Legalizing Pot in Washington State Could Add $1.9b in revenue

[North East Goon]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I can tell you from first-hand experience that alcohol companies want their product to be enjoyed responsibly and in moderation. There's no industry conspiracy to keep alcoholics addicted.

I can't say the same for tobacco companies, however.

And light cigarettes are not as harmful.

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

This argument gets presented every time the legalize pot debate comes up, and it has to be the most ######ed argument ever.

Seriously, what difference does it make where it comes from.
Heroin, and cocaine both come from "Naturally grown plants", is that a valid argument for their legalization?
If you want to make a case for legalizing pot please for the love of god use rational, suportable, and relevant arguments to do it.

I really don't care either way if pot is legalized or not, actually that's not true, I really want pot to be legalized so I can stop hearing the same completely ######ed reasoning from the pro-legalization crowd.

I don't think you quite understand how those drugs are made...Yes the original source comes from a plant, but it goes through many chemically altering processes to get the end result. Marijuana you can smoke directly from the plant without processing it. It's not that ''######ed'' of an argument.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Again, that doesn't make it a valid argument.
Where it comes from has absolutely no bearing in why it is or isn't illegal, so using it as an argument is completely irrelevant.

Wheat = grows in the ground and is legal to sell/buy
Mushrooms = grows in the ground and is illegal to sell/buy

Advil = produced in a lab and is legal to sell/buy
Meth = produced in a lab and is illegal to sell/buy

With 4 line's I've 100% proven why the "Pot grows in the ground" argument is completely irrelevant to the legalization argument, as it clearly has absolutely 0 impact in whether or not something is legal.

Actually, I was responding to this portion

Seriously, what difference does it make where it comes from.
Heroin, and cocaine both come from "Naturally grown plants", is that a valid argument for their legalization?

Coca is natural. Opium is natural. Not cocaine and heroin. They are processed drugs. Marijuana is not. So while that may not matter to the argument to you, I'd ask if you would prefer to eat a carrot grown naturally in the ground, or a genetically modified plant based of a carrot that was manufactured in a lab?

More than anything, it speaks to the safe nature of the drug, that it isn't a massive congruence of chemicals like most pharmaceuticals and alcoholic beverages. Its just a plant.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

BC would instantly become one of the wealthiest provinces in Canada if it is ever legalized

If pot could be grown legally in Washington, there would less demand for BC pot.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I don't think you quite understand how those drugs are made...Yes the original source comes from a plant, but it goes through many chemically altering processes to get the end result. Marijuana you can smoke directly from the plant without processing it. It's not that ''######ed'' of an argument.

Yes it is a ######ed argument.
Not because it isn't true, but because it keeps getting trotted out despite the fact that it is completely irrelevant to the issue.

Pot is illegal becasue someone decided that it's impact negative impact on society is greater than any good it could do, not it's origin.

If you want to argue that, then go ahead, and it's possible that you could make a pretty strong arugment, but saying "it's a plant" is about as relevant/strong an argument as saying "I should be able to speed on my motorbike because there are no speed limits for bicycles, and they both have 4 wheels"

It' makes no sense to choose a completely arbitrary similarity with other things that are legal and use it as an arguement that something else should be as well, especially when the similarity you've chosen bears no weight in why the legal one is legal.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Actually, I was responding to this portion



Coca is natural. Opium is natural. Not cocaine and heroin. They are processed drugs. Marijuana is not. So while that may not matter to the argument to you, I'd ask if you would prefer to eat a carrot grown naturally in the ground, or a genetically modified plant based of a carrot that was manufactured in a lab?

More than anything, it speaks to the safe nature of the drug, that it isn't a massive congruence of chemicals like most pharmaceuticals and alcoholic beverages. Its just a plant.

You're kidding right? So "It's a plant" is a rock solid reason why something is safe to injest?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants

What would you rather eat, a nice fresh hunk of hemlock naturally grown in the ground, or some Advil that was manufactured in a lab? Hemlock is a plant, so that speaks to the safety of it right? Not like that horrible lab produced advil.

The argument is so horribly flawed, but for some reason people feel the need to cling to it.

Why is that? Can't you guys think of arguments that are actually relevant to the debate?

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by troutman

If pot could be grown legally in Washington, there would less demand for BC pot.

i don't understand this argument. pot isn't legal to grow in BC either (unless for medicinal use)

[GP_Matt]

I am with Shantz on this. The fact that it is natural doesn't make any sense.
By your logic, if the plant had to be dipped in vinegar (a chemical by the way) before you could smoke it would you be arguing that it should stay illegal?

What does that fact that is is natural have to do with anything?

I am not against legalizing the drug, I just don't understand this argument. Unless it is one of those things that only makes sense if you are stoned.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Pot is illegal becasue someone decided that it's impact negative impact on society is greater than any good it could do, not it's origin.

As far as ######ed arguments goes, this might be the most ######ed. Well maybe ######ed is a bit harsh, dumb is a better word. Pot isn't illegal because people are against it, or because it has great harm on society, its illegal because certain interest groups want it so. Majorities here and in the US want it legal.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i don't understand this argument. pot isn't legal to grow in BC either (unless for medicinal use)

More supply.

You could argue there would be more demand too. I don't know how many people would start using pot, that don't already.

[Huntingwhale]

Pot is illegal becasue someone decided that it's impact negative impact on society is greater than any good it could do, not it's origin.

I guess that same person who decided that pot has more of a negative impact to society must have though that alcohol and cigarettes had a more positive impact as well. Then what exactly is the argument for why pot is illegal? Because it changes your brain chemistry? Because its addictive? I think the main reason pot is illegal is because America does not want to admit to losing on the war on drugs and legalizing it would be a symbol a weakness/failure. There is no good argument as to why it is illegal. Canada follows suite because we do not want to oppose this American policy. I think it is purely political for why this plant in illegal. It has nothing to do with the users' safety. Imagine the uproar it would cause if their northern neighbors legalized it. The States would flip. IMO it has nothing to do with health issues and everything to do with politics.

You're right, arguing that the plant is natural isn't a good argument for why it should be legalized. That argument certainly won't hold up in a court of law. But at the end of the day, it is what it is; a plant. But to say that marijuana is illegal because the negatives outway the positive is BS. If you're going to argue that, then surely you must think that alcohol and smokes have more positives then negative.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

As far as ######ed arguments goes, this might be the most ######ed. Well maybe ######ed is a bit harsh, dumb a better word. Pot isn't illegal because people are against it, or because it has great harm on society, its illegal because certain interest groups want it so. Majorities here and in the US want it legal.

That's fine, and I've already said there's a strong argument to be made there.
But, that's the official reason Pot is illegal, so argue that point, not the plant's origin.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't really care if Pot is legal or not other than if it was legal I wouldn't have to listen to people make the same irrelevant arguments all the time.

[Boshi]

It's a shame that people still group marijuana with cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. *shakes head* It isn't even remotely the same. It's habituating but not addictive, there are no damaging health effects outside of the method of intake (heated plant matter taken into the lungs, but as we know there are other safer methods of consumption). Oy.

Makes me sad when I hear the same nonsense over and over and over. I've smoked marijuana for the last 3 years on a regular basis and find that it's quite lovely.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I guess that same person who decided that pot has more of a negative impact to society must have though that alcohol and cigarettes had a more positive impact as well. Then what exactly is the argument for why pot is illegal? Because it changes your brain chemistry? Because its addictive? I think the main reason pot is illegal is because America does not want to admit to losing on the war on drugs and legalizing it would be a symbol a weakness/failure. There is no good argument as to why it is illegal. Canada follows suite because we do not want to oppose this American policy. I think it is purely political for why this plant in illegal. It has nothing to do with Imagine the uproar it would cause if their northern neighbors legalized it. The States would flip. IMO it has nothing to do with health issues and everything to do with politics.

You're right, arguing that the plant is natural isn't a good argument for why it should be legalized. That argument certainly won't hold up in a court of law. But at the end of the day, it is what it is; a plant. But to say that marijuana is illegal because the negatives outway the positive is BS. If you're going to argue that, then surely you must think that alcohol and smokes have more positives then negative.

Like I said, I don't care either way. I'm not saying pot does more harm than good, but that's the official reasoning behind why it is illegal, so potheads need to stop stop talking about how it's just a plant, and start talking about relevant issues.

I don't want to debate why pot is illegal and cigarettes and booze aren't. I really don't care. I just want to point out that making stupid arguments is stupid regardless of what side of the debate you're on.
I make this point, because it's annoying when people think they're making some profound argument, when in reality they're just yammering about something that doesn't even matter to the issue at hand.
It's a gear grinder I guess.

[mikey_the_redneck]

I think one of the strongest arguments for legalizing pot is that it is non-lethal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you cannot overdose and die from smoking too much weed.

Also, I don't think legalization will turn the nation into some Cheech & Chong movie, but it will provide some much needed revenue.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

That's fine, and I've already said there's a strong argument to be made there.
But, that's the official reason Pot is illegal, so argue that point, not the plant's origin.

Like I said, I don't have a dog in this fight. I don't really care if Pot is legal or not other than if it was legal I wouldn't have to listen to people make the same irrelevant arguments all the time.

I'm curious why its irrelavent? Does it not matter that the drug is a safe, organic drug, versus a chemical creation? If you're for alcohol being legal (and I'd assume you would be), then how can anyone be against a drug that doesn't get chemically modified, and that has been proven to be safer than many of its legal, chemically modified counterparts?

I agree that if your only argument is "its a plant", then its pretty weak. Its more of a supporting argument to the overriding fact that its safer than alcohol, which is legal. For instance I would never use "Its a plant" as my first reason for wanting it legal, but if I were to say its safer than alcohol or pharmaceuticals, showing its a safe, non-chemically manipulated drug is a good supporting argument.

[Boshi]

Correct mikey, the LD50 is astronomical; you can overdose on aspirin.. heck you can even overdose on water and die -- I dare someone to try and intake the amount needed to cause an overdose (only way you could is by ingesting mass quantities in the form of baked goods, and who would attempt to eat 40 trays of brownies? I mean.. if someone did, don't blame the marijuana.. the person is obviously not right upstairs).

[MarchHare]

Increased tax revenue isn't even the most compelling fiscally-responsible reason to legalize marijuana. The savings from governments no longer having to police, prosecute, and imprison recreational pot users will likely be significantly more than any income from additional taxes.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by boshi

correct mikey, the ld50 is astronomical; you can overdose on aspirin.. Heck you can even overdose on water and die -- i dare someone to try and intake the amount needed to cause an overdose (only way you could is by ingesting mass quantities in the form of baked goods, and who would attempt to eat 40 trays of brownies? I mean.. If someone did, don't blame the marijuana.. The person is obviously not right upstairs).

What is L-D50?

[Boshi]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

What is L-D50?

lethal dose for death in human (well, it can be for other animals.. but we're talking about us)