The Recreational Drug Thread (member, quote, memory, 2005, hands)

[joyboyo53]

ok let me explain. just because you quote a 'study' doesnt make it fact. tobacco companies had studies proving that it didnt cause cancer for decades. so just because i dont back up every claim with some worthless internet study doesnt really mean anything. furthermore, people who have vested intrest in drug control, arent really reliable candidates for making such studies.

Originally Posted by toretorden

Your claim that alcohol consumption didn't go down with prohibition is just a claim and I see no reason to believe it so far. It might be true, but remember that I'm not an american, so I don't know how successful prohibitions have been in your country.

read up and see how successful prohibition was.

Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by toretorden

You say a lot of "innocents" are incarcerated. Actually, I checked it up, and the punishment for using marijuana are not that hard. If a cop finds you with a joint, you get a fine - you don't go to prison. There are also drug courts in America where people are given treatment rather than jail time. The people who go to jail are often dealers and almost always have criminal records from before.

did you read the part about mandatory minimum sentences for repeat offenders? because im pretty sure being a repeat offender doesnt exactly make you a real criminal. the real reason that there is so many people in rehab, is because that is a false statistic created by the dea. they were really sneaky, they made it so that you could opt for rehab instead of jail... that way they can go around saying "look at this huge problem, all these people are in rehab for this terrible drug" when in fact they were just looking for another way to villianize it. a real study is one that is objective, not done by someone whos job depends on making sure there is someone to police.

Originally Posted by toretorden

You also make the argument that prohibiting marijuana is costful to society. You have to remember that legalizing marijuana will probably lead to more use and thus also have a cost on society. Some studies expect higher occurrence of schizophrenia, depression, cognitive deficits and also significantly higher risk in people for developing dependency on other more dangerous drugs like heroin and cocaine. Those drugs will, of course, also cost society.

once again, look back at prohibiton. see in the effect on society where it say

"The cost of enforcing Prohibition was high, and the lack of tax revenues on alcohol (some $500 million annually nationwide) affected government coffers."

Prohibition in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

those same risk are risk assosciated with many LEGAL drugs in the united states, even over the counter substances. if your really worried about how legality of the drug effects consumption take a look at the netherlands. fewer people smoke marijuana there, where its legal, than they do in america. you know studies have also shown that people who smoke cigarettes and drink alchohol are also at a higher risk for trying those same substances... maybe it says something about the persons personality and not the drug itself... maybe we should treat the problem, not the symptom.

Originally Posted by toretorden

If you don't believe marijuana is harmful for people, you should look at this article that predicts a serious increase in schizophrenia with increased marijuana use.

Erowid

go get some real education about drugs before you post one more article like you have done some in depth personal research.

Originally Posted by toretorden

Furthermore, you say it's less harmful than alcohol and cigarettes. This idea is very popular and maybe it's true, but so what? It's still bad. To illustrate my point, should a country that allows murder also allow rape because it's not as bad? Allowing something harmful to society doesn't mean you should by default accept everything else which is harmful.

gee comparing muder to rape doesnt really seem that relevant to this discussion, seems like your going for shock value. what i am saying is that there has been an illegitamate war on marijuana for the past 7 decades and it is unjust. the reason i make such arguements is because the forces that keep it illegal use arguments that become invalid when you consider the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal consumable substances.

Originally Posted by toretorden

You argue that the US government could make money, I guess by marijuana taxation. Okay, so how are you gonna do this? Are you gonna let the american private market buy into drug farms located in other countries and support the industry that goes on there? Or is some company gonna get a marijuana license to grow themselves and have a marijuana monopoly? Should the government sell marijuana? I'm not saying there are no good solutions, I'm just interested in hearing what they are.

this is a tough one... if only there was another industry similar to compare it to. hmmmmm... hmmmmm.... hmmm.... WAIT, I GOT IT! how about the same way there is multiple corporations that own both tobacco farms and alcohol distillaires and they are heavily taxed. what makes this any different what so ever? the way they would make the MOST money would be by not spending over $50 billion dollars a year making a benign PLANT illegal, and throwing people in jail (that cost money too, ya know).

Originally Posted by toretorden

For your claim that it's an attack on liberty, well .. You live in a democratic country. Thus, I assume the majority is against legalization, otherwise it would've been legalized. Since it's not, I guess you don't have the majority yet. Does that qualify as an attack on liberty? I don't think so.

the reason marijauana was made illegal in the first place was twofold, one because it put additional strain on the timber industry (who had lobbyist), and two because a man who had a personal vendetta against it made hystaria out of nothing. this is the testimony harry j. anslinger made to congress supporting the 'Marihuana Tax Act, 1937' before it was made illegal.

"There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers and any others."

so no, it wasnt a democratic principle that made it illegal, it was lies that villified it, and kept it that way for decades. so yes, it is an attack on liberty (you might wanna look up what liberty means).



as right-track said i really dont prefer this becoming another scoring contest, but i will assure you that you are in way over your head. i know more about this subject than i care to admit.

[Guybrush]

Alright alright - I get it. To defend legalization of marijuana in the USA, all you need to do is :

• Ignore that marijuana users run numerous health risks and that it might lead to a general decline in health which ultimately costs society money.
• Claim that America is run by corrupt lobbyists, creating statistics and making up lies, then use that to assume that most arguments against marijuana legalization are false.
• Justify or "excuse" the legalization of marijuana with comparisons to tobacco and alcohol

Further, you call my sources worthless internet studies, then give me an address to an incredibly biased site. Good job.

Now, you write that you wanna let loose the american market forces on marijuana, just like with cigarettes and alcohol. You could do that, but I guess since labour is more expensive in USA than it is in 3rd world country where cannabis is typically grown, I guess these businesses would then support foreign drug industry. If you think that's okay, then fine. I don't.

I still can't see why alcohol and tobacco being legal automatically invalidates any counter-arguments against cannabis legalisation. Why? Also, you say that many other drugs have harmful effects, well .. First off, as with the alcohol and tobacco, I can't see why allowing one dangerous thing should allow for another. Furthermore, cannabis has more appeal as a recreational drug than say .. painkillers or medication against high blood pressure.


Although you might think so, I'm not really an anti-cannabis kind of guy. It's not like I have a personal vendetta against the drug. It's just that at it's simplest, I don't see why one should legalize something which will hurt people's health directly or indirectly and possibly create social issues in a society. That's the core of my argument and it's always thoroughly ignored with excuses like "those studies are worthless", "alcohol is also allowed" and so on. The second is simply how do you do it? I don't like the idea of supporting cannabis industries that make money by selling their drugs to countries where it's illegal. However, I'm no expert .. maybe there's a way to do it that will be morally acceptable by all.

How would you push your argument if you think outside of USA?

edit :

By the way, you write as if legalization in Netherlands has been a good thing (actually, it's just "tolerated"), but they have a lot of drug-related problems in that country. I know that country better than you think because I've spent a lot of time there.