Californians
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=186989
Printed Date: 14 November 2025 at 3:24pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Californians
Posted By: choopie911
Subject: Californians
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 7:10am
| Nov 2nd, please vote |
Replies:
Posted By: JohnnyHopper
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 9:15am
------------- My shoes of peace have steel toes. |
choopie911 wrote:Posted By: God
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 12:51pm
|
I already have my absentee ballot and plan to send it in.
You will probably will be disappointed with my choices though... |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 12:56pm
|
You mean the CORRECT choices, right? ------------- 
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 1:01pm
| The devil weed will kill us all. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 1:08pm
|
Considering the amount of carcinogens.... -------------
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 1:19pm
| lol at a canadian trying to persuade an American vote |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 1:39pm
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html - *COUGHCOUGHCOUGH*
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 1:52pm
| Also, http://www.mercurynews.com/elections/ci_16408972?nclick_check=1 - the bill won't pass, probably. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 1:58pm
|
Well, the semantical part of me wants to point out I was still right in saying it hard a lot of carcinogens, the reasonable part of me is going to use updated studies rather than one from 4 years ago.
Such as this one, where 1 joint a day = 1 pack of cigs a day http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/8096 - http://www.medpagetoday.com/Psychiatry/Addictions/8096 Or one that no guy wants-- marijuana use linked to increased testicular cancer. http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2009/02/09/marijuana.html - http://www.fhcrc.org/about/ne/news/2009/02/09/marijuana.html Is abestos in your attic any less carcinogenic than abestos in your walls? -------------
|
Posted By: hybrid-sniper
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 2:05pm
| I wasn't going to, but now I will. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 2:16pm
|
I don't live in CA, but I HIGHLY support this. -------------  irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 2:21pm
| Is it still carcinogenic if you eat it? |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 2:22pm
------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 2:51pm
Assuming the study is correct, that, as has been pointed out, is if the marijuana is smoked. Secondly, this is a discussion on the possible legality of marijuana. And, as far as I know, smoking one pack of cigarettes is perfectly legal. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 3:24pm
|
Linus you are missing the point. The ballot isn't about encouraging more people to do it, its about legalizing something people already do in droves and will never change. It would potentially create TONS of jobs, generate billions in tax revenue, unclog the courts from victimless crimes like possession and ideally crowd the prisons less.
Plus, dealers don't check ID. |
Posted By: Hades
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 3:51pm
Except those claims are just as wild as the claims made by those that wish to keep it illegal. Medical Marijuana is already legal in California. It is incredibly easy for anyone older than 18 to get a prescription for Medical Marijuana. Voting it legal for all in California wont do much in for the Criminal Justice system because personal possession already results in a just a ticket. The Feds are still going to go after the big distributors who are the ones taking up all the money and space in prison. As for Billions in tax revenues, that is a made up claim since California is already getting the taxes from Medical Marijuana users, whom by at this point (in my opinion) already account for the majority of the marijuana consumer base. This notion that legalizing marijuana is going to be this wonderful cure all to all the problems, to me, does not hold water. ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 4:47pm
I am not claiming it to be a wonder cure to everything, at all. I'll put it this way: tons of people already do it, and that simply wont change. This is prohibition again, with something less harmful than alcohol. It's silly to keep something like cannabis illegal when it wastes so many resources and doesn't stop anything. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:01pm
Cool... and where did I ever say cigs should be legal? I don't recall saying one way or the other on a substance that cost people billions a year in preventable healthcare, takes thousands of lives, is a costly bad habit, and oh, makes me nauseous to be around. But hey, just because one thing that's bad for you is legal, why not another? Choop- So why should Marijuana be legal, but not, say, Cocaine? -------------
|
Posted By: GroupB
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:08pm
| You can overdose on cocaine. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:12pm
|
Maybe because people actually die from cocaine. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:14pm
|
That was just a stupid question.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:14pm
People don't die from cancer? -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:14pm
As already stated, far more dangerous. And it's the price you pay to live in a free society, you don't have to agree with smoking, but it doesn't mean you get to tell them not to. Land of the free indeed. |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:18pm
|
People get cancer from weed? ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:21pm
Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Smoke as much as you want, but get some personal restorability and don't expect healthcare. Ok, you don't agree with cocaine... what about heroin or any other opiods? Perfectly safe so long as you don't stop breathing, and some places (I'm looking at you Canada) give heroin addicts a drug called Narcan to counteract the respiratory depression. Therefor a relatively safe drug. Should heroin be legalized too?
Did you ignore the first page? -------------
|
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:49pm
I`m fine with that, but give me back my money that`s going towards healthcare. Then maybe I could get a pack for 3.50 rather than 10+ |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:50pm
What about those around you that are harmed by your smoking? Why shouldnt that healthcare money go to them? You're harming them, they aren't harming themselves. -------------
|
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:54pm
|
You don`t like my smoking, stop breathing |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:56pm
You don't like paying $10 a pack to cover someone elses health expenses, quit smoking. -------------
|
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 5:57pm
|
I picture Linus as one of those pricks who walk around telling smokers on the street that it's bad for their health. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:03pm
Cool, and I just picture you as a prick who can't keep a debate from getting personal. We're like brothers! Naw. I tell my patients that when they complain that I wont let them smoke in the ambulance... aside from it being illegal... but that's about the extent of it. I can separate opinionated debate from jerkiness. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:08pm
How many people have overdosed on heroin, and other opiates, compared to the amount who have overdosed on marijuana?
|
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:11pm
I have no prob paying 10 a pack when I`m getting health care.... If I was not able to get health care cause I smoke than don`t charge me for it. -edit- how often are non smokers subjected to having to breathe in second hand smoke. Really. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:13pm
Again, heroin ODs can be reversed with a drug that people can snort through their nose. Not that dangerous all things considered. But, by your logic, I've never run on a nicotine OD. Does that make cigarettes any safer? -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:16pm
| So Linus, alcohol should be illegal? |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:16pm
Answer the question please: How does the number of heroin overdoses over time compare to overdose numbers of marijuana?
Yes. Safer than heroin. On par with marijuana. Which is important when comparing the legality of one substance to another, especially the potential changes in legality. That's how laws work.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:27pm
I DID answer, just in a roundabout way that helped more than hurt my argument. 
When compared to the alternative, heroin is relatively harmless so long as the person taking it has access to Nalaxone. I, personally, would rather be really tired from an opiod overdose than have cancer.
Alcohol has much more legit medical benefits proven by sciene than MJ or THC currently do.
So instead of banning an unsafe substance, you make another unsafe substance easier to access? How many people have died from hand grenades as opposed to handguns? Shouldn't we make handgrenades legal for home defense, than? -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:36pm
| Uh, did you seriously just claim alcohol to be less damaging/ more beneficial than cannabis? Are you out of your mind? |
Posted By: jerseypaint
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:38pm
This is a joke right? You can't die from smoking weed, unless you do stupid things while high. But that's like drinking, if you chose to get that intoxicated that you can no longer control your actions, then you are still liable because you chose to get that intoxicated in the first place. But aside from doing dumb stuff while drinking, you can easily drink yourself to death. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:42pm
|
Yet another thread reinforcing my belief that many conservatives aren't necessarily opposed to an Orwellian society; just one that doesn't fit their politics.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:43pm
|
Wait wait wait... can either of you two show me where I said alcohol was any less dangerous?
I said alcohol has many proven medical benefits... mind picking up a scientific study that proves the opposite? -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 6:44pm
Again: How many overdoses of heroin have there been compared to marijuana? And, since you are avoiding the answer, I'll ask a followup to your proposition: Herion is supposedly safe if overdoses are avoided using another prescription drug. How many times has an overdose of marijuana occurred where the use of another drug was needed to prevent death?
"Unsafe" is a comparative element. If we attempt to ban all "unsafe" drugs within society, we're taking away all over-the-counter drugs, eliminating all prescription drugs, and banning alcohol, nicotine and caffeine. It's simply not realistic in society to consider this. Instead, we base our decisions on what is legal and illegal based on its health effects, amongst other things. Which is why it is important to have an honest debate about the health effects of marijuana as it compares to other accepted and legal items. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 7:19pm
|
He is also is claiming heroin to be safer than marijuana. Yeah, except one is a physically addictive opiate and the other is just habituating.
Also, if you're going to complain about smokers and healthcare, which scenario makes more sense: Person A smokes and the money goes to technical criminals. OR Person A smokes and pays taxes on what he smokes, which can then be put towards healthcare. It's not like it's a tax you would have to pay unless you were the one smoking. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 7:24pm
 ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 10:16pm
|
Linus, I normally back you in these discussion, but I disagree with two forms of logic you're using-
1:) Unsafe = illegal. Now while I agree that if insurances (both government and commercial) don't want to cover smoking related illness, they shouldn't have to.
But that's a completely different discussion. The discussion here is that something should be legal / illegal based upon its harmful effects. I say if you want to harm yourself, go ahead.
And in all honesty, there are ten million things that can be proved to "contribute" to cancer. But there are comparative degrees of contribution to the cancer cause-and as far as I've seen, marijuana is very low on that list. If we banned everything that is unhealthy, McDonald's and Cinnabun would be the first to do, because they're gonna kill you much faster than marijuana.
I think it's my right to be self destructive. Now again, on the governement's dime is a completely different discussion, one that doesn't directly relate to leaglity. 2:) Your alcohol vs nicotine vs marijuana vs the world argument. The problem with alcohol is that, while it may pose some health benefits, it is by the far the most socially destructive of all of them. How many people have ever been killed in an auto accident directly related to mary jane? Or tobacco? Alcohol, of all these substances, is the one that is the biggest candidate for a discussion of legality.
Alcohol is probably one of, if not the most, socially destructive drugs in the US. While the discussion of heroin, mj, etc, is how much it hurts you, alcohol hurts those around you with drunk driving etc.
|
Posted By: GI JOES SON
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 10:22pm
| choop- out of curiosity, being a Canadian, why do you care about laws passed in the US? |
Posted By: usafpilot07
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 10:31pm
|
My number one problem with legalizing marijuana? It's a lot harder to test for someone being high at a traffic stop than it is to test if they're drunk. Last time I checked, breathalizers don't pick up the fact that you've been smoking weed the last 40 miles. So, everyone that wants to get up on a high horse and pretend t his is an alcohol vs weed debate, (which it is not) I ask you to explain to me ho wwe deal with things like that as well. Because I know WAY WAY WAY more people who drive high than those who drive drunk. ------------- Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 10:40pm
Because ideally cannabis would already be legal or at least tolerated on the level of the netherlands in Canada, yet its not. Progress has to start somewhere, and good for California for trying. Ideally it would be a success and others would follow suit, but that's hard to tell.
I agree, although testing in this area is extremely limited by it being a schedule I drug. That categorization is nuts considering what that requires, and hopefully a test could be figured out. It's not impossible, it just hasn't been done. Saliva tests are close, but they would be positive for any time in the last 24 hours. |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 10:52pm
The statement that lots of people do it, therefore it should be legal is not a strong enough argument for me to support something. I still do not see any reason why marijuana should be legal for adults to use without a prescription. Feel free to try and convince me otherwise for I am not decided on the matter but so far I have yet to see the benifit to legalize marijuana to adults that wish to use it without a prescription. Comparing it to tabacoo and alcohol to me is comparing apples to oranges. Those arguments are not going to convince me to change my mind. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 23 October 2010 at 11:47pm
Why does there need to be a reason for something to be legal?
You need a reason for it to be illegal. That's my thing, I don't have a reason it should be legal, any more than why X-Box's, Satellite TV, or porno needs to be legal. All of those things have major drawbacks in society, but in the end, we don't sit around and ask why they need to be legal. They don't. We could all live healthier, more intelligent lives without them. But we look for evidence to make them illegal, and that's where we come up short.
That's why we bring up the tobacco and alcohol comparisons. It's apples and orangers for sure, but we're not arguing the specific elements. We're arguin the logic.
Just to be clear, I don't smoke pot. I've been through a few phases where I smoked, but really I like to keep my self substance free. I kept up a nasty alcohol habit that made me pretty sick for a while, but even that has fizzled into nothing.
I say that, because I have no personal stake in any of these arguments. I don't care if cigarettes are illegal personally, I don't smoke and never will. But I think that when you have the power to label something unnecessary and therefore lacking in legality, it's a slippery slope.
Not to mention the tax dollars that go into enforcing it. I realize it isn't going to make a massive dent in the the deficit, but honestly, why pay for enforcing laws that don't protect us from anything?
I just don't see the logic. For me, it's the opposite of what you said-I have yet to see anyone convince me why it should be illegal, current status notwithstanding.
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 12:56am
|
Personal use of marijuana results only in a ticket for personal use/possesion so little tax money is used as it stands. The tax money is being spent on enforcing federal law which this vote does not affect. As for why I thing marijuana should remain illegal is for the same reason speeding in a vehicle is illegal. It is to protect society at large. Sure, in a vaccum marijuana is not normally a dangerous substance. Unfortunately, individuals do not live in a bubble but are part of a society. The effects marijuana has on a person may seem relatively harmless but looking through a wider scope, those effects can cause greater harm than what is immediately percieved. Example - Powerplant worker ingests some marijauna on his break at work. His slowed reaction time delays him from reacting quicly enough to prevent emergency from occuring. Society was unnessisarily put in danger. Because marijuana use is legal powerplant operator not liable for resulting emergancy. Medical marijauna user would not be in same situation because work requirements would not allow operator to perform job while on prescription meds. There are other endless examples that could be used so try not to focus the discussion around the example but more on the premiss that marijuana use has a potential negative affect on society if veiwed from a larger scope than just looking at the indiviual effects on the user. I am curious? What are the negative effects of tv, xbox, and porn in your opinion? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 1:09am
|
I can see where you're coming from, but a couple of things-
This is a work policy issue. Legality does not dictate policy-for example, if that operator was playing his PSP while operating his part of the plant, he most certainly would have a slowed reaction time, probably much slower than that of mary jane. And PSP's are certainly legal, so why aren't PSP's an inherit danger to society?
Because his work policy specifically forbids using PSP's (at least we all hope to God) while operating equipment, regardless of legality. I have no doubt that the same policies would apply to marijuana, if it were legalized.
As far as your speeding example, I don't see the correlation. I can smoke pot without endangering society, I can't speed in a car without doing so.
TV and XBOX have created generation of lazy, obese couch potato kids.
The excessive use of porn screws up marriages, etc.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 1:16am
I never, not once, said heroin was "safer" than marijuana. This is the second time you've either mis-interpreted or mis-read something I put in this thread and ran with it making stuff up. I said, all things considered, it's relatively safe. I haven't heard of anyone dying from any other thing attributed to diamorphine THAN respiratory depression, easily reversible with Nalaxone or any other narcotic antagonist. Jumping out of a plane is relatively safe as well, so long as you have a parachute. Am I crazy for saying that as well?
Agreed, mostly. However the major problem with alcohol is most people don't SEE it as being that destructive. You working in the hospital and me working in the field know better as we see it's abilities, but most people don't respect it's power. Does that make what happens right? Of course not, but considering how socially ingrained alcohol is IN THE WORLD today, it's a bit harder to change peoples views. However, driving under the influence of marijuana is unsafe as well. Every single drug in existence, including Oxygen, has harmful effects and can kill. What makes anyone think Marijuana is an exception? -------------
|
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 1:20am
I`d imagine it be like alcohol when legal. The same power plant worker should have to face the same consequences as if he was drinking on the job. Pot should be legal so you don`t have to face criminal charges if caught with it. It should be legal to help slow down the money organized crime makes selling and growing it. It`s a multi million dollar operation with ALL profits going nowhere but into ``criminals`` hands. Pot being illegal only helps organized crime, its a darn cash cow. I`d like to see how many millions are going to people who are doing a ton worse based on the income from marijuana. |
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 1:23am
So... you blame the government instead of the people who buy and use the illegal substance? If no one used the drug, no money would go to the cartels. Problem solved. But instead people believe they have the right to do what they want, when they want, consequences be damned, then blame the government when things go wrong. Like I said earlier, this country lacks personal responsibility. -------------
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 1:33am
But that takes us down the harmful effects route again, and for this discussion, that's irrelevent. Again, everything has harmful side effects. More people are killed in auto accidents than anything else, guns are a tool used in mass murder around the wrold, I can think of many things that are legal that are far, far more dangerous than marijuana.
I can appreciate where you guys come from as far as not wanting pot / cigarettes / drugs in general legalized. I think that people look at as if we're making conscious effort to pursue the laglity of a substance, or justify that substance. I think it's backwards from that logic-I think that the conscious effort is keeping it illegal. Legality is neutral-it's not condemnation nor approval, rather it's simply saying it's there, and we're n ot going to fill up our jails and create fines for it. Enter at your own risk.
And this is a multi-textural issue that can't be summed up in just a few paragraphs. We could go round and round all day regarding health effects, economic effects, effects of creating criminal records for people that did something that, in general, did nothing to endanger society.
Obviously breaking the law is wrong, and I'm not condoning it, but that doesn't make the law just or right.
|
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 1:41am
I`m just pointing out a fact. |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 1:56am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: procarbinefreak
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 2:01am
You do realize that the whole secondhand smoke kills stuff is complete crap right? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 2:02am
Sure works hell on people with asthma and breathing difficulties though.
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 2:40am
|
Like i said dont get caught up on the example per say. Because of its effects, i feel marijuana use is a danger to society at large. Trying to minimize the effects will not persuade my opinion. I need examples of benefits to society of marijuana use that outweight the negative impacts to society in order for me to change my opinion.
I could care less at the the individual level. What people do to themselves is their own business but since people live as part of a society I feel that laws are put in place for the good of society, not the good of the individual. The taxes arguement I feel is bogus because California already has legal medical marijuana and if a person wants it marijuana badly enough, they can easily get a perscription and get taxed that way. The drug cartel arugement is also bogus. They would either another illegal activity to get money. They arent going to give up and close shop just because marijuana is legal. Saving California prison money arguement is bogus because the Feds will still lock people up? Medical Marijuana dispenceries get raided all the time and California DA likes to claim more raids are in the works. So again, why should Marijuana be legal other than way not? |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 2:48am
I think this is where our arguments meet an impass. For me, the why not is the over riding factor. I don't think something needs a reason to be legal, it needs a reason to be illegal.
As far as marijuana being a danger to society at large, I just don't see it. I've heard very few examples of marijuana being a direct influence of any nasty, life taking event.
And I agree on the pro-legalization arguments-people will still do illegal things with marijuana, and it's not going to be a miracle for the economy. I don't think any of that matters-I don't think something should be demonized because the government doesn't see a reason for its existence. That just seems like a very slippery slope.
|
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 2:54am
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 3:02am
|
It dawned on me why your examples of xbox, tv, and porn are not in the same relm as marijuana. None of your examples chemically effect the brian directly. The thc in marijuana chemically alters the brain which causes its effects. With your examples, additional chemicals are not introduced into the body. The brain is stimulated by chemicals that already exist within the body, hence why those innate activities are legal since they do not negatively alter the bodies natural chemical activities the same way thc does.
|
Posted By: God
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 3:12am
|
I have already stated that I feel this should remain illegal because the risks and problems recreational use creates for society outweights the individual's benefits achieved from recreational use. Just like sppeding, just because most everyone does it and most of the time negitive concequences dont happen, when a negative event does occur the cost to society is greater than the benefit. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 3:22am
Well, to be clear, I love Xbox, TV, and porn  ...and I'm as normal as they come (in my mind).
But we weren't discussing individual effects in particular, just harm in general. I think that there has to be a level of harm, either greatly to an individual, or in a measurable way to society on the whole. My point is that given the idea that just because you can find a scenario in which something is harmful doesn't necessarily negate its legality.
As far as introducing chemicals to the body, check out the effects of caffeine, nicotine, hell even things like MSG, pesticides, etc etc. Or on a larger scale, the mass polution and chemicals we introduce to our body via cars, factories, etc etc.
Just to go back to a couple of my earlier statements-I'm not arguing specifics, but logic. There's absolutely no connection to X-Box, TV, and porn that you can draw pot (other than that smoking it might make you apt to spend more time on all three
 ) chemically or phyiscally. But in terms of arguing legality, I think it's a very valid example. You have to give good reason why something should be illegal, in my opinion. It's perfectly fine to be of the opposing ideology, and I don't fault anyone for their ideas on the law. That's why there's so many of us. Just as a matter of personal opinion, however, I feel like great care should be taken that the law is of an absolute basic quality, and nothing more.
Take my diet example. I would bet you money that, if you look from a God's-eye (religious God, not mod God haha) view, everyone on this forum has, and likely is in the process of doing so, shortened their lives with their diet. Diet affects health care more than just about any other element besides maybe smoking and "hard" drug abuse (meth, heroin, etc). If anything should come into play as far as connecting health care prices, public health, and even society in general (obesity gives way to lots of negative aspects of society), we could make a huge case for regulating people's dieting.
But if I were to throw out my cause of the government fining you for poor diet, most of everyone on here would immediately poo poo me as unreasonable and (in FE's case) socialist. Yet, I think the logic is the same.
That's why I say it's not why it should be legal, but is the case for it being illegal strong enough that, if it were to be the reverse situation, would anyone here actively vote and pursue its ban?
|
Posted By: Impulse.
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 4:31am
|
All drugs should be legal. ------------- [IMG]http://www.word-detective.com/berry.gif"> |
Posted By: oldsoldier
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 9:05am
|
My issue with legalization is that American's have proved that they are not responsible enough to handle another legal drug, Alcohol, so lets just put another set of impared drivers out on our highways.
Americans are far too childish in thier handling of thier behavior, the giggle factor alone in drug use proves this, where it is fun to get 'high' or 'drunk' and then endanger others, in a mindset of I can control myself. You 'kill' in a drunk driving accident the system tries to 'forgive' the behavior and individual, my thought is you just killed with a one ton gun, you understood (or should have) the risk at drink one, so you are the responsible party, so off to prison you must go. Any new 'drug' that alters or inhibits behavior can not be allowed to further endanger those who do not partake. Drunk drivers are a serious problem, lets just increase the number of impaired drivers with 'high' drivers. Just one reason why no more 'legalization' arguements should be heard. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Mack
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 10:22am
I hadn't looked at it this way before, but this really is a valid argument. (It has pretty much swayed me back to the "don't legalize" side. (Also, being from another state that has legal medical marijuana sources, I can tell you that the increase in availability from these--they are recently legal--has caused sufficient problems that delegalization is being considered.) ------------- 
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 11:33am
|
I don't know why some people on here seem to prefer excessive government control of the private lives of its citizens, then sit there and cry how the government is taking our rights away. If the government really cared about your health, cigarettes and alcohol would be illegal. Thing is, they are multi-billion dollar industries. Corporations run this country. It's really depressing. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Impulse.
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 11:50am
------------- [IMG]http://www.word-detective.com/berry.gif"> |
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 12:12pm
No they are not, but if legal it helps stop millions apon millions going to pay for other crimes, like gun smuggling and other harder drugs. There`s a ton of money going to it and these organization are loving it being illegal. It`s the most commonly used illegal drug. It can be grown nearly anywhere. Proof is the ops there busting, the molson plant here in Ontario. ``The building is 125,000 square feet and three stories high. Police won't say how much of the plant the operation covers, but they will say it's massive`` http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CTVNewsAt11/20040112/pot_bust_040110/ - from here Millions apon millions helping fund illegal activities. Pot should be treated like alcohol when legal, no driving or working while on it. Pretty simple. How is a ruining society, really. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 12:19pm
|
As no surprise, I tend to sit on the side of it being legalized. I also think the idea of medicinal marijuana to be a silly and false construct that people have created because they want an easier way to get high.
|
Posted By: Linus
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 2:26pm
|
Medical marijuana IS a fallacy.
Whale and I agree on something? Weird. -------------
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 2:33pm
|
Problem with LOL MARY JANE is there are individuals who will always abuse it. State that it doesnt become addictive all you want, but there are plenty of individuals getting high multiple times a day,every day, ruining their lives.
I really do not care what people do so long as they dont wase air or become a hazard to society. ------------- 
|
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 3:03pm
Humans will abuse any substance, the plus side here is that abuse of marijuana won't kill you.
I bet there are more responsible smokers out there than you think. I'm not denying individuals smoke all day every day, but isn't that their choice to make? As for the whole ruining their lives bit, I feel the criminal status of pot and those who smoke it is more detrimental to society than the act of getting high.
I'm with you on the hazard to society, however I don't think getting high makes you a hazard. Could you explain what you meant by wasting air though? -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 3:16pm
Yeah, and there are leaders of all walks of life that smoke marijuana and hasn't inhibited them in the slightest. G. W. Bush, Obama, Palin, JFK, (even G. Washington), Richard Branson, Michael Phelps, Allen Iverson, Al Gore, Kelsey Grammar, Prince Charles, William and Harry, Woody Harrelson, Stephen King, etc. Now before you go ahead and take what I'm saying the wrong way: Marijuana likely had NOTHING to do with their successes or failures. But that's my point. Smoking marijuana does NOT make you a burn out loser with no motivation. People you may admire and have made real change in the world choose to smoke marijuana, or not to smoke marijuana. Do you think people like Richard Branson and (possibly) even Bill Gates should be in prison? Heck no. Look at phelps. 8 gold medals and a smoker. Yeah it clearly automatically makes you a failure. |
Posted By: High Voltage
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 3:23pm
So what makes you think nobody drives high now, OS? Obviously its legal status hasn't stopped those who already smoke, so why would you assume there aren't high drivers on the road right now? Also, you need to do a little research. Studies have shown it's much more dangerous driving drunk than high. Does that excuse it or mean I think it is ok? No. But it does mean you have a greater risk of an accident on booze. Maybe this will help a bit, smoking weed doesn't put a red S on your chest like drinking alcohol. -------------
|
Posted By: SSOK
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 3:37pm
I agree with everything you say. I know more than enough people who casually smoke and continue to be productive members of society.
Secondly, smoking 14+ times a week is a choice. It just is frustruating for me though, as I know enough people who had great oppourtunities in life and because they smoked so much, they changed. Im sure there are enough people who can somehow manage smoking that much, but it isnt for everyone.
Getting high does not make you a hazard, but driving/using dangerous things does.
What I meant by wasting air was being an unproductive member of society and being a leech to everyone else. The statement was more so "im indifferent to what everyone does so long as they dont do bad things or cheat the system". -------------
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 4:11pm
| And IMO, that is more of an issue of the individual, not the drug. |
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 5:36pm
Why are you two such advocates of the nanny-state? 
This is an unreasonable premise for your argument, and an unreasonably high burden of proof is placed on the people arguing for MJ when ONE negative event becomes enough to discount anything as bad for society. I say this for a few reasons, the most obvious of which is that literally anything can result (directly or indirectly) in a negative event harming a part of society, or even society at large. Headache medicine, cough syrup, cars, meat, prescription drugs, video games, airplanes, cars etc. all have a potential to cause destructive events. Second, you're making claims not based on any verifiable or quantifiable measure (or at least that's what I'm assuming; I'll gladly read anything you have to present) harmfulness or benefit. It's hard to say society at large would be harmed by legalizing MJ when other, certifiably-addictive substances are legal and society is, for the most part, unaffected, and because the people who give MJ a bad name are typically using it in conjunction with other substances and would be a detriment to society regardless of if they got weed legally or illegally. However, for reasons similar and unrelated to those, it's also hard to qualify MJ as beneficial, and I don't think any person could make a cogent argument on how beneficial MJ would be for society. Thus, it would be best to move from looking at society to the individuals in that society. The benefits to an individual are obvious, so lets skip that. Someone like Linus might (and probably has, I haven't read the thread entirely) argue that weed, aside from making one feel good, has a negative effect on the behavior of an individual and impairs motor skills/reaction time/whatever else. I don't think it's correct to say that WEED negatively affects the behavior of an individual, because if that was the case, then that sort of behavior would invariably result from ingesting weed, and that isn't the case. Thus, it's the fault of the individual for acting like an idiot, and it's reasonable to say that it's wrong to punish people for doing something that an idiot happened to do while being an idiot (this is analogous to owning a gun, I think; most people arguing against MJ would never think of giving up their right to own firearms because some douche chose to kill someone with a gun. You can say that the chemical alteration of one's brain state isn't the same as owning a gun and using it against someone, and you would be right, but that alteration doesn't cause that person to change, only become slower/giddier/tired, and a responsible individual would not put his self in any position to cause harm to himself or others while high on weed, just like a responsible individual would never (save a few obvious exceptions) put his self or anyone else in a position to be harmed by a firearm). So, because this should be a discussion on the legality of an individual's use of MJ, the focus should be on whether or not the government should be allowed to regulate/punish what individuals do with themselves. So the questions becomes this: do those of you who are against MJ think the government has the right to tell an individual that they cannot do something that has no effect on anyone other than that individual? -------------
|
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 6:00pm
|
It's been pointed out before, but my issue with prohibition is the criminalization aspect. Why do we spend billions and ruin peoples' lives over something that a huge portion of my parents' generation and younger have at least tried at one point? The only winner in the war on drugs, are the drugs. It's been a complete failure. People/governments can fight it all they want, but there is no way to get rid of it. Drugs are so ingrained in our culture that they aren't going anywhere. People have found ways to alter their state of mind since the beginning of time. Instead of fighting against human nature, maybe we should start looking for better ways. Maybe not so much with pot, but I'm convinced the reason drugs like LSD, DMT, Mescaline, and Psilocin are illegal is because the government doesn't want people to realize that everything they tell us is a bunch of crap. That might sound a bit like a conspiracy theory to some, but if you look at the ways that some of these drugs affect the outlook of the user on life, society, religion, etc, it becomes clear to me that it is not the way the man wants you to think. Once you realize that everything our society is based on isn't real (money), they can't control you as easily. ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 7:22pm
| As much as it DOES sound like a conspiracy theory, it's not at all unlikely. Even mushrooms CAN be extremely eye opening. Not everyone obviously, and I'm not saying everyone should do them. Just....drugs have been used to alter perception forever among people you would consider to be great thinkers, artists, musicians, etc. |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 9:08pm
| I could see the argument of eradicating green being seriously considered. But criminalisation is not that. |
Posted By: Darur
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 9:34pm
 ------------- Real Men play Tuba [IMG]http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/1859/newsmall6xz.jpg"> PH33R TEH 1337 Dwarf! http://www.tippmann.com/forum/wwf77a/log_off_user.asp" rel="nofollow - DONT CLICK ME!!1 |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 9:45pm
*Correction
 |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 10:00pm
|
Its time for the monthly "LEGALIZE IT" /"NO, DON'T!" debate? My how the time does fly. Tell me when its over. its the same crap under a different thread title. ------------- ? |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 11:40pm
Hey, it's at least nice to have a thread that isn't full of ridiculous formatting everywhere. Either way, I figured this thread was appropriate, because it's a real issue of logic, finance and law, and it is being voted on by the 2nd. |
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 24 October 2010 at 11:48pm
|
We can fix that now can't we.
Also, here's some http://drudgereport.com/ - links to some http://google.com - stuff that may or may not be http://en.wikipedia.org - relevent .
|
Posted By: Evil Elvis
Date Posted: 25 October 2010 at 11:19pm
all i can think off is Rob Riggle's Berkley infiltration.
 ------------- 
|
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 1:48am
Rob Riggle is hilarious 
|
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 9:20am
|
So everybody who is opposed is opposed for societies safety? Specifically, work place, driving and in linus's case, second hand smoke.... Wow. Ill use gods term, thats bogus.
Its funny when people give good reasons for legalization and decriminalization all the people who first disagreed are now looking over this thread and not posting in it anymore.
Is it safe to say its been proven to them, they're just too scared to admit it? Im thinking so.
|
Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 12:19pm
Nay. Im apposed because I don't want the man taxin' mah stash brah. ------------- I ♣ hippies. |
Posted By: Impulse.
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 2:26pm
And this is any different from alcohol? You have alcoholics in the work place, just like you have pot heads also.
And I don't remember any times when a group of potheads started a fight in Taco Bell. Or drag raced on the way home from playing guitar hero.
The whole MJ has carcinogens is flawed logic. Yes it might cause cancer, but how many phyisical ailments are caused by alcohol? Liver damage, diabetes, wet brain etc. Is there anyway to consume massive amounts of alcohol without phyiscal complications? I know with MJ you can vaporize or consume.
How many cases of alcohol poisoning is there? How many cases of MJ overdose?
While is MJ a schedule 1 drug?
Seeing MJ is a Schedule 1 drug, we can't fully conclude the possible health problems; because of such strict control on it. Even when it comes to scientific research.
I don't smoke/eat/ or vaporize MJ. I don't partake in any mind altering substances including alcohol. But some people are so freaking closed minded, on both sides of the spectrum. ------------- [IMG]http://www.word-detective.com/berry.gif"> |
Posted By: Benjichang
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 2:28pm
Since when? ------------- irc.esper.net #paintball |
Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 2:30pm
|
Thats just what I was thinking. ------------- I ♣ hippies. |
Posted By: Impulse.
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 3:08pm
MJ a while back. Alcohol July 4th 2010. ------------- [IMG]http://www.word-detective.com/berry.gif"> |
Posted By: Tical3.0
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 3:18pm
|
wow life must suck. ------------- I ♣ hippies. |
Posted By: Impulse.
Date Posted: 26 October 2010 at 8:02pm
Life has never been better actually. Nothing beats serenity. ------------- [IMG]http://www.word-detective.com/berry.gif"> |