That is funny, I call myself a fiscal conservative with a sense of social justice. And when a moderator says something to me, I will be sure to follow their lead on appropriate threads. Which is proof positive that you have never THOUGHT about this subject with an open mind, which is what I am asking you to do.
So once a thread has started, only counterpoints are valid. Gotcha. When, by the way, are you gonna post a counterpoint? I knew you were gonna make me do this, DD. The moot take is the one from someone who believes a dime bag is a lot of pot ("he had a lot... maybe even a dime bag.") and who insists that you can only be arrested for possession while driving if you are high at the time (Both from the Eddie Griffin busted thread and both backed up by the assertion that you know a cop so you know what you're talking about. It is painfully clear you don't.). You are among the least educated people on this board on this topic, you repeatedly show your ignorance of it and yet you continue to post in these threads. If anyone's wasting space here, it's you. If your best arguments are (1) he's wasting server space, and (2) legalization will never happen, it is clear who's take is moot. It is a longstanding directive from the mods that constantly responding to spacewasting threads (which this isn't) to say "nuh unh" or to accuse of spacewasting is, itself, wasting space. It is even more ludicrous to suggest that it will never happen. No one knows for certain whether it will or not, but the trend is good and all signs suggest it will happen eventually. I know, I know... You know a cop and it definitely won't. You should add CASE CLOSED when you post stupid stuff like that. Keep it up, andy.
The problem with this thread is that it does not matter if heavy mar1juana use damages the human brain due to long term use. If you smoke mar1juana several times a day, every day (which to me is the definition of heavy mar1juana use), you will not be able to function as a productive citizen. The article has scientific significance but is a horribly misleading tool to debate mar1juana decriminalization. The costs to society of heavy mar1juana use are severe, regardless of how the human brain is effected.
t4: Your definition of heavy use is not the definition used in the study. It is also bad to be drunk all day long. Next!
Batman, Go back and read the 2nd of AndyMoon's threads on this topic, I posted a few articles in there which refute his claims. Keep saying I don't know anything about MJ as a way to dispute my points....it just makes people realize that you really have no intention of listening to others and your mind is made up. As clearly anyone that does not BELIEVE as you do is uneducated on the matter. Whatever, dude. We will never agree on it, I don't think legalization is a good idea, and there is not a shred of proof that it is a good idea. Just a bunch of supposition and conjecture, no hard proof. However there is a ton of proof that pot is bad for the brain the lungs and many other areas of the body, but I am sure you don't care about that either. Oh, of course your argument will be that alcohol is legal and just as bad as pot...and I will somewhat agree with this, but why add more bad things for people to consume? DD
Did you read anything but the article? I submit that even though heavy mar1juana use has social costs, prohibition has social costs that FAR outweigh them. You are statistically likely to know eight to ten regular mar1juana users who do not tell people they smoke and who you would never suspect.
Your articles made the claim that mar1juana use is dangerous and has long term health effects, a point which I agreed with. The counterpoint you never addressed is the fact that prohibition causes more harm than mar1juana ever could. I listen and agree with evey valid point you make. Who is the one who is not listening? You have neglected to answer all but 3 or 4 of the questions I have asked you and you even threatened to put me on your ignore list. Who is the closed minded one here? I think you are uneducated on the matter because your arguments are elementary and do not have anything to back them up. You actually claim to believe that you prefer decriminalization over legalization. I would like to see your analysis of WHY you would consider decriminalization over legalization along with a discussion on the possible social costs of each policy. I will do one too if you agree. I think you have the potential to come around on this one. You have said that you could see decrim as a possibility before legalization, but that opinion is one that comes from a lack of knowledge of the subject. There is no questioning the fact that there are a number of potential problems that could come as a result of regulating recreational pharmaceuticals. The point is that all of these problems combined do not even hold a candle to the depth and breadth of the problems created by prohibition. I care about this, as I have repeatedly stated, drugs are bad for you, they will limit your potential, and they could kill you. Again, the point is that prohibition causes more harm than mar1juana use ever could. I would not be adding anything. Anyone in America today who wants drugs can and does get them. I want to change the delivery mechanism to put the mafia out of business and keep drugs from our children. In addition, I want to collect tax money to pay for the social costs of drug use and abuse and to lower the tax burden on all of us who make the intelligent choice not to use drugs.
I hate when people use anecdotal evidence to frame an argument. Just because I'm half asian doesn't mean I'm good at math. I always told them that I didn't get that half. LOL. mar1juana should be legalized or at least decriminalized because: 1. Its illegality forces smokers undettered by this great crusade to seek out black market sources who are not bound by the law or the BBB 2. Even if mar1juana is harmful, shouldn't the choice to smoke or not be left up to consenting adults? Why does the govt. need to be a mother for everyone? 3. Most of our prison overcrowding problem is due to mostly non-violent drug offenders. Revamp the laws and watch the prison overcrowding crisis go bye-bye. 4. We waste billions on a "War" that is not ever going to be won. 5. All kinds of checks on individual liberty are in place thanks to this "War on Drugs." Did you know that if federal agents find you in possession of a large amount of cash, they can seize it without any due process? Also, banks are forced to spy for the Imperial Federal Govt. to make sure you don't deposit a few thousand in cash. If you sell a car and the buyer pays you in cash, the Federal Govt. will know about that when you deposit the money at the bank. So there's my .10 on this senseless mar1juana prohibition.
OK, since it has been proven that the WOD has not accomplished its stated goal (of a drug free America by 1980, 1985, 1988, 1995, and 2000), despite a MASSIVE increase in dollars spent and liberties ceded, what would the prohibitionists suggest to make this a policy that works? I think it was StupidMoniker that suggested cutting off the hands of drug users (in another thread). We currently spend over $100 billion on the drug war. How much more should we be willing to spend? We have over 2 million people in jail right now. How many people should we have to incarcerate? We can't keep drugs out of our prisons, which are supposed to be secure facilities. Are you willing to make everyday life even more controlled than a prison? Universal ID that can be tracked by GPS? Checkpoints to go from state to state? Checkpoints in minority rich parts of town (oh wait, that one is here already)? Just how far are you willing to take this war?
Great article! This explains pretty clearly WHY I am on this (as DD calls it) crusade. Editorial: No Drug War Exception to Good and Evil http://www.drcnet.org/wol/292.shtml#goodandevil David Borden, Executive Director, borden@drcnet.org, 6/20/03 This week's drug war news as usual includes no shortage of outrages. Despite the mass murder of more than 2,000 Thai drug suspects without trial by police in recent months, the supreme commander of Thailand's Army and the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff are meeting to discuss how they can help each other fight drugs. And in Peru, the military, assisted by US forces, will resume shooting down airplanes that they suspect or claim they suspect of carrying drugs -- also without trial. Our government will not reduce our country's drug problem by helping other governments around the world commit murder. Any reductions in coca in Peru will be replaced by increases in other countries. Any reductions in opium in Thailand will be replaced by increased in other countries. This "balloon effect" is well demonstrated, has been happening reliably for decades, and any public official or pseudo-academic who claims otherwise or that it might be different next time is lying to us and/or himself. There is no legitimate moral, intellectual or practical justification for encouraging or assisting drug war murders. Yet the powers and interests driving them have no desire to stop nor even slow down, neither abroad nor at home. Just as the death of Veronica Bowers, the 35-year old missionary shot out of the Peruvian sky in error, stopped the shootdowns only temporarily, the death of Alberta Spruill in New York City from a "no-knock" warrant prompted only temporary discussion -- they're not even talking about ceasing the deadly no-knock drug raids, though the innocent deaths happen again and again. The drug warmongers will concede nothing voluntarily, no matter how terrible or outrageous or execrable. Since policymakers lack the moral clarity or political will in sufficient numbers to perceive and stop drug war atrocities by the agencies under their authority, it is up to people to demand it of them. We must expose the grotesque immoralities of the drug war, we must insist that fundamental ethics and proportion and due process be restored to laws and policies, and we must demand accountability. We must describe failure as failure, injustice as injustice, and murder as murder. And we must regard informed inaction as complicity, and deliberation human rights violations perpetrated or permitted by governments as no less condemnable than acts of violence committed by criminals or terrorists. To do so would be to devalue the fundamental ideals of what is right and what is wrong that have stood the test of millennia. There is no drug war exception to good and evil.
OK, DD and others, I guess you have given up on it this round. I guess we will see you making your silly arguments again when I post another thread about one of the many injustices of the drug war.
I am 23 years old and as I become older you start to notice things around more and more often. And its people like Dadakota that really make me confused about people. Do they just not see what is going on around them. Or another example people that are racist I just cant stand it sometimes. There are just so many reasons that drug policies should be changed. Its sad that it happens so slowly. And its nice to see someone that is as passionate about the subject as Andy. It makes me sick to think that our goverment that is suppost to be so "free" not letting someone legally sit in there house and smoke a little bit. And then arrest that person bring to jail or prison, and then crowd the system and let a rapist or murderer out because we dont have room for them. This Drug War that we have against our own people is not ever going to work. It just seems impossible. This country has money, and more of it then any other country. That is why poor 3rd world states are going to keep bringing it in to sell. Because of the amount of money you make from it is astounding, and much easier to make a lot of money doing that then something legal. And do people that want to keep the enviroment from crashing down on us not want to legalize it. Did you know the same amoung of hemp compared to trees makes four times the amount of paper. DOES THAT NOT SEEM IMPORTANT? Well it doesn't to some people, someone like Dadakota will just dismiss it as another stupid fact that doesn't matter. I have read books about both sides of this debate and that is what I have based my conclusion on. On a side note, and just for your information this means nothing, or let me say this is not here to support my arguement. But of all the 4 years of highschool the 1st and 2nd person of each grad. class 7 out of 8 of them were for the most part heavy drug users. I always thought that was really weird.
see, this isn't neccessarily true either. i know many people who smoke regularly who are quite productive and very intelligent. some of the most successful people i know smoke pot regularly. you just cant generalize a group of people like that. more likely than not, those unproductive, lazy, stupid potheads were unproductive, lazy, and stupid waaayyyy before they started smoking pot. that's what people need to take into consideration.
Agreed. I think they see what is going on, they just don't THINK about it. They take the government propaganda and act as if it were manna from heaven. Racists are just morons, see my signature. Thanks!! 100% on. Prohibition increases the value of the prohibited item to the point that economic law guarantees that the item will become available. I hadn't even brought up hemp, but in addition to replacement for wood pulp, hemp seed oil can be refined to run existing deisel engines without modifying the engine at all. Me too, lots of books, magazine articles, newspapers, and years of counseling. That is a bit strange, but not wholly unexpected since over half of high school seniors report having used an illicit drug. Nice post!
Heavy mar1juana use does not damage the brain, but it will make a millionaire out of the owner of your neighborhood Pizza Hut!
i'm sure many people here would disagree with that comment, but that's probably a pretty accurate statistic. the reason most people who don't smoke only "know" lazy, unproductive potheads is because the successful potheads they do know don't make it anyone else's business. and why should they? they could have a lot to lose. regular pot users are all around you, it's mainly just the stereotypical ones that don't bother hiding it.
