Do you support legalisation of marijuana?

[camilus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/93jQI_6G5Cw&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/93jQI_6G5Cw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Weed.. the undeniable truth.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

What exactly is a tobacco related crime?

 

[Kronos5253]

I have not differentiated between the two. I pointed out the good and bad of drinking alcohol. Mainly alcohol abuse, as alcohol in small amounts, can actually be beneficial. I suggest that you read my posts before making false claims of what I said.

Very true. That's my mistake.

Although mostly what I wanted to know was if you differentiate between someone drinking to get drunk and someone smoking marijuana to get high, and if you did what your view point was and how you differentiate between the two. But I did assume, and I apologize for that.

Someone sipping a glass of wine over the period of an hour, might not even be enough to be felt. If they abuse it and drink to get drunk, then I am against it. I'm not for getting stoned or drunk. I think I've been pretty clear that I don't see a valid reason that anyone "needs" to do either.

Are we going to go around in circles now?

True true.. Although may I point out that there are people who only take a hit or two of marijuana to help with feelings of nausea, or with their ADD/ADHD, or similar things like that? And likewise, as with alcohol, one or two hits generally isn't enough to be "felt" in the sense of what you feel when you're high, but it helps with those issues?

I want to avoid making the mistake of assuming again, so I'll ask: Do you have any bias' towards marijuana? And if so are you able to look at a thread like this (leaving out comments from people like camilus), and look at something like this objectively?

Honestly I'm just curious on what you have to say on the matter, because I know that you're intelligent. Although I guess more or less what I'm looking for in threads like this is an intelligent conversation that's fairly similar to a research paper weighing the pros and cons of it... And I don't know if that's even possible on a forum haha

 

[maverick_starstrider]

weed can also be a social lubricant just like alcohol.

 

[turbo]

In Maine, marijuana can be prescribed for the treatment of intractable pain, glaucoma, and other conditions that don't respond well to traditional treatments. When my brother-in-law was in the final throes of pancreatic cancer, Marinol did not help him. Smoking pot helped him. It eased his pain and helped him to keep enough of an appetite to eat and keep down food - not always possible when chemo-therapy is ravaging one's body with side-effects that can seem worse than the disease.

A local man has been persecuted for years by the DA for growing and supplying marijuana to a person for whom it was prescribed (entirely legal under Maine law) and who was recently exonerated by the top court in our state. The DA is undaunted, and is on a rampage against pot in all forms, legal or not.

 

[Santa1]

It eased his pain and helped him to keep enough of an appetite to eat and keep down food - not always possible when chemo-therapy is ravaging one's body with side-effects that can seem worse than the disease.

Yep, if a person is undergoing chemo-therapy or is dangerously underweight (and not suffering from anorexia or the likes) pot may help alot.

 

[camilus]

thread like this (leaving out comments from people like camilus), ...

[should be..]

Very true. That's my mistake.

Yes I smoke weed, and I've been smoking herb for like 8 years god. And I haven't failed to do exceptional in all my classes, which happen TO be the passions of my life, which are mathematics, physics and science, and philosophy.

Besides, all the BS I had to go though, it isn't the marijuana that's holded me back. In fact, I've done most of my best work almost immediately after getting high. These BS laws on mj is what holded me back, just read this next excerpt from another thread in the Academic Advice forum:

You're pretty much where I am at, just that I fked up my life, I am probably going to jail again... for smoking weed... its a fking shame because everyone who knows me knows that I have a gift for mathematics and science. In one year in High school, when I finally got my life on track, I skipped college algebra, trig, and precalc, and went straight to AP calc 1 and 2, as well as simultaniously taking physics I and II, and AP Physics the next semester. Aced every single one.

And its a shame because I had already began doing independant research on my own. I'd go to the Chair of the mathematics department, to speak to the most knowledgeable mathematician in the school, to ask em a simple question in complex analysis. I asked, how can I raise a number to a complex power, like what is 2^i?

The math department was stumped. two days later, not only did I know how to do such calculations, I independently derived the general case for any x raised to the power of a+bi. The math department was shocked.

In all my calculus classes, I was the only spanish kid, quiet, didnt have no friends, because all of the other kids were a bunch of racist white rich kids. They didnt like me much because I was the only kid in class for 2 straight semesters that got over 100% (like 104% final grade.) The next grade closest to mine was like a 94-95.

and what made these rich white kids hate on me, was that I'd openly talk about how I was a hardcore pothead, and I would get over 100% on an exam that I took literally blitzed out of my mind. and I didnt study at all, I smoked herb all day, while these kids studied their a$$es off and I still blew them out of the water. I am a pothead minority in my high school who knew more advanced mathematics than the whole department. Anyways, I went from a straight F student in 9th and 10th grade, got expelled from all Miami-Dade county public schools for getting arrested OUTSIDE of school on a fkin saturday night, and the beeotch a$$ cops went and snitched on me to the school.

Well sorry for getting off topic.

Out of the courses you listed, I suggest, analysis, complex analysis (Im a big fan of analysis, I have a like a natural talent for it), and topology, which I am DYING to take.

It depends also, how hardcore of the pure mathematician you are. I'm a Platonist along the lines of G.H. Hardy, I don't care about "applications", I love number theory for the simple fact that its the most beautiful, original creation of the human spirit, like Whitehead said.

My Holy Bible is basically 'THE BOOK' of which Paul Erdos spoke about. A book that God always carried arround him containing all the most beautiful, creative, and interesting and deep theorems.

Thats my holy grail, if hypothetically* that BOOK existed, I would honestly trade my life for a full understanding of all the most beautiful, creative, original, interesting and deep theorems ever. These are my life's passions, without them, my life would be almost meaningless... I would still have my family though, that the other most important aspect of my life.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=2275790#post2275790

 

[camilus]

SO yeah, these last two posts have been in defense of marijuana affecting or holding me back. What I've been saying all along is that these laws implemented by the government are a joke, they're inconsistent, contradictory, 90% of all there shi!t is mostly BS, they Lost the "war on drugs', those regulations made the situation even worse.

And I can go on here forever, and its all these BS unfair laws, that I should go to jail for possessing a few grams of marijuana for personal use. Most of you guys haven't had to go through what I did, and I am not hoping for sympathy here. I just want yall to understand. Read my the last thread about my potential, and how I turned my life around.

And now, I got to go back to jail. And how I said, most of you have never been in jails at crazy as I have. I live in Miami Florida, its hectic out here. I was brought up on the streets, but since I was little I showed promising signs of potential greatness. SO now I got to go back to jail, and that **** was horrible. I got locked up for a few months (OVER SOME MARIJUANA), and it was bad, all I had to do was think, and work on problems in number theory. Since I was there for a few months, I got cool with all my cell-mates, I taught simple algebras courses with business and profit potential applictaions to the inmates that wanted to learn. Right before I got locked up, Purdue University published a solution I derived. It was also solved by a bunch of other mathematicians, and they would be listed like this:

Joe Shmoe, Grad Student, (Univ. of Madrid)
Mary Jane, (Univ. in Israel), ..., and so on. I solved what there's graduate students in prestigious universities literally around the world, Spain, Ireland, Israel, Australia, and a few more.

It also published my name that I also solved the problem, but it said: Camilo Montoya (Miami, FL). lol

I speculated that this must of made these other guys in top univerities mad lol... a simple 20 year old "potsmoking punk" is doing the same math, completely independent. My friends have compared me to Will from Good Will Hunting (film).

I can give you a link to the published solution. Or you can find it in Purdue University's Department of Mathematics' website.

So in conclusion: I am mad about these unjust laws and BS criminal punishments for simple possesion for personal use. I proved I've done well, and its not the marijuana holding me back, its the godforsaken laws...

 

[Evo]

True true.. Although may I point out that there are people who only take a hit or two of marijuana to help with feelings of nausea, or with their ADD/ADHD, or similar things like that?

Yes, but that is such a tiny % of users, it's negligible and prescription drugs such as ativan seem to control nausea better. There are better drugs to control ADHD, since that seems to be a brain chemical imbalance. Alcohol can "help" too, but obviously prescribed medications that don't cloud the mind are better choices.

I want to avoid making the mistake of assuming again, so I'll ask: Do you have any bias' towards marijuana? And if so are you able to look at a thread like this (leaving out comments from people like camilus), and look at something like this objectively?

I have nothing against marijuana, as you have noticed I don't make stupid claims as to it having "evil consequences" such as addiction, leading to harder drugs, aggresive behavior, etc. I have been around it since the mid 60's. But I also don't see the need for it as another recreational drug. I'm stuck between thinking, what the hell, legalize it, control it, and tax the hell out of it, then listen to everyone whine about having it controlled and taxed, (because no one is going to be happy) and realizing how many more people would abuse it if they could get it legally. And I have seen many just go to "pot". <pun intended>

I wish I could post this video, it's so true "I was going to clean my room, but then I got high", it's so typical of the behavior I have seen. My younger daughter says a lot of kids she knows smoke pot and she's had to distance herself because they were dragging her down, wanting to smoke and then too tired to study. AND the girls that smoke have all gotten pregnant within the last two years, oops, forgotten that pill? Of course there are exceptions, there are those that will continue to push themselves, but kid themselves that they are doing as well as they could without smoking. There was a guy here that swore his drinking 8 ounces of hard liquor a night made him a better student.

I just think it's sad when someone is so concerned about how they're going to get wasted and then tries to make excuses for it. I've been around the block more than a few times and I've seen a lot. But people won't listen, they have to learn the hard way.

 

[Hepth]

My biggest issue is, how far in either direction should we go? Should all sensory-altering drugs be banned? (Caffeine, Alcohol, Marijuana, Heroin, Cocaine, etc.)

Should they all be allowed? Why or why not? Alcohol certainly is statically more likely to lead to death and or injury than Caffeine or Marijuana (a TREND rather than an eventuality).

Why are we OK with our government letting our rights be influenced by corporations and lobbyists?As for my opinion:
If it has a direct health benefit, it should be prescription based at the bare minimum.

And as much as I love a good beer, gun-to-my-head decision would be to say we DO NOT have a RIGHT to be able to drink alcohol in our homes or in public, when it generally leads to abuse of some way or another.
BUT REMEMBER, just because we don't have a RIGHT doesn't mean we can't have it. It just means it should be left up to the states to vote on it.

 

[lisab]

So in conclusion: I am mad about these unjust laws and BS criminal punishments for simple possesion for personal use. I proved I've done well, and its not the marijuana holding me back, its the godforsaken laws...

So, is the high worth it all? Really?

I don't think it's the laws holding you back; it's your resistance to following those laws.

 

[Hepth]

So in conclusion: I am mad about these unjust laws and BS criminal punishments for simple possesion for personal use. I proved I've done well, and its not the marijuana holding me back, its the godforsaken laws...

Sorry, but really I have no sympathy for anyone who breaks the law.
Even if I thought it should be legalized (which i do lean to, with restrictions) it doesn't mean that you should violate the current law. That's just academic. I do agree the punishment is RIDICULOUSLY strict and inconsistent, and there I feel for ya. But, you won't see me frequently doing something that is illegal and has a huge punishment until its legalized. Why take the risk? It wasn't life or death. It was mere convenience and entertainment. Learn your lesson and move on.

 

[camilus]

So then why not criminalize all harmful drugs, starting alcohol and tobacco, which do more harm and kill more people than heroin, crack, and cocaine combined.

Have you guys ever heard of laws being unjust? that's exactly what I am saying. How can I philosophically "commit a crime" that I deserve to go to jail for months, like I was locked up with niggas with assaults with a deadly weapon, dealing stolen property, attempted murder, etc...(which are just laws) by breaking and unjust law?

 

[Hepth]

So then why not criminalize all harmful drugs, starting alcohol and tobacco, which do more harm and kill more people than heroin, crack, and cocaine combined.

But do they only harm and kill more people because they're legal? If heroin was completely legal, don't you think overdose fatalities would go up drastically?Again, I'm with you. Its a tough subject because as it is now, there's a smooth gradient of the dangerousness of drugs. From aspirin to acid. And what we have legalized now is sort of a random selection (nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, ibuprofen, etc) with a range of social impacts and dangers to a persons immediate and future health, and to their danger to others.

I feel its backward too, but its not productive to just criticize practices without even attempting to come up with a solution or trying to put said solution into action.

Have you guys ever heard of laws being unjust? that's exactly what I am saying. How can I philosophically "commit a crime" that I deserve to go to jail for months, like I was locked up with niggas with assaults with a deadly weapon, dealing stolen property, attempted murder, etc...(which are just laws) by breaking and unjust law?

I'm sorry, but your definition of "Just/unjust" is completely subjective and a matter of opinion, that is completely biased due to your situation. A person who's child was killed by a drunk driver is more likely to feel that 90 days in jail for drunk driver is "just" than that person driving.

Again, just because you don't FEEL a law is just does NOT give you the right to violate it. If it did you'd see me coasting through red lights when no one was coming at 4am, going 90+mph on highways, lighting off air-borne fireworks year round. BUT ITS ILLEGAL, so I choose not to, even though I feel the law is misguided in those regards.

 

[Civilized]

So, is the high worth it all? Really?

Some kind of nasty stupor, such as that induced by alcohol, or some foul death-tasting tobacco smoke, would not be worth breaking the law for. But for many people Cannabis is nt treated like a drug, it's a gateway to reflective and spiritual experiences.

I don't think it's the laws holding you back; it's your resistance to following those laws.

Following unjust laws is unjust. The argument "because it's the law..." makes me sick. If the law is unjust, then it is our duty to protest it. Anything less would be failing to take moral responsibility, ignoring the big picture in favor of giving up and doing nothing (head in sand).

Meanwhile, people like camilus are the ones who have to suffer because Americans have refused to do the responsible thing. If we are going to arrest thousands of people, then at the least we need to do due dilligence and fund more studies of cannabis to be sure that the 'crime' fits the punishment. Most of us give these issues only a passing thought, but people in camilus' position have had to face it up close and personal in a life changing way. Does anyone get my point that it is flat out irresponsible to sentence people to hard time in prison for cannabis possession without having thoroughly evaluated the scientific reasons and the social impact of doing o?

 

[Al68]

And as much as I love a good beer, gun-to-my-head decision would be to say we DO NOT have a RIGHT to be able to drink alcohol in our homes or in public, when it generally leads to abuse of some way or another.
BUT REMEMBER, just because we don't have a RIGHT doesn't mean we can't have it. It just means it should be left up to the states to vote on it.

Do you and I have the right to use force against someone and imprison them for using alcohol in their home?

If not, where would the states get the right? Assuming we believe that all legitimate state power is delegated from the people.

 

[robertm]

No one has yet explained why they feel that society at large has the right to decide what a person can and cannot consume in privacy.

As I said before, there is I think a case against legalizing extremely addictive substances simply because such large segments of the population are highly vulnerable to such drugs, i.e. too many people have too much of an addictive personality.

Ideally, those of us who are known to be susceptible to such pit falls should have the education, self control, and social support to stay clear; and those of us who are not should not be forced on pain of jail time/high fines/probation/and humiliation to not consume whatever it is we so desire.

The only place that the law should enter the picture is when a person in a sufficiently altered state of mind puts the well being of others at risk.

I do not need nor want Big-Brother to protect me from myself, and neither should any adult of average capacity.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Following unjust laws is unjust. The argument "because it's the law..." makes me sick. If the law is unjust, then it is our duty to protest it. Anything less would be failing to take moral responsibility, ignoring the big picture in favor of giving up and doing nothing (head in sand).

If you are protesting then you should be aware of the consequences and accept them rather than b****ing and whining about them. A complainer is not a protester.

Do you and I have the right to use force against someone and imprison them for using alcohol in their home?

If not, where would the states get the right? Assuming we believe that all legitimate state power is delegated from the people.

The state acquires the right by consent of the people to be a (theoretically) impartial moderator and enforcer of the law adopted by those same people. The difference is that "you and I" haven't the endorsement of the body of the people.

No one has yet explained why they feel that society at large has the right to decide what a person can and cannot consume in privacy.

I believe the general argument is that if someone does something that is harmful to themselves then society will be left footing the bill for their medical expenses if they are unable to pay themselves or, through the damage that they do to themselves, are unable to continue to take care of themselves.

Another point is that just because some few persons in a society are careful and responsible enough to not suffer problems due to their indulgences does not mean that their substance of habit should be made freely available to anyone to the detriment of the population who may indulge in general.

I'm not saying that these are good arguments against marijuana by the way, your question was framed in a general manner so I gave a general answer.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Does anyone here actually respect the governments ability to.. well.. .do anything? So why would we empower it to prescribe bloody healthy living for us?

 

[robertm]

I believe the general argument is that if someone does something that is harmful to themselves then society will be left footing the bill for their medical expenses if they are unable to pay themselves or, through the damage that they do to themselves, are unable to continue to take care of themselves.

Another point is that just because some few persons in a society are careful and responsible enough to not suffer problems due to their indulgences does not mean that their substance of habit should be made freely available to anyone to the detriment of the population who may indulge in general.

Which is precisely why I wrote this:
" As I said before, there is I think a case against legalizing extremely addictive substances simply because such large segments of the population are highly vulnerable to such drugs, i.e. too many people have too much of an addictive personality.

Ideally, those of us who are known to be susceptible to such pit falls should have the education, self control, and social support to stay clear; and those of us who are not should not be forced on pain of jail time/high fines/probation/and humiliation to not consume whatever it is we so desire."

In general, for highly addictive/toxic substances, this is the case. For Cannabis? The only case I've seen so far, here and else where, is personal bias being extended into law. And extremely harsh law at that. Though, I do think that in Alaska one must be in possession of a substantial amount of cannabis material to be charged with even a misdemeanor.

I'm not saying that these are good arguments against marijuana by the way, your question was framed in a general manner so I gave a general answer.

Thanks, I would like to here the views of someone who actually stands behind such an argument though.

 

[tchitt]

I believe the general argument is that if someone does something that is harmful to themselves then society will be left footing the bill for their medical expenses if they are unable to pay themselves or, through the damage that they do to themselves, are unable to continue to take care of themselves.

Another point is that just because some few persons in a society are careful and responsible enough to not suffer problems due to their indulgences does not mean that their substance of habit should be made freely available to anyone to the detriment of the population who may indulge in general.

How is this NOT a legitimate argument? I spent a lot of my life in the drug world and I simply don't believe that most people can handle it. I can't be objective about this because it's too close to home. I've seen things that I never want to see again and it was all fueled by drug and alcohol abuse. The world became an extremely dark place very quickly. Sure, a few of us got out... but many of them are in prison or worse and most of them aren't even there for drug charges. Things like burglary, assault, etc.

If you've ever seen someone lose themselves you'd know how dangerous it can be to EVERYONE. A normal, decent person can undergo a metamorphosis in a matter of a couple of weeks from a meth binge... I had a friend of mine screaming at the top of his lungs about how his TV was talking to him and the guy inside was trying to kill him. He detoxed in a psych ward only to repeat the same process.

Drugs destroy your balanced state of mind over time. All of them. They cause depression, paranoia, desperation... while at the same time making their users fall in love with them. Your dopamine/serotonin/whatever neurotransmitters are believed to exist as a reward system to "train" you to take care of yourself. Eventually, instead of thinking about things like reproduction and food you're thinking about the drugs. This is addiction and addiction alone can make people do crazy things.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=399 < - The amount of money taxing and regulating alcohol brings into the US.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/22/health-drinking-problems_cx_mh_nightlife06_0822costs.html < - The cost of alcohol use and abuse in the US.

Each year, alcohol abuse costs the United States an estimated $185 billion, according to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. But only $26 billion, 14% of the total, comes from direct medical costs or treating alcoholics. Almost half, a whopping $88 billion, comes from lost productivity--a combination of all those hangovers that keep us out of work on Monday mornings, as well as other alcohol-related diseases. People who drink too much and too often are at greater risk for diabetes and several kinds of cancer, according to some studies.

So when more people start getting stoned and lazy...

http://alcoholism.about.com/od/binge/a/2006_nsduh.htm

Binge drinking is considered having five or more drinks one occasion at least once in the past 30 days. According to the survey results, 23 percent, or about 57 million people over age 12, met that definition.

Heavy drinking is considered binge drinking five or more times a month. The 2006 NSDUH survey indicated that an estimated 6.9 percent of the population, about 17 million people over age 12, were heavy drinkers.

For young abuts, between the ages of 18 and 25, the rate of binge drinking and heavy drinking is almost double that of the general population. In 2006, the rate of binge drinking in this group was 42.2 percent and the rate of heavy drinking was 15.6 percent.

The survey also showed that the rate of binge drinking in adolescent drinkers -- those ages 12 to 17 -- is about 10.3 percent, with the percentage of heavy drinkers at 2.4 percent. All of these rates are basically unchanged from the 2005 NSDUH results.

Nothing I say is going to change your mind as you've already got your mind made up. It's just my opinion that legalizing these substances does give them a certain amount of social acceptance which makes kids more likely to get involved in their use. Which makes them many times more likely to become addicts later in life, which effectively stunts their overall potential.

 

[JDStupi]

I must say that the general viewpoint which states "If Marijuana is legalized more kids will get a hold of it"..leading to stunting of potential etc. (tchitt, I am not singling you out, I have just heard others voice that opinion and I am addressing it), is wrong. While to the majority of people it seems like a perfectly logical argument and people draw parallels between kids acquiring alcohol, despite being underaged, and no doubt these things happen and would happen with weed, but it is extrememly possible that the legalization of marijuana will lead to a decrease of marijuana availability to kids. I know this from experience. From a teenager's perspective it is easy to see why this would be the case. Due to weed's illegality it is so much easier to get, everybody down to the local 14 y/o is selling 20 bags. Whereas alcohol, being on a legal market is much more difficult to acquire. Teenagers spend their entire night trying to get ahold of alcohol to no avail, and they say "Son of a ***** man, I wanted to get wasted, I guess we'll just pick up a 20 bag". Since alcohol is legal you need to know or find somebody who is 21 who isn't doing anything that night and feels like running errands and usually you have to tip them causing the overall price to go up, the same thing would probably happen if Marijuana were legalized. It would be made at a price that would eliminate the black-market yet manage to keep profit up. Marijuana would, in fact, be more difficult to get if legal. (Sorry for my errors in writing and the general clumped/annoying to read nature of the reply)

One more thing I forgot we can discuss, How come everybody always dwells on those pot-smokers who were/are deadbeats? In my expereince, the majority of "deadbeat" stoners are those who before they ever smoked were "deadbeat" and were'nt planning on going anywhere with their life and then started "getting high", meaning anything they can do to occupy their time with a high. I think this is the wrong way to go about life also. Not too many people mention the kids who enjoy smoking, but don't let it get in the way of their priorities. There are many people you "wouldn't expect" to smoke, because they are not lazy and unmotivated,quite the contrary actually... the "lazy" stoners are "lazy" without the high, the people who are "normal" are "normal" while high and those who are active are many times "active" during their high.

(This is going to probably get much of my opinions disqualified in some people's eyes...) When I smoke, which isn't an incredible amount, I usually like to do things. I love smoking and going for a real long bike ride around and then through the woods and going swimming, I love being active and having fun. I don't take a hit and immediatley turn into a sack of laziness and I know many of my friends are the same way, they like doing things. Those who don't like doing things,(Surprise, Surprise!) don't like doing things no matter what state of mind they're in! ... As an afterword, I realize that their are exceptions to everything I said, but I'm just throwing out some personal experiences regarding the subject that should be factored in, because I'm sure many other people have similar experiences.

 

[russ_watters]

The point is that a lot of people think getting drunk is fun (it causes feelings of euphoria and happiness), and I think that's why most people drink. You said earlier you think most people drink alcohol to enjoy the taste but I don't see that...

I have a theory that most people who are arguing in favor of pot in this thread aren't old enough to know what it means to be responsible about such things. Statements like that support my theory. When young, your tastes are different than when you are older. You like sweets, you don't like onions or garlic -- or wine or beer. So when an 18 or 20 year old drinks, they can't even fathom the idea that you might drink for another reason than getting drunk. The stuff tastes terrible, so who would drink it because they like the taste?

Drinking for the sole purpose of getting drunk ends nearly completely by the time a person reaches 25 or 30 and then you either drink almost nothing or you drink different things because you like the taste. I have a bottle of Vodka, Jack, and Tequila that have been sitting on my counter for 2 years and are still 3/4 full. I don't really like them, but some of my friends do, so I bought them for a party. I also have a half a case of Coors Light in my fridge that that I bought for a the same party. I drink wine and good beer, and that's about it. Yeah, if I'm out at a bar (I have a good one very near my houses), I'll sometimes drink more than a couple, but the last time I was drunk was New Years' and I can't remember the last time I vomited.

why is so much high proof liquor bought and sold in this country if that's the case?

Responsible people still drink scotch or Jack a vodka tonic. It's different from the way you drink in college, where you look for the easist hard alcohol to drink when mixed with a little fruit juice, so you can get drunk the fastest. A buddy of mine likes a glass of Johnnie Walker black with a cigar, but I think that's only because he aspires to be a lawyer...

I'm just curious as to why you're so "against" people getting intoxicated for fun.

Whether with alcohol or with drugs, it is self destructive. In particular, kids do it in college because they can and it gets in the way of academic achievement. I have a number of friends with similar stories: they spent the first two years drunk and high and getting bad grades (one failed out), then got their act together, reduced their drinking and smoking, and got better grades in their junior and senior years.

I haven't really stated my position fully in this thread. I used to be completely against pot, but only in about the same way I'm against cigarettes. I don't have a very strong opinion against doing it, say, once a week for entertainment and in the same way, drinking a lot once a week for entertainment isn't too bad either. But that isn't the way the drug/drinking culture works for kids in their late teens and early 20s. Drinking and smoking pot dominates their lives.

 

[russ_watters]

Someone a while back mentioned that Carl Sagan smoked pot and was of the opinion that he did his best thinking when high. Maybe that was true for him, but it isn't generally true. I'd been the only sober person in a circle of pot smokers a number of times and I wish I had a camcorder sometimes - not just because it was funny, but to show people the next day that no, those things they were saying last night were not profound, they were just dumb. They only sound profound because when you're high you can't understand your own ideas, which makes you think they are deep.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I have a theory that most people who are arguing in favor of pot in this thread aren't old enough to know what it means to be responsible about such things. Statements like that support my theory. When young, your tastes are different than when you are older. You like sweets, you don't like onions or garlic -- or wine or beer. So when an 18 or 20 year old drinks, they can't even fathom the idea that you might drink for another reason than getting drunk. The stuff tastes terrible, so who would drink it because they like the taste?

Drinking for the sole purpose of getting drunk ends nearly completely by the time a person reaches 25 or 30 and then you either drink almost nothing or you drink different things because you like the taste. I have a bottle of Vodka, Jack, and Tequila that have been sitting on my counter for 2 years and are still 3/4 full. I don't really like them, but some of my friends do, so I bought them for a party. I also have a half a case of Coors Light in my fridge that that I bought for a the same party. I drink wine and good beer, and that's about it. Yeah, if I'm out at a bar (I have a good one very near my houses), I'll sometimes drink more than a couple, but the last time I was drunk was New Years' and I can't remember the last time I vomited. Responsible people still drink scotch or Jack a vodka tonic. It's different from the way you drink in college, where you look for the easist hard alcohol to drink when mixed with a little fruit juice, so you can get drunk the fastest. A buddy of mine likes a glass of Johnnie Walker black with a cigar, but I think that's only because he aspires to be a lawyer...
Whether with alcohol or with drugs, it is self destructive. In particular, kids do it in college because they can and it gets in the way of academic achievement. I have a number of friends with similar stories: they spent the first two years drunk and high and getting bad grades (one failed out), then got their act together, reduced their drinking and smoking, and got better grades in their junior and senior years.

I haven't really stated my position fully in this thread. I used to be completely against pot, but only in about the same way I'm against cigarettes. I don't have a very strong opinion against doing it, say, once a week for entertainment and in the same way, drinking a lot once a week for entertainment isn't too bad either. But that isn't the way the drug/drinking culture works for kids in their late teens and early 20s. Drinking and smoking pot dominates their lives.

Ah, the old wisdom in age argument. Have you ever considered the possibility that you're just a square? Life is not about straight A's and stable investment portfolios.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

We the people, as long as those people are over 30 years of age and in my summation have sufficient life experience to make informed decisions about issues I have little invested interest in. Is that basically your point?

I don't see why all these anecdotal horror stories about drugs are particularly relevant. Ultimately it's a question of civil liberty not pharmacology. It is not the government's job to ensure that all its citizens are productive members of society or that they conduct their leisure time in a manner consistent with some sort of legislation.

 

[tchitt]

Trust me. The founding fathers did not have acting like an idiot in mind when they were talking about liberty. How can you not wrap your mind around the FACT that drugs and alcohol make people do things that they normally wouldn't?

Thousands of people die every year from the mistakes of people who were messed up on drugs. Mistakes they wouldn't have made were they sober.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Well a) I'm not american and b) americas founding fathers were no stranger to drugs themselves and there are documented opinions expressed by people like jefferson that suggest they would have been strongly opposed to drug legislation. There are of course no direct statements since drugs weren't really recognized as an issue back then what with their snuff boxs, nitrous and opium and all

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Besides what philosophical argument are you invoking when claiming that "unaugmented" neural chemistry is "correct" and to augment neuralchemistry and the actions that result from that augmentation are "incorrect". Which really goes to the notion of "wholesome" fun vs. "unwholesome" fun that I keep bringing up and no one seems to be addressing. From an existential perspective what is the "correct" way of being? We are just flesh bags, there is nothing sacrosanct about our current state of mind.

 

[tchitt]

I agree but you're missing my point completely. The world was a simpler place two hundred years ago. I've stated several times that I myself have used drugs recreationally and I'm drinking a beer as I type this. I've got no problem with people taking drugs but I understand the necessity for drug legislation because it can be extremely risky even to people who aren't engaging in the activity. How many times do I have to repeat it?

Marijuana is largely decriminalized in America. Getting caught with less than an ounce gets you the equivalent of a speeding ticket. You seem to believe that any and all substances should be freely available to everyone and I simply do not agree. K?

 

[maverick_starstrider]

The world was a simpler place? Ya, most people were poor, desperate illiterate ignoramuses... Oh and drugs were legal back then.

 

[robertm]

Someone a while back mentioned that Carl Sagan smoked pot and was of the opinion that he did his best thinking when high. Maybe that was true for him, but it isn't generally true.

There's one more thing that me and Carl had in common,

I wish I could have known him.


tchitt:

Marijuana is largely decriminalized in America. Getting caught with less than an ounce gets you the equivalent of a speeding ticket.

Whoa, this is definitely not true. Maybe in a couple states, say Alaska or Minnesota, this is true but the vast majority have mandatory jail time, probation, fines, and suspensions for first time offenders caught with small amounts. Here is a state by state break down: http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=4516"

You also seem to equate marijuana use with the use of more 'substantial' chemicals that probably should be banned (for the reasons I have stated several times). Is this your position? I should also point out, that there are a great number of POWERFULLY psychoactive substances that are currently not covered by any statutes and have been in use for many thousands of years. Salvia Divinorum is probably the most well known, and can be purchased almost anywhere. Many consider the effects of the active chemical 'Salvinorin A ' to be more profound than LSD.

Why do people think that they need the government to protect them from themselves?

 

[tchitt]

Anyone who says the effects of salvia are anywhere close to the effects of acid is dead wrong.

Anyway, I've said it about seventeen billion times now. The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do. Learn to read. I'm not posting in this thread again.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Anyone who says the effects of salvia are anywhere close to the effects of acid is dead wrong.

Anyway, I've said it about seventeen billion times now. The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do. Learn to read. I'm not posting in this thread again.

Yes, but the beautiful thing about a democracy is that we can evaluate things like:

-do we need "protection" from drug users
-do we trust the gov't's judgment in these matters
-did we actually ask for this kind of protection/restriction
-is this so called protection at the cost of liberty a fair deal or a faustian one?

which is exactly what we're evaluating in this forum. A lot of these laws come not from the peoples wants but simply their aquiescence. Once again I'm not american but I doubt 50% of your country wanted all the subsections and regulations of the Patriot Act. How'd that turn out? you feel safer? You think it did its job? Was it worth it? There's nothing wrong with questioning these things.

 

[robertm]

Anyone who says the effects of salvia are anywhere close to the effects of acid is dead wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salvinorin_A"

Salvinorin A has been reported to be the most potent naturally occurring psychoactive drug known to date, with an effective dose in humans in the 200–1,000 μg range when smoked. In that way Salvinorin A's quantitative potency may be compared with LSD, though it is otherwise dissimilar, having quite different effects and timeframes

It is beside the point anyway.

Anyway, I've said it about seventeen billion times now. The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do.

Why would you need protection from someone lounging on their couch without the ability to stand? I have already stated that the only place that law should enter the equation is when the acts of a person under the influence of any mind altering substance places his/er fellow citizens at risk.

Learn to read. I'm not posting in this thread again.

Ok...