using it in the sense of "Why can I get drunk but I can't get high?", as if the two products were simply interchangable. They are not. Alcohol has uses which pot simply doesn't have.

You hear a similar line of argument among baseball fans over whether someone belongs in the Hall of Fame or not. The proponents of a marginally qualified player will say, "Well, Fred Lindstrom is in the Hall, so why shouldn't Joe Blow be in?" The problem with that line of reasoning is that it assumes that it wasn't a mistake to elect Lindstrom (it was), and that therefore, anyone who's at least as good as Lindstrom was should be in the HoF, too. If that were the case, the HoF would have thousands of players in it.

What this kind of argument does is set a standard that you may very well not want to set. If marijuana should be legalized because it's not particularly dangerous, then what's the argument against legalizing any mind-altering, hallucinogenic, or mood-altering drug if it's not addictive?

After you legalize marijuana, on the rationale that if someone can get drunk, he should also be allowed to get high, what do you say to the people who say, "If I'm allowed to get drunk, and I'm allowed to get high, why shouldn't I be allowed to hallucinate?"

I know the libertarians here will probably answer that last question with, "Well, why shouldn't I?"

It's a tough call for me. I don't know what the social costs of legalization would be (more stoned driving? more stoned retail store employees becoming even more useless when you need their help than they already are? fewer doctors and engineers and teachers?) vs. the costs of keeping it illegal (criminal justice system expenses). Which is why I voted the Planet X option.

 

[Tony]

It's a tough call for me. I don't know what the social costs of legalization would be (more stoned driving? more stoned retail store employees becoming even more useless when you need their help than they already are? fewer doctors and engineers and teachers?) vs. the costs of keeping it illegal (criminal justice system expenses). Which is why I voted the Planet X option.

Well, what have been the "social costs" of legalization or quasi-legalization in countries that have liberalized their laws on marijuana use?

 

[pgwenthold]

Well, what have been the "social costs" of legalization or quasi-legalization in countries that have liberalized their laws on marijuana use?

I don't know about social costs, but an awful lot of people I know tend to try to schedule a day layover in Amsterdam on their way to and from Europe.

 

[Tony]

I don't know about social costs, but an awful lot of people I know tend to try to schedule a day layover in Amsterdam on their way to and from Europe.

So, what you're essentially saying is that legalization promotes tourism and foreign investment.

 

[AmateurScientist]

So, what you're essentially saying is that legalization promotes tourism and foreign investment.

In all seriousness, there's no question that Amsterdam's lax drug laws are a chief draw for tourism by young persons. There are all over the place, and it is exceedingly easy to get a cheap place to stay on someone's boat for the night. If you are a college student, all you have to do is get off a train into town and within 30 seconds you are accosted by a dozen people offering you a cheap place to stay.

So yes, drugs do boost tourism for Amsterdam. The legal prostitution and the famous red light district don't hurt any.

AS

 

[BPSCG]

So yes, drugs do boost tourism for Amsterdam. The legal prostitution and the famous red light district don't hurt any.

Uh-huh. And gambling and legalized prostitution attract people to Las Vegas. But how many people move there for the gambling and hookers?

I suppose if Alexandria, Virginia were somehow able to legalize pot so that people could travel here and light up, that would help the local tourist trade. But if it's legal everywhere, and you don't have to travel to get it, why would someone come here to get high?

Sorry - "It helps the tourist economy" is a boat that don't float.

 

[BPSCG]

Well, what have been the "social costs" of legalization or quasi-legalization in countries that have liberalized their laws on marijuana use?

Well, The Netherlands is full of murderous Muslim fanatics now...

 

[hgc]

Well, The Netherlands is full of murderous Muslim fanatics now...

And the tulip crop failed too. Cannibis: the cause of all destruction.

 

[AmateurScientist]

Uh-huh. And gambling and legalized prostitution attract people to Las Vegas. But how many people move there for the gambling and hookers?

I suppose if Alexandria, Virginia were somehow able to legalize pot so that people could travel here and light up, that would help the local tourist trade. But if it's legal everywhere, and you don't have to travel to get it, why would someone come here to get high?

Sorry - "It helps the tourist economy" is a boat that don't float.

Jeez Beeps, it wasn't an argument for decriminalization of pot; it was simply a factual observation. It's just a fact that lots of kids take a detour to Amsterdam while vacationing in Europe solely to get and take easy to get drugs there, primarily pot and hash.

AS

 

[BPSCG]

Jeez Beeps, it wasn't an argument for decriminalization of pot; it was simply a factual observation. It's just a fact that lots of kids take a detour to Amsterdam while vacationing in Europe solely to get and take easy to get drugs there, primarily pot and hash.

AS

Sorry, that post was aimed at pgwenthold. You just got in the way.

...note to self - stop taking shooting lessons from Dick Cheney...

 

[pgwenthold]

Jeez Beeps, it wasn't an argument for decriminalization of pot; it was simply a factual observation. It's just a fact that lots of kids take a detour to Amsterdam while vacationing in Europe solely to get and take easy to get drugs there, primarily pot and hash.

AS

I don't remember saying anything about kids...

 

[Tony]

Well, The Netherlands is full of murderous Muslim fanatics now...

There haven't been any fatal mountain lion attacks either. All because of weed.

 

[slingblade]

fewer doctors and engineers and teachers?

Allow me to blow your mind: teachers don't get drug-tested. We get FBI background checks and fingerprinted, but no whiz-quiz.

I cannot tell you how shocked I was. I even offered to test and put it on file, just cuz I thought that info would benefit all of us. I was told not to be silly.

 

[Trantor]

OK. So? Do you think marijuana should be legal? IOW, if it were legal, the employees at your company who would have tested positive, would, of course, not be tested in the first place. Are you saying such testing is important for safety issues, or that such testing is pointless?

In my opinion, If alcohol is legal, then I see no good reason for marijuana to be illegal. Drug testing generally catches the marijuana user, while leaving the users of harder substances untouched. Also, I didn't even mention another serious substance problem - prescription drugs, especially pain killers. It is not difficult to get them, they are addictive, and they are far more powerful then marijuana.

 

[BPSCG]

fewer doctors and engineers and teachers?)

Allow me to blow your mind: teachers don't get drug-tested. We get FBI background checks and fingerprinted, but no whiz-quiz.

I cannot tell you how shocked I was. I even offered to test and put it on file, just cuz I thought that info would benefit all of us. I was told not to be silly.

That wasn't quite where I was going. I was suggesting that with more stoners, we'd have fewer people able to do work that requires good education, reasoning abilities, etc.

But looking on the bright side, we'd have a lot more people who could work at McDonald's!

 

[Vorticity]

I fixed it for you:

I was suggesting that with more drunks, we'd have fewer people able to do work that requires good education, reasoning abilities, etc.

Bring back the Volstead Act?

 

[BPSCG]

I fixed it for you:

Bring back the Volstead Act?

Gets back to my earlier point. Is the fact that one substance that impairs your thinking, judgement, and motor skills is legal sufficient justification to make another substance that impairs your thinking, judgement, and motor skills legal?

Is it sufficient justification to make any and all substances that impair your thinking, judgement, and motor skills legal?

 

[steverino]

Also, I didn't even mention another serious substance problem - prescription drugs, especially pain killers. It is not difficult to get them, they are addictive, and they are far more powerful then marijuana.

Prescription pain killer drugs are illegal, too. What are you talking about?
I can't legally abuse valium.

 

[brodski]

Gets back to my earlier point. Is the fact that one substance that impairs your thinking, judgement, and motor skills is legal sufficient justification to make another substance that impairs your thinking, judgement, and motor skills legal?

Is it sufficient justification to make any and all substances that impair your thinking, judgement, and motor skills legal?

You're right the slippery slope slopes both ways, as it where. But do you take the position that something should be illegal until there is reason to make it legal?

 

[mmiller]

Years ago I used to work for a large construction company where I was in charge of the HR Department. On one of our projects, our clients decided that even thou the project was underway and the crew was hard at work, they wanted the crew tested for illegel drugs. The outcome was predictable -the entire crew, including the crew supervisors were terminated. All were marijuana positives. Sad, but true.

Wow. How incredibly short sighted! I hope that your construction company charged the client for the time and effort required to replace the whole crew. Was the client really that interested in not seeing the work progress?