Moderator’s Note: I’d rather not edit the post; just please pay attention to what forum you’re posting in in the future.
And this is a problem how? If someone wants to do it once a week, or everyday, what business of it is yours? I, like many others, draw the line at driving and working. If you do, suffer the same consequences as alcohol. But if someone wants to do it in the privacy of their own home, for medicinal OR recreational use, WHAT BUSINESS OF IT IS YOURS? I don’t feel that you, or anyone else, have the right to tell other adults what to do if it causes no violent harm to anyone else.
Certainly many people have never tried pot, but I’m trying to think of any adult I know well who’s never smoked it, and I can’t think of any. In fact, I know a pretty fair number of occasional users who don’t really fit into any of those categories (though I suppose that hte adults I know are largely the more lefty crowd.) I can’t imagine where these huge crowds of people who’ve never tried it are hanging out.
As I argued earlier, and as Ravenman explicated more fully, no, it’s not. I support legalization of pot and some degree of decriminalization of all drugs myself; don’t view this as an argument but just as an explanation of their viewpoint.
Politically, change has to be motivated by a desire on the part of the public to fix something. If there is no perception that pot ought to be legal, there is no way it’ll happen. It’s very nice that you have libertarian philosophies, and that you feel that the government ought to be required to justify intrusions on our rights (and again, I agree with this to a point) but the underlying principles of our legal system are far more pragmatic, as well as those of just about every other system.
In debate, and in traditional logic or rhetoric, the ‘affirmative’ position is the one arguing for a change to the status quo. In the U.S., the status quo is that marijuana is illegal, and sadly subject to very harsh penalties in some cases. The affirmative side is obligated to justify their argument; in a debate, if you simply asked the other side why pot should remain illegal, you’d get laughed off the stage, and even if rhetoric is no longer a formal object of study for most people, that basic principle still motivates the public’s responses to political issues.
You do need to justify what you’re saying if you wish to actually influence the debate. It’s fine if you wish to simply sit around and sigh and imagine life in Libertopia, but it won’t accomplish anything. If you don’t wish to argue the issue, then pardon me for interrupting; you may resume sighing and I’ll probably stop reading. But if you do hope to actually see it legal, you’ll have to prove it should be.
I can’t recall ever having much trouble purchasing either. Pot suffers from a long supply chain with its attendant difficulties, but there’s always plenty of places to get a hold of it, and if you’re determined, you can easily ensure that you always have access to it. Booze, equally, was available when I was underage - just ask someone older to buy it. Granted, this didn’t apply when I was twelve, but it’s not hard for a high school student to get alcohol. I doubt legalization would change the difficulty of pot acquisition much since it’s just not very hard to do.
Again, while I agree in principle, this argument is making me more and more turned off to the idea of marijuana legalization. While this simplistic derivative of libertarian ideology is prevalent here on the forums, it’s certainly not the driving force in U.S. politics and it’s not one that has much impact on my way of thinking either. Certainly, if a new law were to be passed restricting a drug, I’d need to see strong justification in order to support it. But as for pot, it’s been illegal for a long time and frankly, the real reason I’d like to see it legal is because I enjoy using it myself. There have to be some arguments out there for its legality, aren’t there? Because usually the sleazy debate tactic of saying, “Yeah, well, prove me wrong, bitch!” is frowned upon pretty heavily here at the SDMB - at least when it’s applied to anything else. And like I’ve said, it will not influence the thought of members of the public at all.
I’m pro-legalization. But a lot of people don’t necessarily agree that there’s any inherent right to do drugs if you’re not harming others. I have a certain libertarian streak, but even to me, this argument is very, very weak, since there’s evidence that in at least some cases, people do harm others as a result of marijuana. I don’t know what the real statistics are for accidents caused by driving under the influence of marijuana (and do spare me the rant about how you’d never smoke and drive because lots of people do - I know several myself.) Find some real reason to make me believe it wouldn’t make the roads more dangerous. Find some solid evidence that it’s beneficial for sick people and its benefits aren’t provided by marijuana derivatives or other painkillers.
There’s no reason for our usual fairly elevated form of debate to disappear into screeching self-righteousness when pot’s at issue. Surely we’re mellow enough to talk about this in a reasonable way - our goal is not to emulate the anti-sodomy, anti-evolution, anti-dancing crowd.
I’ve never smoked pot, and probably wouldn’t if it were made legal, but I think legalization should be getting more consideration than it does.
I believe one reason for this (in addition to many suggested above) is the nature of what American voters look for in potential leaders. They want people who offer solutions. And people who project confidence that their solutions will work.
In such a climate, a candidate who dares to question the War On Some Drugs is seen as giving up. He’s then portrayed by opponents as weak and wavering.
The result is that almost no candidate with realistic chances of success can afford to discuss legalization.
I’m having a little trouble understanding your point about driving while under the influence of marijuana. First you said that getting pot is very easy right now, and that making it legal would have no affect on the supply or availability. So then how does legalizing pot make it more likely that people will drive under the influence? In fact, if pot were legal, then maybe people would be less likely to drive stoned because cops may be more aware of the possiblity (WAG).
And with regards to a person’s inherent right to do drugs, how are drugs any different than food. Eating certain foods can obviously lead to my death as well as a host of medical problems that society may have to pay for, so if you tell me what drugs to use, why not tell me what to eat, or why I should drive a Volvo because it’s safer. Also, the driving argument is not really valid because no one here is suggesting that people should be allowed to smoke and drive. No different than alcohol or prescription drugs.
Lastly, pot has already been shown to be a very effective and reasonably safe painkiller and hunger stimulant for aids and cancer patients. I myself would prefer the real thing to a synthetic version because our bodies have evolved along with pot. In fact, pot has been on this planet longer than we have, so why would I risk ingesting something that is brand new and clearly foreign to my body? And remember, pot is not illegal right now because it is so much more dangerous than all the crap that people readily get from their drug dealer, I mean pharmacy.
I’m as pro-legalization as anyone, but I must say, this argument is BS. Snakes, spiders, scorpions, nightshade, hemlock, tobacco, alcohol, and poison ivy are all natural and they’ve all been around longer than humans have. That obviously doesn’t mean snake venom and tobacco are less dangerous than, say, Advil, does it?
That said, there are reasons that smoking or vaporizing pot is preferable to eating synthetic THC tablets, especially for chemo patients who use it to eliminate nausea. But whether it’s natural or synthetic has nothing to do with it - a synthetic THC molecule is exactly the same as a natural one.
I’m clearly not a chemist, and if it’s true that a synthetic THC molecule is exactly the same as a natural one, then I have no problem. I agree with you that just because its natural does not make it safe, obviously I don’t go out looking for poisonous mushrooms to eat because I think that since they’re part of the earth they will not harm me. What I’m saying is that our brains have evolved along with pot to the point where we have specific cannabanoid receptors. Therefore, I’ll take my chances with what nature has intended and given to me. Also, I’m not against all prescription drugs because they are synthetic. In some cases a pill is the only way to fix something. I just feel like drugs such as paxil or celebrex are far more dangerous and harmful than a joint.
I don’t think that’s true either. We have cannabinoid receptors because our bodies produce cannabinoids (e.g. anandamide), just like we have opiate receptors because our bodies produce opiates (endorphins). The marijuana and poppy plants happen to produce chemicals that trigger those receptors; the receptors aren’t there because of the plants.
You make excellent points Mr2001, but remember that we are as much a part of nature as a poppy or marijuana plant. There is obviously some reason why our bodies produce the same type of chemicals that are found in nature. Also, regardless of the way in which the receptors evolved or developed, they nonetheless provide the same benefits to us at this point. The intent or reason is not always relevant.
Not necessarily. For one thing, they’re not the same chemicals - they’re just similar enough that they bind to the same receptors. All that means is that some part of one molecule is pretty close to some part of the other molecule. Carbon monoxide and oxygen both bind to hemoglobin in our blood, but there’s no particular reason why car exhaust contains the “same type” of chemical that we need to breathe.
The question then becomes, why do these plants produce chemicals that activate the same parts of our brain as our own cannabinoids and opiates? Could be because the chemicals serve some other purpose (killing insects/bacteria, etc.) and it’s just a coincidence that they’re similar, or it could be that getting animals and people high is beneficial for the plant: people find a plant that happens to make them feel good because it contains a chemical similar to their own brain chemicals, so they start growing a lot more of it, and the plant passes its genes on.
Indeed. But my point is, the fact that we have receptors that are directly activated by certain drugs doesn’t mean those drugs are any safer than others (really, all psychoactive drugs work by activating some kind of receptor), nor does it mean that we have evolved to use those drugs.
How about this: marijuana is much less harmfull, if it is even harmful at all. Try to find a case of someone dying from a pot overdose. Can’t find one, can you? Nope. Didn’t think so. Many people die from heroin overdoeses (not sure about crack, though.) In addition, both of those drugs are much more addictive than pot (cite..
There’s also this:
Pot is practically harmless, and certainly no more harmful than cigs or booze, while crack, heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and other drugs are much more deadly, and more likely to be overdosed on (especially since it’s basically impossible to overdose on pot.)
:eek: Marijuana is illegal? Oh, shit . . .
Clearly, you are more knowledgeable about medicine than anyone’s doctor. I did not realize this before. Otherwise, I would have understood why you feel so comfortable having non-medically trained people dictate to doctors what they may or may not recommend.
Once, after a car wreck, I passed out in the middle of a chest x-ray. The doctor came in and said it was probably because of blood loss. He handed me a Sprite and recommened that I drink it and it would make me feel better. Now, I am wondering if Sprite should first have been treated like medicine and if there should have been clinical trials before he could be allowed to recommend that I drink some.
Since you aren’t claiming that pot does some major harm, what exactly is the difference?
Again, you are presuming to know how doctors should treat illness. Personally, I would rather that such determinations be made by doctors.
You are also cavalierly ignoring the cruelty of what you are suggesting. Cancer patients are one group who stand to benefit greatly from medical use of pot. Now, if you were in pain and dying, you might still refuse to use pot until you had seen the results of studies that satisfied you. However, I think it is unbelievably arrogant of you to presume to make this choice for others. For many people in this situation, their fight will be over before any results come back from any such studies, and they may be willing to risk it based on the evidence that is already available. Do you honestly believe that they should not be able to make this choice for themselves?
Your attitude is offensive to me because I have watched a loved one die in extreme pain. Something tells me you have not. In the case I am speaking of, pot would have been no use whatsoever, but having seen someone I care about suffer so horribly, I just cannot imagine denying someone the opportunity to have something that could ease their suffering–particularly when it is something as benign as pot is.
If there is such a thing as karma, I would say that your attitude is signing you up for a pretty godawful painful death.
First, I agree with the posters who have said that pot WOULD be harder for kids to get if it were legalized like alcohol. It was in fact easier for me to get pot when I was in high school than it was for me to get alcohol. Second, I have not said that I though it was preferable to make pot harder to get in general. Why would this be preferable?
Well, that’s hardly a refutation of my argument. In fact, I believe that they DO equally apply to crack and heroin (heroin is reputed to be one helluva pain-killer). You are clearly to biased on this subject to recognize that these points ARE valid and that they are reasons why we should all be for an end to the unmitigated horror that is the War On Drugs.
The simple fact is that we will have crack and heroin (and crack addicts and heroin addicts) for as long as we have people, and the War On People has not changed this fact (although, without the War On People, it may be that we would never have had the wonder-life-destroyer that is called crack). What the War On People has done is a great deal of harm without solving the “problem” it is supposed to solve. It takes a bad situation and makes it worse. Someone who is injecting heroin daily is doing something very foolish. So is someone who eats themselves up to 500 pounds or someone who goes home every night and drinks a fifth of vodka. Why do you think it makes sense to throw one of these fools in jail and not the other two?
Why do you think it makes sense for the US to wage war on its own citizens? Do you think that having massive criminal organizations raking in millions of dollars in drug profits every year is a good thing? Do you think that having gangs of armed kids roaming our cities is a good thing? The harm that is caused by the War On People is everywhere and obvious, and yet you suport it–without being able to name anything about it that is good.
Decriminalizing drugs is not the same as approving of them. Not throwing someone in jail for buying cocaine is not the same as saying people should buy cocaine.
Actually, I think people should be allowed to put whatever they want in their bodies–even if it’s bad for them. I also think that people CANNOT be prevented from doing things like smoking pot. Unless you want to live in a full-fledged police state, this is a problem that is unsolvable.
The sad thing is that able-bodied kids have little trouble getting hold of pot. Sadly, patients dying of cancer in hospitals have a much more difficult time. I guess you could say that the War On People works in that respect: It is most effective at keeping drugs out of the hands of the people who are most likely to benefit from them.
You feel insulted by what I said? Are you saying that you DO give a shit about other peoples’ suffering? If I voted to make all pain medicine illegal–even when prescribed by a doctor–would you say that I was showing that I did or did not give a shit about other peoples’ suffering? If someone noticed that I didn’t give a shit about the suffering of others, would you think they were insulting me by pointing it out?
From where I’m sitting, I don’t think I said anything inappropriate about you. I merely reported what I infer about you based on your behavior. There are a great many people who, in fact, don’t give a shit about other people’s suffering and wouldn’t feel insulted if it were pointed out. Given your casual dismissal of efforts to make pot available to people who are suffering, I logically assumed you were one of them.
On the other hand, if you don’t like the message you are sending with your behavior, maybe you should consider changing your behavior. For instance, if you want people to think you give a shit about the suffering of others, maybe you shouldn’t be so quick to vote against making pot available to people who are suffering and could benefit from it. Even if you aren’t 100% sure it will help them.
-VM
To nitpick without invalidating your point, it’s been discovered that your brain makes morphine.
Yes, actually. I’ve made the case for having laws expire every twenty years or so in order to (among other things) prevent the cancerous growth of government through sheer inertia.
On the contrary. The legalization side proposes to let matters run their course; the anti-legalization side proposes active interference. The burden of proof clearly belongs to the latter.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Thanks for the link, Gyan!
From the article:
[QUOTE]
(Harry J.) Anslinger was an extremely ambitious man, and he recognized the Bureau of Narcotics as an amazing career opportunity – a new government agency with the opportunity to define both the problem and the solution. He immediately realized that opiates and cocaine wouldn’t be enough to help build his agency, so he latched on to marijuana and started to work on making it illegal at the federal level.]/QUOTE]
I think this is a key factor – in marijuana’s being outlawed in the first place, and in its continued illegality. Then and now, the hard drugs are not a big enough problem – not in terms of number of users, anyway. To launch the war on drugs, and to maintain it, the need was and is to be able to claim that this is a BIG problem, with lots of drug users who represent a serious danger. Or, if you can’t convince the public that a given drug turns users into dangerous, violent, out of control nutcases, you fall back on claims that the drug is terribly harmful to users; the users need to be protected from their own folly.
Anslinger wanted to create a good job (high pay, high prestige) for himself. His sucessors want to keep themselves in a good job. The rank and file drug warriors want what every employed person wants: they want the organization they work for to be busy enough to stay the same size or grow. After all, if the organization had less to do, their jobs might be in jeopordy.
They would also like the job to include as high a percentage of easy tasks as possible / as low a percentange of difficult and dangerous tasks as possible. Arresting people for possession of marijuana is, as others on this thread have pointed out, easier and less dangerous than going after ruthless organized crime gangs who are producing (or importing) and selling hard drugs.
But… but… that sounds like work! :eek:
(And that, boys and girls, is one of the main unspoken motivators of anti-legalization officialdom.)
So, your objection is that the bill did not include sufficient micro-management of physicians by politicians. :rolleyes:
Yes. Freeing the criminal justice system devote its resources to real crime would be benefical to everyone – except for the workers in the criminal justice system, many of whom are quite content with the status quo (see my earlier post).
It does suggest a way to pragmatically exploit the War on Evil-Doer Terrorists…