Another victory for "freedom"

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 26 2005, 04:56 PM

Alcohol and cigarettes are horrible for you, but legal. So because of that you want to smoke pot too?

Is ANYBODY getting this?

I'm following along.

There's not a lot of sense in the argument that 2 destructive and addictive drugs are legal in society, therefore we should invite a 3rd.

I get that potsmokers feel persecuted because their drug of choice is illegal while an alchoholic's is not. I just don't think 3 wrongs make a right.

[Flame Of Liberty]

Just when you thought 5 years in prison for dope is too much, how about 20 years in Indonesian prison for smuggling weed?

Bonus question - does anyone remember how many years did Bali bombers get?

Outrageous.

20 years

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by Flame Of Liberty@May 27 2005, 03:14 PM
Just when you thought 5 years in prison for dope is too much, how about 20 years in Indonesian prison for smuggling weed?

Bonus question - does anyone remember how many years did Bali bombers get?

Outrageous.

20 years

I don't understand why western travellers insist on going to places like Indonesia.

Who knows whether or not she is telling the truth, but 20 years is crazy no matter what.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+May 26 2005, 11:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ May 26 2005, 11:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

They aren't the same but they are more similar in terms of magnitude of effects than let's say magic mushrooms or ecstacy or LSD.

If you haven't tried them, how could you argue they aren't very similar? You just wouldn't know.

They are clearly different. They have differing effects, both longterm and short term. For instance, drinking alcohol will not give you lung cancer or emphysema. There's a difference and the main one I was referring to over and over again.

Yet I'm a tool and I've been talked down to because I've never tried marijuana.
Hilarious.

Oh, and by the way, I wasn't arguing that they aren't very similar. Ags point of hypocracy, however, hinges on them being equals on all levels....by definition. That's why I asked him if they were the same. Of course, as always, that got lost in your rush to school me. [/b][/quote]
Why do they have to be "exactly" the same for it to be hypocritical? They don't.

There's a bunch of drugs that are legal like nicotine, alcohol, dextromethorphan (the active ingredient in cough syrop and a dissociative on par with Ketamine from what I've read) and then a bunch that aren't. If there was something in common between all the legal ones and something in common between all the illegal ones then the laws would make sense. But they don't. Nicotine is not a positive drug. There's no reason for it to be legal. Alcohol in some ways has a lot more negative effects than weed does. I'd say (and I'm not the only one) that alcohol has a higher potential for causing or helping accidents, fights, rapes, etc.

And your only response is that it's worse for your lungs? You do realize that you can bake it into foods? I guess not.

As for being a tool, I think I specified the precise conditions that would make you one and you appear not to have taken that into consideration. Read my post again.

[CaramonLS]

FDW I'm just curious as to where it stops?

Where do you draw the line at what to legalize and what not.

If we decided to Legalize pot, would you like Exstacy or Shrooms legal as well? I'm asking this seriously, where do *you* draw the line.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan+May 26 2005, 11:56 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Displaced Flames fan @ May 26 2005, 11:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@May 26 2005, 11:52 PM
Smoking pot won't give you liver cancer or cirrhosis.

No shinguard?

What the fata is it with you guys. You're completely unable to follow an argument. I haven't once said marijuana is worse for you than alcohol or flipping anything for that matter. Yet you guys jump right on that....which feeds right into the point I was making from the beginning. Those that are desperate to justify their use of marijuana do so by making comparisons to alcohol and cigarettes. It makes no sense.

Alcohol and cigarettes are horrible for you, but legal. So because of that you want to smoke pot too?

Is ANYBODY getting this? [/b][/quote]
"I haven't once said marijuana is worse for you than alcohol or flipping anything for that matter."

Displaced a few posts earlier...

"They are clearly different. They have differing effects, both longterm and short term. For instance, drinking alcohol will not give you lung cancer or emphysema. There's a difference and the main one I was referring to over and over again."

In that paragraph you pointed out how marijuana was worse than alcohol for one reason. That's all you've given us man. Think about how your position comes across when you say something like that. You didn't say "and alcohol is worse than weed in this other way". If you had then we wouldn't have had that particular argument.

And no, I'm not getting your incoherent point. Maybe you should spell it out again. Without getting condescending and in a huff.

The position that I see a lot of people taking in this thread is that it's ridiculous to imprison someone for 5 years for something that is very similar to having a few pints of beer. They don't like the inconsistencies in our drug laws. That doesn't necessarily say we're trying to justify weed smoking because we want to do it. If you look into drugs, their side effects and which ones are legal and available over the counter vs the ones that are not you will CLEARLY see the inconsistencies. I have and will argue vehemently for "gay marriage" even though I'm very secure in my heterosexuality and it doesn't directly affect me, because I believe in it. Just like I believe the inconsistencies in our drug policies need to be looked at.

And you've got to realize that the culture and environment in your region is a lot different than where most of the people in this thread are coming from. I don't know how well you know Western Canada but weed is fairly widely tried and used and even accepted by police in a lot of cases. I know of someone who was caught by the police with a personal amount on them in Calgary and the police didn't do anything other than confiscate it. It's pretty much already decriminalized up here in Western Canada. Possession of small amounts is not the big deal that it is in the US.

I've been to a few places in the US and the attitude is a lot different. There's more persecution, paranoia about it and less general acceptance. You live in a different world than we do.

You say you're smart because you don't do something that will get you jailed. Great, up here people can smoke a joint and not have to worry about that.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by CaramonLS@May 27 2005, 04:34 PM
FDW I'm just curious as to where it stops?

Where do you draw the line at what to legalize and what not.

If we decided to Legalize pot, would you like Exstacy or Shrooms legal as well? I'm asking this seriously, where do *you* draw the line.

I don't have a clearcut answer.

Personally I believe education is probably the best way. And I believe that not enough research has gone into most drugs. A lot of prescription drugs may turn out in the future to have had worse side effects than a lot of the controlled substances. Doctors are prescribing mood changers left, right and centre.

All I know is that the current line they've drawn is very arbitrary and illogical. More discussion is needed. More awareness is needed. More research is needed and more education is needed.

With the internet and global communication the way it is, society or gov't can't just say "drugs are bad" and expect everybody to believe it. Especially when the inconsistencies are right in front of our eyes (prescription vs legal vs banned.) And especially when someone tries a so called "gateway" drug and realizes that hmmm, these "drugs" aren't as bad as society was trying to tell me they are.

I personally believe that people should be allowed to do anything they want that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. With alcohol we make the distinction that alcohol is legal but driving under the influence is not. Being a drunken, rowdy idiot who is trashing the place will get you thrown in the drunk tank. I tend to think we should treat most drugs the same way. If you can do it safely and responsibly then you should be allowed to IMO. But even I am torn. There are drugs that I won't try because their effects scare me. But I've made the personal choice. Should those ones be illegal? I don't think I'm informed enough about the side effects of all drugs to say. There probably are some that should be illegal.

People can kill themselves, they can become addicted to gambling and screw up their lives, they can become addicted to drugs and screw up their lives. This stuff will happen.

I think you just have to be consistent. If you wanna allow rampant gambling even though it's known it can ruin people's lives then some drugs should be treated the same. If you wanna allow one drug to be perfectly legal but another similar drug is outlawed, that just doesn't make sense.

What would you say to someone who's done let's say mushrooms a few times, does not find them addictive in the slightest and tells you that the first time they did it was the single most profound experience of their life and that it changed their world-view or mindset for the positive? I've had people say that to me. It's clear to me that mushrooms is a drug that can have a positive effect. But it's also a drug that could make people do some really stupid stuff and perhaps even kill themselves because they didn't make sure they had someone sober enough to watch over them.

If you had that information about mushrooms and you felt the same, what would your opinion be? On the one hand I believe it can be a very positive drug. On the other hand I recognize that it can be inherently dangerous if someone doesn't understand the risks. And it can be a very uncomfortable experience for many because of the way it affects you. I'm not sure I'd want kids playing around with it and yet I'd have to recommend the experience to every stable, mature, responsible adult. I wouldn't want them readily available for anyone to stumble across and yet I don't think a mature, responsible adult who chooses to experience it should be jailed if they are caught.

There is very little black and white in the issue and you are asking me to judge it black and white. It's a HUGE grey area.

Cars, guns, and other things can kill people. Are they outlawed? No. We have systems in place to try and ensure that responsible people are the only ones who can own these things. We try and teach people about the consequences of screw ups with these dangerous tools we have. I think we might have to end up taking the same approach with drugs. Some of them are double edged swords. Something that can be positive if used responsibly, but at the same time is dangerous to anyone who is careless and doesn't understand the ramifications and consequences.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Something I think is interesting to think about is how much of an effect in past history have drugs had on "religious" experiences and ceremonies? When you hear people talk about "visions" and "prophecies" are they talking about a completely sober experience? Has anyone here looked into drug use in religion?

I find that topic very interesting.

[Displaced Flames fan]

FDW...I pointed out how they are different, not how one was worse than the other.....and I had already referenced NOT BEING ABLE TO BREATHE in a couple of earlier posts. It was a DIFFERENCE, and one that was of particular interest to me. People need to stop telling me what I mean. If you would take the entire thread into consideration instead of one simple sentence it would help.

Then again, I'm incoherent, condescending, paranoid and an alien.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 27 2005, 01:26 PM
Something I think is interesting to think about is how much of an effect in past history have drugs had on "religious" experiences and ceremonies? When you hear people talk about "visions" and "prophecies" are they talking about a completely sober experience? Has anyone here looked into drug use in religion?

I find that topic very interesting.

There was a LOT of drugs used in religion.

From the early days where using small amounts of snake venom to induce a paranormal event, to more modern days where drugs like Peyote were used in countries like Mexico.
Various kinds of Herbs have been and are still used in different religous establishments.

Brain washing is still the method of choice though.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 27 2005, 06:38 PM
FDW...I pointed out how they are different, not how one was worse than the other.....and I had already referenced NOT BEING ABLE TO BREATHE in a couple of earlier posts. It was a DIFFERENCE, and one that was of particular interest to me. People need to stop telling me what I mean. If you would take the entire thread into consideration instead of one simple sentence it would help.

Then again, I'm incoherent, condescending, paranoid and an alien.

Somehow that didn't really clarify your position on this issue to me.

I have followed the thread. I'm not just taking one sentence into consideration.

You've been an angel is this thread have you? What about...

"People who need to use it and feel oppressed because it's illegal are weak at best." - A personal attack on anyone who uses it for whatever reason

"That makes me smarter than someone who is willing to take that risk to 'relax'." - Assuming everyone who uses weed uses it for a reason you've made up. Saying that you are smarter than everyone who's used weed. How is that for arrogant? How condescending is that?

"Yet I'm a tool and I've been talked down to because I've never tried marijuana." - You completely misinterpreting my post

"Of course, as always, that got lost in your rush to school me. " - Assuming my intent

"You might want to try reading the thread again and not hit the reset button on your brain before reading each new post." - Condescending

"What the fata is it with you guys. You're completely unable to follow an argument." - Swearing and insults. How classy.

"I haven't once said marijuana is worse for you than alcohol or flipping anything for that matter." - Actually you did say that a couple posts earlier.

"Those that are desperate to justify their use of marijuana do so by making comparisons to alcohol and cigarettes." - More assumptions on your part. Why does everyone who questions our contradictory drug laws have to be "desperate" to justify their use of marijuana? What a massive assumption and generalization.

"But, yeah, that was cloudy as shinguard wasn't it. " - more condescension

"I've figured out that you guys aren't following shinguard. I was looking for people who can actually follow what I've been saying but have been keeping quiet before I publicly bow to your superior writing skills.

Personal attacks? Name one." - Oh boy. Isn't it clear you're personally attacking a lot of people in this very message? Obviously not to you

"It's not worth arguing with people who are unwilling or incapable of presenting an argument in support of their stance that is rooted in logic" - Quite a bit of logic has been presented to you. You've disregarded it and insulted everyone.

For all the times you say people should go back and read what you've said, maybe you should try that exercise. I just did it and I get a lot of condescension, assumptions, generalizations and insults. You must have no idea how you've come across in this thread.

As for "people need to stop telling you what you mean", perhaps if you were more clear and precise with your arguments, then you wouldn't have that problem as much. People will infer things based on what you've said. It's natural, we all do it. If you point out how marijuana is worse for you than alcohol then people will think that's what you mean. We can only judge your words, not your intent and not the things you keep in your head that you assume we already know.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Flames Draft Watcher@May 27 2005, 01:04 PM
You've disregarded it and insulted everyone.

Cough, cough.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 27 2005, 06:38 PM
FDW...I pointed out how they are different, not how one was worse than the other.....and I had already referenced NOT BEING ABLE TO BREATHE in a couple of earlier posts. It was a DIFFERENCE, and one that was of particular interest to me. People need to stop telling me what I mean. If you would take the entire thread into consideration instead of one simple sentence it would help.

Then again, I'm incoherent, condescending, paranoid and an alien.

I breathe just fine.

It seems like you're being misunderstood in this thread.

After perusing some of your posts, it seems to me that your argument breaks down into 3 points.

1. It's illegal, and that's reason enough to stop doing it.

Fair enough, but the point of the thread is questioning the state-led hypocracy concerning penalties. The penalty for drinking a beer is getting tipsy. The penalty for smoking a joint is 5 years (in the States, at least some hard jail time). I think these penalties don't make sense. If the goal is to penalize people who abuse drugs, why is alcohol legal?

I know you're tired of the comparison between alcohol and marijuana, but seriously, do you think it's a totally baseless comparison? I think comparing is a great way to get to the truth. 5 years in jail for rape might seem a little long, but not when it's 10 years for armed robbery. In that circumstance, I'd suggest rape is worse than robbery, so it should get a longer sentence. I'm comparing two unrelated crimes to try and find out more about the one. Is this inherently wrong? I don't think so.

'It's illegal and that's why it's wrong' seems a little backwards to me. First it has to be wrong, then illegal... not the other way around. I just don't get why one drug is allowed and the other isn't.

2. It's being defended because people have a 'love affair' with it.

Well, its hardly surprising that the people who have done it defend it. Rouge pointed out earlier that he hasn't/doesn't do it, so it's not like you've just flushed out a bunch of paranoid stoners looking to legalize their habit. Give us a teeny bit more credit than that, if you please. If you disrespect someone just because they do something you don't agree with, it's going to be hard to garner respect when others don't agree with your point of view.

3. Health Issues ie. 'I can't breathe!'.

We allow people to smoke cigarettes, chew tobacco, bungee jump, and box. These are freedoms that are allowed to us, because we're intelligent, rational beings who are able to create (or destroy) our own lives, with the least state-interference possible. Why are these things allowed (all can be/are seriously hazardous to your health), and not marijuana? Sure it's bad for you, and, if you're smart (like you are), you won't do it. Just like, if you're smart, you won't drink beer. Does that mean the state should impose harsh penalties if you do? Clearly, in the case of alcohol, this is untrue. So why the _massively_ differing penalties?

You may have other, more compelling arguments that I've overlooked. If so, I'm sure you'll let me know

[Displaced Flames fan]

Ag...the numbers below correspond to yours. I'm too lazy to quote more than one paragraph.

1. I've agreed in this thread that the laws and their corresponding penalties could very well be out of whack. But, if someone is going to take 5 years of my life away if I do something that is basically harmless (but illegal)....I'm not taking that risk. Maybe that's because I have people that depend on me. I'm sure many in this thread who are expressing the great benefits of drug use aren't in that position.

2. I'll give some credit, to you for one. You've made logical argument for decriminalization that make a lot of sense. Others have done nothing more than say how great it is to get high (not in so many words). That's pathetic to me.

3. I thought I made it clear that this was something that was a factor for me personally in making the decision to never smoke anything in my life at a very young age. I'll explain again. I know what it's like to not be able to breathe for an extended period of time. I've been in that position. I've also watched someone die from emphysema. These experiences told me not to smoke. I'm sure you can breathe just fine. But, if you smoke something daily for 30 or 40 years the story could be very, very different. The chemistry that takes place inside your lungs when you inhale smoke from a cigarette, joint, whatever....is mind boggling. Don't make light of my reasons for choosing not be a smoker of anything. They're real to me even if they're not to you.

And for about the 17th time, I've never made a single statement in support of the harsh penalties that spawned this thread in the first place.

[Displaced Flames fan]

FDW...do you really want to go there?

I'll be the first to admit that when I get frustrated I lash out. Mostly with sarcasm. Come on though, you are the last person (maybe next to last) that should be preaching about civility and cleanliness at calgarypuck.com!

By the way...the cussing is mostly because I think fata and shinguard are hilarious as replacement words.

[Five-hole]

Originally posted by Displaced Flames fan@May 27 2005, 04:27 PM
Ag...the numbers below correspond to yours. I'm too lazy to quote more than one paragraph.

1. I've agreed in this thread that the laws and their corresponding penalties could very well be out of whack. But, if someone is going to take 5 years of my life away if I do something that is basically harmless (but illegal)....I'm not taking that risk. Maybe that's because I have people that depend on me. I'm sure many in this thread who are expressing the great benefits of drug use aren't in that position.

2. I'll give some credit, to you for one. You've made logical argument for decriminalization that make a lot of sense. Others have done nothing more than say how great it is to get high (not in so many words). That's pathetic to me.

3. I thought I made it clear that this was something that was a factor for me personally in making the decision to never smoke anything in my life at a very young age. I'll explain again. I know what it's like to not be able to breathe for an extended period of time. I've been in that position. I've also watched someone die from emphysema. These experiences told me not to smoke. I'm sure you can breathe just fine. But, if you smoke something daily for 30 or 40 years the story could be very, very different. The chemistry that takes place inside your lungs when you inhale smoke from a cigarette, joint, whatever....is mind boggling. Don't make light of my reasons for choosing not be a smoker of anything. They're real to me even if they're not to you.

And for about the 17th time, I've never made a single statement in support of the harsh penalties that spawned this thread in the first place.

I've agreed in this thread that the laws and their corresponding penalties could very well be out of whack.

Well I thought that's what this thread is about. I started this thread because I think this proposed legislation is ridiculous, not because I'm a drugged-out hippie looking to feel safe in my habits. If we can agree that 5 years might be a little too much for smoking a joint, I don't see why we EVER need to get into which of us does what drugs (including alcohol and cigarettes) because I didn't think we were talking about the relative merits of them. You don't need to defend your reasons for not smoking, and I don't think they were ever attacked.

Similarly:

Others have done nothing more than say how great it is to get high (not in so many words).
I don't think that's fair at all. First, I can't remember anybody saying in this thread that getting high is really great and they want to keep doing it. Most of us on this board live in Canada and are not really directly threatened by this legislation. Secondly, whether or not a person smokes pot in no way invalidates or compromises their argument. Sure, a pot-smoker is pretty likely to defend himself...but the argument can and should be separated from his person, and if the argument truly is worthless, then expose it as such, don't just write it off as weed-induced paranoia or whatever. You've said a couple of times that nobody is bringing up logic in this thread (which I don't agree with), but you've been guilty of quite a few logical fallicies, most notably ad hominem arguments like I just described. Nor do I think statements like "that's pathetic to me" speak to a well-reasoned, stable debate platform. Clearly you are emotionally charged in this debate -- as you've been in others -- and I don't think that necessarily makes for the best discussion. Insulting people and thinking they're pathetic doesn't advance your argument in any way. (And once again, you're drawing quite a few conclusions about people's habits when quite a few of us have made no mention of what they choose or don't choose to inhale, drink, inject, eat, etc.)

And for about the 17th time, I've never made a single statement in support of the harsh penalties that spawned this thread in the first place.

And I think that's why we're all a little lost. Or me, at least. You came in here swinging and I was never quite sure what position you were actually representing. Evidently, as I quoted initially in this post, you might even think the penalties excessive, so why the hostility? I mean, I really don't get where you're coming from in this thread man. Help me out here.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally posted by Five-hole@May 28 2005, 01:55 AM


And I think that's why we're all a little lost. Or me, at least. You came in here swinging and I was never quite sure what position you were actually representing. Evidently, as I quoted initially in this post, you might even think the penalties excessive, so why the hostility? I mean, I really don't get where you're coming from in this thread man. Help me out here.

My buddy 'Roos threw this one out "The hysteria over marijuana is just mindbuggering. "

I responded to that, not to your initial post on the legislation.

I responded by saying the love affair with marijuana is infantile. Which essentially pointed out another side to the story.

On the one hand, you have people who think those who get worked up about marijuana use are crazy (not literally of course).

On the other hand, you have me who thinks that most people who use marijuana recreationally do so for juevenile reasons. I went on to say that those who justify their own use of the drug do so by invoking the ever popular "alcohol is just as bad or worse" justification.

Then I got hammered for a bunch of stuff I didn't say. It's all there, but somewhere people got thrown off of what I was saying, I got frustrated and somewhat venomous and FDW went into full attack mode as he tends to do when I am involved in a discussion lately.

That's where we stand.

Again, I never once argued any of the following....

1. Marijuana is evil, alcohol is ok
2. Marijuana is worse than alcohol
3. multiple year prison sentences for smoking a joint is justified

Yet, post after post I was called out for making those very arguments....hence the frustration.

Does that clear it up? And I am genuinely sorry for the charged posts. I have a tendency to get sarcastic when I get flustered and on an internet messageboard that can be hard to pick up and get taken out of context. It's something I need to work on. But I've always kind of worn my emotions on my sleeve so it's a challenge.

[Mike F]

Jumping in here late, and not having read every post in detail...

Arguing that MJ should be legal because there are other legal substances that have similar or equally bad effects is just a weak argument.

If that argument ruled the day, then the fact that cigarettes are legal would mean that it would be wrong to prohibit the use of asbestos, DDT and the mountain of pharmaceuticals that weren't given approval because they posed a significant risk of cancer or other diseases.

If you want to argue that MJ should be legal, you have to show that the benefits of legalizing it outweigh the harms.

The benefits would likely include the freeing up of resources that are currently being spent on prosecuting posession.

However, it's already been acknowledged that there are harms associated with use, and these harms would likely become more prevalent if anyone could pick up a pack of joints at 7-11.

The fact that these harms are no worse than alcohol or smoking is moot. Society would still worse off if we legalized another substance that causes cancer and emphazyma even though we already have cigarettes.

[Agamemnon]

Jumping in here late, and not having read every post in detail...

Arguing that MJ should be legal because there are other legal substances that have similar or equally bad effects is just a weak argument.

Ok... says you.... I guess. What you call a 'weak argument' I call massive hypocracy. I have no idea where you justify that point of view. Just because? Sounds familiar...

If that argument ruled the day, then the fact that cigarettes are legal would mean that it would be wrong to prohibit the use of asbestos, DDT and the mountain of pharmaceuticals that weren't given approval because they posed a significant risk of cancer or other diseases.

Correct, you've hit the nail on the head. Cigarettes should be outlawed, or cancer-causing substances should be allowed... one way or the other, no double-standards.

If you want to argue that MJ should be legal, you have to show that the benefits of legalizing it outweigh the harms.

Why?? First you argue why alcohol 'outweighs the harms', then I'll say why weed does. Oh, wait, alcohol is legal, and weed isn't. That's the difference... any others? What if they were both legal? If I debate that the benefits are the exact same as those derived from weed, would it be clear to legalize??

However, it's already been acknowledged that there are harms associated with use, and these harms would likely become more prevalent if anyone could pick up a pack of joints at 7-11.

In the States, you can pick up booze from the 7-11. You acknowledge that there are harms in the liquor sales there, and I'll acknowledge that there could be marijuana harms. Same type of drug, different standard... hence the 'double-standard'.

The fact that these harms are no worse than alcohol or smoking is moot. Society would still worse off if we legalized another substance that causes cancer and emphazyma even though we already have cigarettes.

So you fully admit then, that weed is illegal and alcohol/cigarettes are legal, 'just because'. And that's it... If you truly believe that marijuana was 'another' evil in society, then you'd already be against booze and cigarettes. I assume you are an active crusader against both... Are you?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 27 2005, 11:19 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 27 2005, 11:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Ok... says you.... I guess. What you call a 'weak argument' I call massive hypocracy. I have no idea where you justify that point of view. Just because? Sounds familiar...[/b]

Says me for the reasons I went on to state.

If a person has been stabbed, would you argue that they should be completely indifferent to whether they get stabbed 2 or 3 more times so long as none of them are any worst than the first? Of course not, that would be a stupid argument because (a) each one hurts, and (b) you have to look at the cumulative effect at being stabbed 4 times not just the individual severity of each wound in isolation.

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 27 2005, 11:19 PM

Why?? First you argue why alcohol 'outweighs the harms', then I'll say why weed does. Oh, wait, alcohol is legal, and weed isn't. That's the difference... any others? What if they were both legal? If I debate that the benefits are the exact same as those derived from weed, would it be clear to legalize??

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 27 2005, 11:19 PM
So you fully admit then, that weed is illegal and alcohol/cigarettes are legal, 'just because'. And that's it...

Most of the rest of your post can be sumarized as the double standard or hypocracy argument.

Is it hypocritical for the government to say that you can increase your speed on the highway from 85-90, 90-95 or 95-100, but if you increase your speed from 100-105 you're liable to be pulled over and fined a couple hundred dollars? Each one is just an increase of 5 km/h.

Every society engages in line drawing, saying that society can go this far but no further. Our government decided that we'd be better off not allowing another 5km/h increase when we're already going 100km/h, and it decided that we'd be better off not allowing the use of one more harmful substance when we already allow the use of a bunch of others.

You don't like where the line was drawn? Fine, you're free to argue that the line should be moved, but relying on the argument that the line should be moved to allow pot just because it's no worse than alcohol is completely analagous to arguing that someone shouldn't care if they get stabbed a second time so long as it's no worse than the first.

<!--QuoteBegin-Agamemnon@May 27 2005, 11:19 PM
If you truly believe that marijuana was 'another' evil in society, then you'd already be against booze and cigarettes. I assume you are an active crusader against both... Are you?[/quote]

The only thing I'm crusading against are weak arguments. I'm still on the fence about whether pot (which I never chracterized as 'evil', only harmful) should be decriminalized or legalized. All someone would need to do is make a good argument for why the benefits of legalization would outweigh the cumulative effect of adding one more harmful substance.

I'm not a crusader against alcohol for that reason; because the effort and resources it would take to revove it and enforce a prohibition law just wouldn't be worth the benefit.