Marijuana Prohibition - Where do you stand?

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I'm not here barking down anyone's throats, nor am I asking anyone to stop barking down mine. I'm just participating in the conversation and contributing my opinion and clearly stating what (little) it is based on.

I think you've been great in this thread Frequitude. It's nice to have people pushing along the conversation.

Given your lack of knowledge on the subject coming in, would you say you are open to having that opinion changed? It seems like you're pretty apathetic on the scenario, do you want to remain that way or are you actually looking to come away with a more informed position?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MattyC

So you're against legalization of alcohol as well then? (not saying this is a bad thing, if you're against booze, that's fine, to each their own).

You say you are prohibitionist, then list a few personal reasons for being against it, all fine. Then you mention one of the main reasons for legalization (revenue) as a "scheme" when it's pretty much just logic. There's a multi-billion dollar black market for this that we want to bring into the actual market. It's one of our province's largest industries and it's not on the books. Then you say how you're against people being jailed for this, the other major reason people want it legalized.

So what side are you on?

Truth be told, I hardly drink. Certainly never to the point of drunkenness. I am appalled and revolted by the level of public indiscretion, and unruly behaviour shown by a lot of people my age on the streets of Calgary. Alcohol used in excess is truly disgusting. So I don't oppose stricter controls of alcohol. In fact, Prohibition did decrease the amount of wife-beatings, and liver disease fell through the floor.

But we do have a cultural attachment to alcohol in our society. It has symbolic, ritualistic, and aesthetic elements that are impossible to eliminate.

As I said, just because we have one poison, why should that mean we legitimize another? You aren't skeptical of the "big-business" of marijuana? This isn't just some sort of liberation or some sort of free-love recreational movement. There is money to be made here. As you said, lots of it. The potency of marijuana has already been greatly increased due to the market's nefarious means of delivering more immediate satisfaction for long-term payment.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

I am probably one of the few prohibitionists on this board. From personal experience, and common sense empiricism, it has a profound effect on an individual's mental well-being, probably has an undisclosed impact upon the likelihood of developing serious psychotic illnesses later in life, and is the cause of so much wasted time.

The fact that this scheme is being peddled as a resource-generator by big corporations is enough to make me skeptical.

The legalization of marijuana has nothing to do with the legalization of alcohol. Just because one poison is allowed to run rampant, why allow another to do the same?

That said, I believe that anyone of moral sensibility should remain ostensibly opposed to the prison farms of the United States filled with small amount possession offenders.

Did you honestly just make a claim to empiricism and then proceed with a completely subjective argument?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Did you honestly just make a claim to empiricism and then proceed with a completely subjective argument?

From the Greek for experience. That is connecting my experiences with the experiences of others. Empiricism by its nature is partially subjective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

As I said, just because we have one poison, why should that mean we legitimize another? You aren't skeptical of the "big-business" of marijuana? This isn't just some sort of liberation or some sort of free-love recreational movement. There is money to be made here. As you said, lots of it. The potency of marijuana has already been greatly increased due to the market's nefarious means of delivering more immediate satisfaction for long-term payment.

Because realistically the number one issue here isn't about the poison, it's actually a fiscal issue. The current set up drains a lot of money and produces results that do not justify how much is being spent. That's the thing people who choose to look at this as a public health or morality issue are missing: There's a lot of money going into this and very little coming out, and that doesn't include the lost revenue. Some will dismiss that, but it's impossible in my opinion to ignore how much money is being wasted (and not collected) with the current set up.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by peter12

From the Greek for experience. That is connecting my experiences with the experiences of others. Empiricism by its nature is partially subjective.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

Yeah, that's on me for conflating an empiricist claim with an empirical claim.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Because realistically the number one issue here isn't about the poison, it's actually a fiscal issue. The current set up drains a lot of money and produces results that do not justify how much is being spent. That's the thing people who choose to look at this as a public health or morality issue are missing: There's a lot of money going into this and very little coming out, and that doesn't include the lost revenue. Some will dismiss that, but it's impossible in my opinion to ignore how much money is being wasted (and not collected) with the current set up.

You can only push utility so far. If something pushes against the dignity of human life, then is just a revenue issue.

I don't even know what this means. We are losing a source of revenue by not taxing stoners? So yes, I do dismiss it.

[dammage79]

Let's add in the benefit of hemp too. Completely renewable resource that could potentially reduce logging. The environmental benefits of hemp are exponentially greater than just legalizing the smokeable aspects of it. Paper, cloth (refined properly could make this an even better resource over animal farming, yet another cost saving measure) could all be cheaper in day to day living .

Take the hippy, patchouli wearing ideology out and its a very very cheap resource to reproduce and use.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

You can only push utility so far. If something pushes against the dignity of human life, then is just a revenue issue.

I don't even know what this means. We are losing a source of revenue by not taxing stoners? So yes, I do dismiss it.

The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation to a little more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by peter12

You can only push utility so far. If something pushes against the dignity of human life, then is just a revenue issue.

I don't even know what this means. We are losing a source of revenue by not taxing stoners? So yes, I do dismiss it.

Ignore the revenue. Billions are spent, and the results are pretty much null. Pot usage has not declined in any significant manner since the War on Drugs started, yet hundreds of billions have been spent. As far as value for money goes, it's utter ####. You would have been better off giving that money away to the poor than doing what was actually done. Huge cost goes into prohibition, with almost no meaningful benefit coming from it. It's a waste of money without even factoring in revenue. Or factoring in how much it enriches criminal gangs, and the violence that goes with the illegal drug trade.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by MattyC

I think you've been great in this thread Frequitude. It's nice to have people pushing along the conversation.

Given your lack of knowledge on the subject coming in, would you say you are open to having that opinion changed? It seems like you're pretty apathetic on the scenario, do you want to remain that way or are you actually looking to come away with a more informed position?

I'm always open to having my opinion changed on any topic. The problem here is that I don't even fully understand why I have my opinion. But I'll try to step through the logic.

1) Let's start with the health impacts of smoking weed vs not smoking weed. I believe that smoking weed is detrimental to the health and productivity of our society relative to not smoking weed.

2) Now to tackle the health impacts of consuming alcohol vs smoking weed. I believe they are both bad. For the sake of the exercise, I will take it at face value that alcohol is more damaging than weed.

3) I will throw out the alternative of banning both.

4) Now for the question of, because of #2, would I choose to swap the legality of alcohol and marijuana? My answer would be no because I don't think the social upheaval of banning alcohol is worth the health upgrade.

5) So now the question is, would I add marijuana to the group of legal drugs along with alcohol? And my thought is no, because of #1. Regardless of the accepted fact that it is less harmfull than alcohol, the cumulative harm of both is greater than of one. I don't like society taking a step in that direction.


Now to digest that...

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I'm always open to having my opinion changed on any topic. The problem here is that I don't even fully understand why I have my opinion. But I'll try to step through the logic.

1) Let's start with the health impacts of smoking weed vs not smoking weed. I believe that smoking weed is detrimental to the health and productivity of our society relative to not smoking weed.

2) Now to tackle the health impacts of consuming alcohol vs smoking weed. I believe they are both bad. For the sake of the exercise, I will take it at face value that alcohol is more damaging than weed.

3) I will throw out the alternative of banning both.

4) Now for the question of, because of #2, would I choose to swap the legality of alcohol and marijuana? My answer would be no because I don't think the social upheaval of banning alcohol is worth the health upgrade.

5) So now the question is, would I add marijuana to the group of legal drugs along with alcohol? And my thought is no, because of #1. Regardless of the accepted fact that it is less harmfull than alcohol, the cumulative harm of both is greater than of one. I don't like society taking a step in that direction.


Now to digest that...

1)People don't just smoke weed. It can be consumed a number of ways.
It is proven that weed doesn't necessarily make people unproductive. As a matter of fact, some folks use weed to be MORE productive and creative.


2)Eating chips is bad for your health. So is eating sugar and breathing in smog. Some folks are more susceptible to adverse side effects of weed, such as psychosis etc. this is true - but overall weed is beneath alcohol significantly regarding potential health issues from usage. No one has OD'd from weed. Does weed cause lung cancer? There is no proof that it does. Not on the level of tobacco.

4) adults should be able to decide whether they wish to consume weed or alcohol, and it's pure hypocrisy having booze legal and weed illegal when alcohol is far more damaging to the body and dangerous.

5)Lots of people use weed right now. At this very moment. Why not place controls on it by making it legal? Selling it to adults, with awareness campaigns regarding its usage?

Weed has been around and used since the dawn of time, and has/is used by some of the greatest minds. It's only in the 20th century that certain groups decided to vilify it with misinformation

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Drak

1)People don't just smoke weed. It can be consumed a number of ways.
It is proven that weed doesn't necessarily make people unproductive. As a matter of fact, some folks use weed to be MORE productive and creative.


2)Eating chips is bad for your health. So is eating sugar and breathing in smog. Some folks are more susceptible to adverse side effects of weed, such as psychosis etc. this is true - but overall weed is beneath alcohol significantly regarding potential health issues from usage. No one has OD'd from weed. Does weed cause lung cancer? There is no proof that it does. Not on the level of tobacco.

4) adults should be able to decide whether they wish to consume weed or alcohol, and it's pure hypocrisy having booze legal and weed illegal when alcohol is far more damaging to the body.

5)Lots of people use weed right now. At this very moment. Why not place controls on it by making it legal? Selling it to adults, with awareness campaigns regarding its usage?

Weed has been around and used since the dawn of time, and has/is used by some of the greatest minds. It's only in the 20th century that certain groups decided to vilify it with misinformation

Wait so which is it?

[Drak]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Wait so which is it?

That was a bad sentence. I guess what I'm saying is, there is no empirical proof that weed causes lung cancer. My own opinion is that the human lung wasn't meant to inhale foreign substances though, so I wouldn't think it harmless.

[Frequitude]

I am confident that I am going to need a better reason than hypocrisy to change my kind.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

I am confident that I am going to need a better reason than hypocrisy to change my kind.

You've been given many reasons.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Dion

Colorado Governor Says Legalizing Marijuana Was A Bad Idea
http://www.westernjournalism.com/col...uana-bad-idea/

“I don’t think governors should be [in] the position of promoting things that are inherently not good for people,” he said last year.

Pot is about the safest drug there is, but even assuming it is as bad for a person compared to other things like tobacco and alcohol his statement seems very hypocritical.

[jammies]

I'm seeing the same arguments confusing whether people *should* smoke marijuana with whether the government should legalize it. Although peter12, for a change, makes cogent arguments supporting his position and Frequitude valiantly defends prohibitionism, it remains fact that millions of Canadians already smoke up, legal or not.So the questions are really "by what means can we minimize the risks of pot smoking?" and "are there any benefits to be derived from legalization?", and not "is it morally correct to get high, and if not, why would we legalize it?"

That being said, the idea that it is immoral to seek pleasure for the sake of pleasure is highly debatable. The social good of alcohol does exist - people like to get inebriated and interact with other inebriates, and happy people are good in and of themselves. The same with marijuana, if you want to hang out and play video games while eating munchies and smoking doobies by the half-dozen, who am I to say that isn't a valid use of your free time?

The world has room for relaxation and foolishness along with hard work and seriousness. Overly puritan moral codes just lead to hypocrisy and misery, which is no better than overly lax moral codes leading to lawlessness and indulgence. We've tried the overly harsh with this issue, and it predictably hasn't worked, so it only makes both practical and moral sense to loosen up. .

[Dion]

Originally Posted by zamler

Pot is about the safest drug there is, but even assuming it is as bad for a person compared to other things like tobacco and alcohol his statement seems very hypocritical.

At one time in history cigarettes were considered a safe product to use.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Dion

At one time in history cigarettes were considered a safe product to use.

What an absolutely terrible comparison.