[LOOnatic]

Well, Well, Well........

Lots of good opposing points have ben raised on this topic IMO.

I did a college paper along time ago re: some of this and i came across documentation that Marlboro already has a patent locked in on a marketable marijuana product.

So while they directly give lobbyists money and also to politicians to maintain the illegality of pot, they are hedging their own interests in case the status quo changes.

I heay ya BurlySurly about the fundamental message that legal drugs projects to kids and so forth, but isn't the high moral ground already corrupt with the leagal nature of alcohol and tobacco?

I mean, they are both drugs. And very heavily marketed to our youth. Why exactly would the legalization of pot enact the ultimate downward spiral? I guess you are going to mention the gateway effect of pot and i kinda agree but i also believe that if pot did not exist, people would still migrate to the harder stuff(cocaine, heroin, etc).


And Sideways, why exactly would oil companies(yes they are mostly evil) lose out if pot became legal? I am trying to draw a connection but i can't put it together.

 

[mrbigisbudgood]

Originally posted by LOOnatic

And Sideways, why exactly would oil companies(yes they are mostly evil) lose out if pot became legal? I am trying to draw a connection but i can't put it together.

If marijuana was to be legalized, hemp would probably be legalized as well......as in hemp oil and fibers.

 

[LOOnatic]

Originally posted by mrbigisbudgood
If marijuana was to be legalized, hemp would probably be legalized as well......as in hemp oil and fibers.

Ah, i forgot about that.
Good point.
Maybe the ultimate paradox will be that hemp oil or some other hemp derivitive will solve our global problems by negating the need for foreign oil and the subsequent problems involved with that .

Hmmmmmm...............

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by LOOnatic
Ah, i forgot about that.
Good point.
Maybe the ultimate paradox will be that hemp oil or some other hemp derivitive will solve our global problems by negating the need for foreign oil and the subsequent problems involved with that .

Hmmmmmm...............

Jack Herer wrote a book called "The Emporer Wears No Clothes" which basically says that if we utilized hemp, it would eliminate pretty much all of the world's problems i.e. fuel, food, medicine, textiles, pretty much everything--I mean, hemp growth was encouraged by the government when our country was founded--marijuana, and by default hemp, was only outlawed in 1937. Did we not care about our children before that time?

 

[Sideways]

1563 AD : English Queen Elizabeth I decrees that land owners with more than 60 acres must grow hemp or be fined 5 pounds.

1637 AD : The General Court at Hartford, Conneticut, orders that all families plant one teaspoon of cannabis seeds

1776 AD : Declaration of Independence drafted on hemp paper.

1791 AD : President Washington sets duties on hemp to encourage domestic industry. "Make the most of the Indian Hemp Seed" ........President George Washington. (Library of USA Congress 1794 vol. 33 p.270). President Jefferson calls hemp a necessity and urges farmers to grow hemp instead of tobacco.

1860 AD : First governmental commission study of cannabis and hashish conducted by Ohio State Medical Society. It catalogues the conditions for which cannabis is beneficial: neuralgia, nervous rheumatism, mania, whooping cough, asthma, chronic bronchitis, muscular spasms, epilepsy, infantile convulsions, palsy, uterine hemorrhage, dysmenorrhea, hysteria, alcohol withdrawal and loss of appetite.

1930 AD : Henry Ford makes his motor cars out of hemp with hemp paint and hemp fuel. New machines invented to break hemp, process the fibre and convert the pulp or hurds into paper, plastics etc. 1200 hash bars in New York City. Racist fears of Mexicans, Asians and African-Americans lead the cry for cannabis to be outlawed.

1941 AD : Henry Ford's car runs on cannabis.

1962 AD : President Kennedy using cannabis as a pain relief.

1997 AD : An 8-year study at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine, concluded that long-term smokers of cannabis do not experience a greater annual decline in lung functions than non-smokers.
Researchers said: "Findings from the present long-term follow-up study of heavy, habitual marijuana smokers argue against the concept that the continuing heavy use of marijuana is a significant factor for the development of [chronic lung disease]"
"No difference were noted between even quite heavy marijuana smoking and nonsmoking of marijuana."
Volume 155 of the American Journal of Respiratory and Clinical Care Medicine 1997

1999 AD : March 21: USA: Government Study Labels Marijuana A Useful Medicine

2000 AD: September 14: USA CA: Feds Rule Doctors May Recommend Pot

2000 AD: October 20: UK: Cannabis Less Harmful Than Aspirin, Says Scientist:

2000 AD: November 24: USA: CA: Study Of Pot's Benefits To AIDS Patients Gets DEA's Blessing

 

[Damn True]

That is a very NORML reply.

I think that hemp should be grown as a substitute commodity to cotton (very wasteful crop) and wood pulp etc. but I don't dig the idea of legalizing the sale / use of pot.

However if it is done it should be regulated beyond belief to prevent the tobacco companies (who are cocked and loaded with production, marketing, and packaging plans right now) from turning it into a chemically altered substance like tobacco. We know that people can become dependant on pot, we don't need Phillip Morriss adding something with similar properties as nicotiene to the mix to enhance dependancy.

That being said, it is now illegal and I don't have a problem with testing. I know I'll pass.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Sorry for the personal attack. "your sorry ass" was a reference to all drug users, not to any particular person.

Let me sum this issue up and we can start a new thread about whether or not it should legal to grate cheddar cheese.

I will use simple logic.

1. The ideal society has no negative effects.
2. We try to acheive the ideal society.
3. We already have problems with substance abuse (negative)
4. Legalisation of certain drugs would lead to more substance abuse and to abuse of more dangerous substances.
5. Legalisation of those drugs would not be beneficial to the ideal society.

Now let me use my patented Flipside Argument Predictor:

"oooh but Pete, people won't use harder drugs if pot is legalized"

Yes they will. especially kids. Kids like to do things that are illegal. Make it legal and it will only be a matter of time before that stuff is for the pussy wimps who don't want to get caught.

"oooh but Pete, you can never get an ideal society anyway so why bother trying to make one."

Because its all we have. If we're not trying to get the best, we should just all commit suicide and let Nature recuperate.

"oooh but Pete, pot isn't bad for you."

Yeah it is. Try this: smoke some every day. regularly. I won't. every year, we'll get our physicals and send them to each other. guess who's gonna be healthier? (hint: it isn't you)

Thats all. Lets make a new thread or we're going to start having to make it Two Words

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Sideways
I'd say oil and chemical companies are at greatest financial risk should pot become legal.
Next would be law enforcement agencies.
And foresting companies would also suffer.

Those are my top three whose best interest it is to keep marijuana illegal.

Oil companies:
Only if hemp is cultivated as a replacement for many products currently produced with petrochemicals. Though it is doable, the timeline for the change is so long as to render it irrelevant.

Chemical companies:
A bit of a stretch. Bio-tech / Pharmaceutical companies have quite a bit to lose to be sure, but you'll have to explain how DuPont would be affected. Even still the illness' that pot is alleged to be effective in treating represent a pretty small, and unprofitable segment of the drug markets.

Law enforecment:
They would actually benefit from it. They would be able to direct rescources at real crime rather than trying to find the guy you are buying your pot from.

Forresty:
You are spot on if hemp is cultivated as a replacement for wood pulp. I recall a study that showed that the per acre yield of pulp from a hemp field is on the order of over 500 times that of sustainable forrestry. The reduction of negative impact on the environment is astronomical. I am fully in favor of the cultivation of hemp as a replacement for wood pulp.

The biggie though is this. The largest contributor to the anti-legalization lobbies is Anhuser Busch. Yup, the folks at Budweiser don't want you to have pot.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
I suppose I should preface who I am and where I am coming from. First of all, according to your profile, I'm over ten years older than you--research has shown that the more education a person has, the more liberal his/her views are. Now, I am not saying you are uneducated, please....you are very articulate and can form very convincing arguments. But you are young, and have not been exposed to other information besides what has been given to you in your high school classrooms, plus what you call "common sense" based on either personal experiences or anything else.

As for my talk about crime, prison populations and the like, my information doesnt come from "hippy, pro pot" feelings. I'm a graduate student at the College of Criminal Justice at Northeastern University. I think I have a little more knowledge about crime than the average Joe. So my views arent just "non-conformist," they are based on my education, my studies, and whatever other knowledge I try to fill my head with.

So please dont think that I'm some pot smoker who just wants to have an excuse to get high. I dont smoke pot or do any drugs for that matter. I used to, but I was by no means a pothead. I was not what you seem to think the typical pot smoker was: burned out, loser, eating doritoes in my friend's basement while taking bong hits and playing tony hawk's pro skater.

I would love to see what your attitude is about this in ten years.

.....and I'm older than you and I still think pot should not be legal. Because it's really bad for the user and people around the user.

 

[Damn True]

This is a great thread. Good stuff from both sides of the issue.

But a couple of things come to mind in reply to some folks arguments.

"Drugs do not belong in schools because they hamper the learning process and create a hostile environment."

The hostility is not from the pot smoker. We all know that belligerance is not a side effect of pot smoking. But you cannot deny that there is no small amount of violence associated with the trafficing and sale of drugs and amongst compteting "retailers". That sort of thing has no place in schools.

"Alcohol and tobacco are drugs that ARE legal and they are responsible for a greater number of deaths than drugs."

That reply is valid, but it is only 1/2 of the answer. If a legal and easilly attainable drug is responsible for a high number of deaths can we not extrapolate that into the possibility that other drugs if made legal and easilly attainable might also be responsible for a similar number of deaths? If a driver is impaired he will crash regardless of the source of the impairment. Booze, Benedryl, Vicodin, and pot all impair your judgement and reactions. The result is the same.

"Pot is not a gateway drug."

Yes, it is. Drugs are about feeling the effect on ones system. After repeated use the effect of a given dosage decreases. The user then seeks higher dosages or more potent drugs.
The people you personally know may not have gone further, but the vast majority of pot smokers do.

"Marijuana use is not a social problem because it dosent hurt anyone else."

Kids being stoned in class and not learning however is. Kids (or adults for that matter) driving cars while stoned is a problem. Drug dealers hanging out around schools is a problem. The violence that goes along with drug sales is a problem. Using drugs negatively affects other people. When something negatively affects other people it is a problem.

"Smoking pot is not dangerous."

Any activity, regardless of how benign, is made more dangerous when the participant is impaired.

In closing I submit the following observation........
The dominant theme that I keep seeing is that drug users don't really care about the legality of drug use but the legitimacy of drug use. They want society to make right what they know is wrong.

....and to back that up I will quote Burly Surly,
"DO YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO DO DRUGS?

If you say no, then you already know deep down that drugs are wrong.

If you say yes, you've got some serious issues."

 

[Silver]

"DO YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO DO DRUGS?

I'll bite on that one:

If a child of mine is mature and responsible enough to handle it, it would be his decision. I wouldn't pressure one way or the other. And if they asked me a question, I wouldn't lie to them. This goes for drugs, sex, drinking oven cleaner, etc.

Obviously, an 8 year old, no. I wouldn't let an 8 year old kid go to the park by himself unsupervised either. But a 16 or 17 year old....would depend on his or her maturity level. I certainly would not lie to a kid about the facts of something to try to scare him away from it. And, my biggest concern would be the trouble that may result from the substance being illegal, not from the use of the substance itself.

Once again, this debate is not really about drugs for me. It's about allowing people to make their own decisions about what to do with themselves.

Yeah yeah, I know. "It affects me when you smoke pot!" Drunk drivers kill a ton of people a year, but alcohol is still legal. Criminalize alcohol, and then you have a leg to stand on in the debate.

 

[Damn True]

Hello. You have reached the California department of child protective services how may I help you?

 

[Silver]

Or, I guess I could just tell them never to do drugs, lie to them them about the dangers with dogma and hyperbole, and then sleep soundly at night knowing that they will be drug free for life.

Ahh.......

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Silver
tell them never to do drugs, lie to them them about the dangers with dogma and hyperbole, and then sleep soundly at night knowing that they will be drug free for life.

In this case, the ends justify the means.

 

[Lucee]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
In this case, the ends justify the means.

And what would you tell that kid when s/he finds out that you dabbled when you were younger? Now you've become a liar and a hypocrite.

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
.....and I'm older than you and I still think pot should not be legal. Because it's really bad for the user and people around the user.

Yeah, but you have some other personal feelings tied into this whole drug issue and that is why you think drugs should never be legalized. It's a hard thing when you are bombarded with facts that scream the opposite of what your heart tells you...

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Lucee
And what would you tell that kid when s/he finds out that you dabbled when you were younger? Now you've become a liar and a hypocrite.

I'm 15 and don't plan to "dabble." So I would just be a father who protected his child/ren from things that would hurt them.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Lucee
And what would you tell that kid when s/he finds out that you dabbled when you were younger? Now you've become a liar and a hypocrite.

Don't have that problem. Never did it.

However, even if I had I would tell them that it was something that I did that was STUPID and that if they did it they would be STUPID as well.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
Yeah, but you have some other personal feelings tied into this whole drug issue and that is why you think drugs should never be legalized. It's a hard thing when you are bombarded with facts that scream the opposite of what your heart tells you...

Oh really?
Tell me what that might be.

The truth is the stuff is bad for you. It can cause dependancy. It is and should be illegal.

 

[Lucee]

Originally posted by Damn True
Oh really?
Tell me what that might be.

The truth is the stuff is bad for you. It can cause dependancy. It is and should be illegal.

And what are your thoughts on alcohol? Should that be illegal as well? It's been proven time and again that it definitely causes dependancy.

 

[I Are Baboon]

Originally posted by Silver
If a child of mine is mature and responsible enough to handle it, it would be his decision. I wouldn't pressure one way or the other. And if they asked me a question, I wouldn't lie to them. This goes for drugs, sex, drinking oven cleaner, etc.

I'm glad I'm not your kid. What happened to a parent being a role model who provides guidance?

"Hey dad, I'm going to smoke a bowl. Be back in 15 minutes."
"Ok son. Dinner will be ready in 20 minutes, so hurry back."

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
Oh really?
Tell me what that might be.

The truth is the stuff is bad for you. It can cause dependancy. It is and should be illegal.

Hmmm, I think you told me some things in private (I think there was an IM conversation a while ago) about why this "War on Drugs" hits so close to home, and I was respecting your privacy, but if you want me to air it in front of everyone--well, i still wont because I respect your wishes of not telling...

 

[Spud]

Anybody know anything about the alcohol screenings using some sort of an oral swab thing? Our ski area is using them on employees and volunteers this year. Supposed to be a screening thing that would be backed up by breath-alyzer or blood alcohol test down in town.

Have no idea what kind of false positive rate they have.

 

[indieboy]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
I'm 15 and don't plan to "dabble." So I would just be a father who protected his child/ren from things that would hurt them.

i said that growing up to......i've dabbled, not smokin but chemicals n i didn't like it, really didn't have a big effect on me. well one of the substances i took did. something that i didn't like n won't do again......

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by LeatherFace
Hmmm, I think you told me some things in private (I think there was an IM conversation a while ago) about why this "War on Drugs" hits so close to home, and I was respecting your privacy, but if you want me to air it in front of everyone--well, i still wont because I respect your wishes of not telling...

Ahh I see.
My opinion on drugs has always been the same so I don't think that my opinion on the legality of drugs is affected by that event.

What about alcohol? Lame reply that I already answered. But I'll say it again; The lame argument du-jour is, "Alcohol and tobacco are drugs that ARE legal and they are responsible for a greater number of deaths than drugs."

That reply is valid, but it is only 1/2 of the answer. If a legal and easilly attainable drug is responsible for a high number of deaths can we not extrapolate that into the possibility that other drugs if made legal and easilly attainable might also be responsible for a similar number of deaths? If a driver is impaired he will crash regardless of the source of the impairment. Booze, Benedryl, Vicodin, and pot all impair your judgement and reactions. The result is the same. Why exacerbate the problem?



In closing I submit the following observation........
The dominant theme that I keep seeing is that drug users don't really care about the legality of drug use but the legitimacy of drug use. They want society to make right for them what they know is wrong.

....and to back that up I will quote Burly Surly,
"DO YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO DO DRUGS?

If you say no, then you already know deep down that drugs are wrong.

If you say yes, you've got some serious issues."

 

[Silver]

The dominant theme that I keep seeing is that drug users don't really care about the legality of drug use but the legitimacy of drug use. They want society to make right for them what they know is wrong.

Wrong, I could care less about the legitimacy of drug use. The legality part really irks me though. For the same reasons that I'll eat fish on Friday if I want to, pork anytime I please, and sleep late on Sunday, wear tight jeans like a cowboy, dye my hair bright red, drink Drano, have anal sex with a man in Texas, or perform oral sex on my wife in Utah, look at scat porn from Japan, whatever.....because it's none of your damn business what I do with myself.

 

[Damn True]

Wrong,
Looking at porn or going down on your wife dosen't hurt anyone else.

Drug use hurts other people, and increases the shared costs of the rest of the populace. That is what makes it our business. That is why it should remain illegal

It is different, and you know it.

 

[Silver]

You still haven't explained to me how prohibiting drugs is any different, or working any better than Prohibition did.

How many shootings happen between bootleggers nowadays anyways?

 

[D_D]

I am in the UK.
Here is my take,

I occasionally smoke pot, I don't see that because of a few people that can become dependant move on to hard drugs or any of the other reasons should stop me from having a bit enjoyment every so often.

It's like putting all the kids at school together and only teaching them stuff all of them can under stand. It only caters to the stupidest kid.

Most drugs are very available here the effect of them being illegal on drug use is small.

Would I let my kid do drugs?
If they where educated then yes.

I would like to ask another question.
Would you let your child use a car as transportation?

 

[LeatherFace]

Originally posted by Damn True
Wrong,
Looking at porn...dosen't hurt anyone else.

I think it depends on what sort of porn you are looking at.

 

[Skookum]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
I know we already went over this a couple times, but lastly, as Lobo Del Fuego pointed out, intoxicated drivers and money hungry drug dealers can quickly impede all of those things.

pulling a quote from LDF, now that's reaching.... :devil:

 

[Skookum]

Originally posted by Damn True
Wrong,

Drug use hurts other people, and increases the shared costs of the rest of the populace. That is what makes it our business. That is why it should remain illegal

It is different, and you know it.

Ok since it's our business, (irony aside) give me a moment to babble.
Drug use does not hurt me. There are ton's of people that share wine in their own home, drink at bars, celebrate new years. There are those who abuse the priveledges and drive while drinking, or get in a fight, but those are crimes. Now we get past the gray area into the realm of drug abuser's. Your punishing people on the presumption that if they are influenced by a drug made illegal they will inevitably do something illegal. To me that's illogical and it's anti-american.
As far as shared cost's to the rest of the populace... Me well i pay the payroll of alot of persons within the government whose job's depend on drug's being illegal. I say go to school and get retrained in some other proffession, i'm tired of supporting you guys because your not defeating the problem!
Create a system that attacks the problem of chemical dependency for those who suffer, and choose to have a better lifestyle. You cannot force people to come to this conclusion, obviously but instead of prison's and greedy lawyer's sucking the tax money, perhaps their should be money given to programs to help people, not harden them into transformed criminals further incapable of becoming useful in society.
A good point was raised by Burly Surly about making drugs illegal will make it acceptable by society. Not an educated society. Look at how cigarrettes are faring in the popular view now.
As far as Serial Midges comment of character flaw, being an addict is not a character flaw, it's a disease that when you are in the process of using creates character flaws, and is an avenue of which to neglect self betterment, and ultimately with some an avenue to ultimate self-destruction.
As far as seeing my own kids using, well arent their laws against kids drinking and smoking?
We all reach an age where we supposedly become adults and make our own choices, but i keep forgetting i live in the U.S.A..
A little understanding goes a hell of lot further than a little fear.

 

[LoboDelFuego]

Originally posted by Skookum
Your punishing people on the presumption that if they are influenced by a drug made illegal they will inevitably do something illegal. To me that's illogical

Lets just assume that the drug is legal. The drug hinders a persons ability to do _____. This increaes the possibility of someone getting hurt when the drugged person is doing _____.

This is logical, and it is used in other laws. The speed limit for example. No one is saying that if you go above the speed limit, you are going to have an accident. The risks of having an accident just become greater. Everything comes down to probability, and drugs increase the probability of doing harm.

Fear is what keeps everything in check. You go to work because you fear that if you don't, you will have no money and you fear losing shelter or food and you fear death. What stops many people from doing drugs is fear of doing something illegal and getting caught. All governments and all human societies are based on fear, so don't say things like "A little understanding goes a hell of lot further than a little fear" People are stupid, many of them won't get that little understanding. Everybody senses fear. My dog senses fear. One works for a small part of the population (which is going to be choosing the right course of action anyway, because they are intelligent) while the other works for every member of the society.

Large groups have to be ruled by fear. Making things legal reduces the amount of control and leads to chaos.

 

[D_D]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Lets just assume that the drug is legal. The drug hinders a persons ability to do _____. This increaes the possibility of someone getting hurt when the drugged person is doing _____.

<cut>

Large groups have to be ruled by fear. Making things legal reduces the amount of control and leads to chaos.

Legalising drugs would cause anarchy? That is complete rubbish.
Why doesn't alcohol cause the world to end?

Most people just want to live with food on the table a roof over their head and a smile on their face, they don't need to be in fear to stop them from killing each other.

Pehaps if you looked around the would at other cultures you would see how it is possible not to live in fear even when some drugs are legal.

People are stupid because they don't think the same way as you or have different ways of calculating risk?
How do you know it's not you thats stupid?

 

[Lucee]

Originally posted by Damn True
Ahh I see.
My opinion on drugs has always been the same so I don't think that my opinion on the legality of drugs is affected by that event.

What about alcohol? Lame reply that I already answered. But I'll say it again; The lame argument du-jour is, "Alcohol and tobacco are drugs that ARE legal and they are responsible for a greater number of deaths than drugs."

That reply is valid, but it is only 1/2 of the answer. If a legal and easilly attainable drug is responsible for a high number of deaths can we not extrapolate that into the possibility that other drugs if made legal and easilly attainable might also be responsible for a similar number of deaths? If a driver is impaired he will crash regardless of the source of the impairment. Booze, Benedryl, Vicodin, and pot all impair your judgement and reactions. The result is the same. Why exacerbate the problem?



In closing I submit the following observation........
The dominant theme that I keep seeing is that drug users don't really care about the legality of drug use but the legitimacy of drug use. They want society to make right for them what they know is wrong.

....and to back that up I will quote Burly Surly,
"DO YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO DO DRUGS?

If you say no, then you already know deep down that drugs are wrong.

If you say yes, you've got some serious issues."

*Yawn*, I'm already bored w/this whole topic. You haven't submitted any emprical evidence to back up your theories. (I know, neither have I.) If you wanna continue this discussion in person, I'd be down for that. But, please keep name calling out of it, mmmmkay???

 

[Lucee]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Lets just assume that the drug is legal. The drug hinders a persons ability to do _____. This increaes the possibility of someone getting hurt when the drugged person is doing _____.

This is logical, and it is used in other laws. The speed limit for example. No one is saying that if you go above the speed limit, you are going to have an accident. The risks of having an accident just become greater. Everything comes down to probability, and drugs increase the probability of doing harm.

Fear is what keeps everything in check. You go to work because you fear that if you don't, you will have no money and you fear losing shelter or food and you fear death. What stops many people from doing drugs is fear of doing something illegal and getting caught. All governments and all human societies are based on fear, so don't say things like "A little understanding goes a hell of lot further than a little fear" People are stupid, many of them won't get that little understanding. Everybody senses fear. My dog senses fear. One works for a small part of the population (which is going to be choosing the right course of action anyway, because they are intelligent) while the other works for every member of the society.

Large groups have to be ruled by fear. Making things legal reduces the amount of control and leads to chaos.

Lots of interesting points you make. Where's your data that you extraploted all this from?

 

[Skookum]

Originally posted by LoboDelFuego
Lets just assume that the drug is legal. The drug hinders a persons ability to do _____. This increaes the possibility of someone getting hurt when the drugged person is doing _____.

This is logical, and it is used in other laws. The speed limit for example. No one is saying that if you go above the speed limit, you are going to have an accident. The risks of having an accident just become greater. Everything comes down to probability, and drugs increase the probability of doing harm.

You are correct in the fact that drugs increase the probability of negative things happening, but what you fail to prove is that drug use will become more prevailant thereby causing these risks. I stand on the notion that these things are happening today regardless, and that the laws ill effect only those who are responsible in their consumption of mind altering substances.

Fear is what keeps everything in check. You go to work because you fear that if you don't, you will have no money and you fear losing shelter or food and you fear death. What stops many people from doing drugs is fear of doing something illegal and getting caught. All governments and all human societies are based on fear, so don't say things like "A little understanding goes a hell of lot further than a little fear" People are stupid, many of them won't get that little understanding. Everybody senses fear. My dog senses fear. One works for a small part of the population (which is going to be choosing the right course of action anyway, because they are intelligent) while the other works for every member of the society.

Your use of the word fear is general and is in too vague of terms for my liking. What i decipher from your definition of fear is "common sense". Things which every person in their lifetime lacks from time to time, EVERYONE. Your hastiness to discount understanding does nothing to build your argument. While your statement of using fear to discourage is a valid one, albeit obvious as well, your eagerness to marry it with ignorance, and arrogance is disturbing and more of a problem than drug abuse itself. People are not stupid yet we are all capable of stupidity, and whether you like it or not your part of the people as are the govenments we choose to work for us.

Large groups never have to be ruled by fear, certainly there are consequences to actions and no one here is asking to abolish law. Fear is corrosive and will ultimately pull a society apart. Making things legal increases the amount of control we as a PEOPLE have over addiction and lead us away from the chaos our current drug war policies.

 

[Damn True]

Originally posted by Lucee
*Yawn*, I'm already bored w/this whole topic. You haven't submitted any emprical evidence to back up your theories. (I know, neither have I.) If you wanna continue this discussion in person, I'd be down for that. But, please keep name calling out of it, mmmmkay???

There is no name calling in what I said.

Just truth.

 

[Lucee]

Originally posted by Damn True
There is no name calling in what I said.

Just truth.

Quote:
What about alcohol? Lame reply that I already answered.

Okay, True, now are you telling me it's true that I'm lame that I brought up alcohol?

Must be nice to know you're always right....a staunch viewpoint not backed up by any facts does not make truth. Only a narrow minded opinion. But thanks for the reply.

 

[Sideways]

Originally posted by Damn True
...That reply is valid, but it is only 1/2 of the answer. If a legal and easilly attainable drug is responsible for a high number of deaths can we not extrapolate that into the possibility that other drugs if made legal and easilly attainable might also be responsible for a similar number of deaths? If a driver is impaired he will crash regardless of the source of the impairment. Booze, Benedryl, Vicodin, and pot all impair your judgement and reactions. The result is the same. Why exacerbate the problem?
...

People who would drive high on legalized pot would not be responsible for any great number of deaths.
Any extrapolation one tries to make is completely bogus.