BQueezy

Prop 19: Legalize it?!

114 posts in this topic

From what I gather from Blackstar's posts:

1 Marijuana is a mind/mood-altering drug

2 Mind/mood-altering drugs can lead to questionable behavior.

3 Things that cause questionable behavior should be illegal

:4: Marijuana should be illegal

or

A Some people will abuse drugs

B Drug abuse can lead to poor decision-making

:C: Drugs should be (made) illegal

Is this how it goes?

1 Yep. I agree.

2 Yep. Cough syrup, caffeine, alcohol, anti-depressants, paint, etc. can lead to questionable behavior.

3 Where is the line? What things should be legal and what things should stay/become illegal? What about other legal substances that are more harmful than illegal substances?

A Yep. I agree. And some people do not/will not.

B Yep. I agree

:C: Which ones? All of them? Why only some of them? On what basis should legalization be based (Is it consistent/logical)? Should degree of "danger" be considered? Where is the line? Should stable recreational users also carry the burden that addicts place on the issue?

People abuse drugs and other unhealthy substances and will continue to do so. You do. I do. Proper regulation and education is absolutely necessary. Prohibition is hugely expensive and has not been effective. Bad people profit from illegal marijuana. Violence flows from the illegality of marijuana. Jail is expensive. I do not equate a rapist with a smoker. I do not equate a killer with a smoker. They should not be treated the same. People will abuse drugs. Some people won't.

Legalization could mean less violent crime, less organized crime, less access for youth, and more tax revenue.

More people will abuse it? Again, proper regulation and education is absolutely necessary. I do not abuse cough syrup/pain killers and they are readily available to me. Young people can deal with sketchy people (who ask for ID?.........................) to obtain marijuana quite easily. Wouldn't you rather have it sold in a highly regulated arena making it more difficult for the youth to purchase.

More people will perform ___ high? There absolutely needs to be lines drawn and limits set. I will not pretend like I know where they should be placed, because I don't. Alcohol is similar. But just because these are difficult questions to answer does not mean we should throw out the idea of legalization. The benefits are mesmerizing enough to warrant some critical thinking, imo.

How does prohibition work better?

Edit: Fyre: just curious as to what you didn't like about my post? I neg repped your post because you don't call someone names when you disagree with them and want to argue with them properly: http://en.wikipedia....st_of_fallacies

Fyre says "Yeah, except that's what he did the entire time on the last boreds. You shouldn't stick your nose in things. Also, learn to use commas."

Smart,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do what a please, especially when it's in regards to the stubbornness of Blackstar.

We've given him facts and arguments, dating months back, and he continues to troll this thread.

I don't have any tolerance for it.

Plus, your post as a whole just reiterates what we've been trying to say to him.

Therefore, the neg rep.

And my comment stands. You really need to learn how to utilize commas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for law enforcement, I think that argument is a bit misleading as well. The price tag for the war on drugs isn't about marijuana. It's about cocaine, heroine and other illegal drugs. For police officers, marijuana is an easy ticket. It's an easy statistic for their job performance. It isn't eating up city budgets like cocaine and heroine. If you really want to make a case about getting law enforcement out of the war on drugs, you have to argue for the decriminalization or legalization of cocaine and heroine.

the price tag is very much about marijuana.

especially when its the biggest cash crop in the united states.

as of right now we have arrested 703,765 non violent minor drug offenders in 2010 because of these ridiculous laws

http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock

For police officers, marijuana is an easy way to incarcerate innocent minor drug offenders.

an easy ticket for an officer = citizens going to prison/getting misdemeanors for a harmless plant.

We have military in Afghanistan protecting opium and hashish farmers

(opium and hashish aka heroine and marijuana are their biggest cash crops )

who export these drugs that end up coming into our country for our citizens to be arrested.

Prohibition has failed, will never work, has never worked, and is doing more harm than good.

This drug war has caused a massive black market

that our own country wont even deal with and actually supports.

please understand that this plant isn't illegal because it gets you high.

look up harry j anslinger

This plant can replace many industries (fuel, clothing, paper, food , plastics etc etc )

and that's what scares many massive money making corporations that control our world.

Cannabis can cure cancer and other illnesses, everyday necessities could easily be

replaced by a simple plant grown in your backyard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do what a please, especially when it's in regards to the stubbornness of Blackstar.

OHHHHHH FINALLY GOT YOU GRAMMAR/SPELLCHECK POLICE!!

YOU MADE A MISTAKE, THEREFORE ANYTHING YOU'VE EVER SAID ON THIS BOARD AND FOR THE REST OF YOUR LIFE IS INVALID!!!!!

WWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can do what a please, especially when it's in regards to the stubbornness of Blackstar.

We've given him facts and arguments, dating months back, and he continues to troll this thread.

I don't have any tolerance for it.

Plus, your post as a whole just reiterates what we've been trying to say to him.

Therefore, the neg rep.

And my comment stands. You really need to learn how to utilize commas.

Yes, this is fine. But if you would look closely/not be so dense, I'm not just reiterating what you've been trying to say to him. I believe most, if not all drugs, should be legal and I'm trying to portray this in a logical argument rather than:

"It's like coffee!"

or

"Do you watch South Park, shit-balls?"

or

"I'd love to know if you took debate in high-school or college, I bet you'd get absolutely destroyed."

or

"If you approached this subject without being a pompous asshole, maybe some of us would listen to you."

or the best one

"Just know that everyone on this board thinks you're an asshole"

I agree. I share some of your points. But I'm not sure I would want to side with you as an ambassador for legalization because you get quite emotional/upset and all fallacy-y. People aren't so receptive to what you say when you don't use language maturely. So I thought I would help you out. My bad.

And I DO suck with commas. It is relevant to legalization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackstar you disappoint me.:( Isn't this country supposed to be the land of the free? You think that I should not be able to enjoy a glass of wine with my meal? I hate getting drunk but I love wine with my dinner. Why should that be illegal? Did you know wine is considered a food?

yes, but freedom has to come within reason. we're not free to do things that are dangerous to others, and there are heavy restrictions already in place if we abuse a drug (like alcohol) and do so. look: i work at a winery. i love a glass of wine with dinner, or a few beers with friends. but that doesn't supplant the fact that alcohol abuse is a massive problem in this country already, between drunk-driving, alcoholism, and all the associated personal health risks to drinking. so yes, in a perfect world i could trade my glass of wine or Sam Adams for no kids getting killed or fathers beating up mothers after a bender. but like i said, that's an abstract consideration, not a practical one. alcohol cannot be forcibly removed from the culture, or probably even seriously curtailed. we've made alot of progress on cigarettes over the past 20 years, but they're not going anywhere either. my fundamental underlying question is, if we understand these 2 drug-related problems are problems, why on Earth would we add to the burden they already place on society by permitting a 3rd major legalized drug? it's that reasoning that i can't fathom and nobody yet can explain to me.

Do you favor decriminalization? Or do you favor the current laws?

certainly we have to have a smarter drug policy. certainly the current system isn't working. but the solution to a problem is never to open the floodgates and let that problem out en masse. so no, i'd rather not have decriminalization or the current laws but something better than both; obviously that's a big ask.

3 Where is the line?

that's a good point, and a pertinent question. the line, whatever it is, is going to be arbitrary so we need to accept that up front.

What about other legal substances that are more harmful than illegal substances?

this is central to the point i've been making all along: we already have serious social issues related to harmful drugs that are legal; i don't understand the need to compound them instead of consolidating around them and working to fix or at least alleviate them. if you look at our drug problems/policy as a whole, it's pretty clear that something needs to be done to make our current policies on a range of problems (alcohol, "hard" drugs, marijuana etc.) more effective, but as i said before you won't make progress on these problems if you layer on top of them yet another legal, widely used (and thus abused) drug.

People abuse drugs and other unhealthy substances and will continue to do so. You do. I do. Proper regulation and education is absolutely necessary. Prohibition is hugely expensive and has not been effective. Bad people profit from illegal marijuana. Violence flows from the illegality of marijuana. Jail is expensive. I do not equate a rapist with a smoker. I do not equate a killer with a smoker. They should not be treated the same.

very few people are serving long-term prison sentences for only marijuana.

More people will perform ___ high? There absolutely needs to be lines drawn and limits set. I will not pretend like I know where they should be placed, because I don't. Alcohol is similar. But just because these are difficult questions to answer does not mean we should throw out the idea of legalization. The benefits are mesmerizing enough to warrant some critical thinking, imo.

i don't see how one can accept this, accept that combating alcohol abuse is already an uphill fight, and still be for marijuana's legalization.

i don't think many proponents of marijuana consider the full consequences of legalization. it doesn't just mean you, 18-25 year old boys, get to sit at home with your bong and smoke without fear of prosecution; it means commercialization, shelves of it in the supermarket grown by Cargill or DuPont, a correspondingly huge increase of users due to it's cheapness after mass-production, marijuana available at gas stations to kids (18? 21?) and to parents. most of you, no doubt, come from middle class backgrounds; have you considered even for a second the burden another legal drug, far cheaper and more widely available than ever before, would place on the poor? alcoholism is prevalent throughout the socioeconomic strata but, for obvious reasons, has a far more amplified effect on those with lower income; can you think of a reason why marijuana use (and abuse) wouldn't follow this pattern? alcohol and cigarettes take a huge toll on such people already, but i haven't seen one proponent of marijuana thus far in any way even reference the possible impact yet another drug would have if legalized.

drug abuse is not, to the extent many assume, a cause of poverty in America; but it does have a hugely amplified effect on those in poverty. there is already a losing battle being fought with assistance groups, shelters, drug-recovery programs and some really heroic people trying to stem the cycle of substance abuse, lack of education, lack of opportunity, and being poor. but because a few pampered, whiny post-Baby Boomer bourgeoisie stomp your feet and demand more things for you, let's throw some more weight on an already shaky drug-management problem.

frankly i'm pretty disgusted we have to have this much of a conversation about what is effectively a non-issue, and i wish proponents of marijuana would get as involved in real problems as they do when their precious pet drug is threatened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, but freedom has to come within reason. we're not free to do things that are dangerous to others, and there are heavy restrictions already in place if we abuse a drug (like alcohol) and do so. look: i work at a winery. i love a glass of wine with dinner, or a few beers with friends. but that doesn't supplant the fact that alcohol abuse is a massive problem in this country already, between drunk-driving, alcoholism, and all the associated personal health risks to drinking. so yes, in a perfect world i could trade my glass of wine or Sam Adams for no kids getting killed or fathers beating up mothers after a bender. but like i said, that's an abstract consideration, not a practical one. alcohol cannot be forcibly removed from the culture, or probably even seriously curtailed. we've made alot of progress on cigarettes over the past 20 years, but they're not going anywhere either. my fundamental underlying question is, if we understand these 2 drug-related problems are problems, why on Earth would we add to the burden they already place on society by permitting a 3rd major legalized drug? it's that reasoning that i can't fathom and nobody yet can explain to me.

certainly we have to have a smarter drug policy. certainly the current system isn't working. but the solution to a problem is never to open the floodgates and let that problem out en masse. so no, i'd rather not have decriminalization or the current laws but something better than both; obviously that's a big ask.

that's a good point, and a pertinent question. the line, whatever it is, is going to be arbitrary so we need to accept that up front.

this is central to the point i've been making all along: we already have serious social issues related to harmful drugs that are legal; i don't understand the need to compound them instead of consolidating around them and working to fix or at least alleviate them. if you look at our drug problems/policy as a whole, it's pretty clear that something needs to be done to make our current policies on a range of problems (alcohol, "hard" drugs, marijuana etc.) more effective, but as i said before you won't make progress on these problems if you layer on top of them yet another legal, widely used (and thus abused) drug.

very few people are serving long-term prison sentences for only marijuana.

i don't see how one can accept this, accept that combating alcohol abuse is already an uphill fight, and still be for marijuana's legalization.

i don't think many proponents of marijuana consider the full consequences of legalization. it doesn't just mean you, 18-25 year old boys, get to sit at home with your bong and smoke without fear of prosecution; it means commercialization, shelves of it in the supermarket grown by Cargill or DuPont, a correspondingly huge increase of users due to it's cheapness after mass-production, marijuana available at gas stations to kids (18? 21?) and to parents. most of you, no doubt, come from middle class backgrounds; have you considered even for a second the burden another legal drug, far cheaper and more widely available than ever before, would place on the poor? alcoholism is prevalent throughout the socioeconomic strata but, for obvious reasons, has a far more amplified effect on those with lower income; can you think of a reason why marijuana use (and abuse) wouldn't follow this pattern? alcohol and cigarettes take a huge toll on such people already, but i haven't seen one proponent of marijuana thus far in any way even reference the possible impact yet another drug would have if legalized.

drug abuse is not, to the extent many assume, a cause of poverty in America; but it does have a hugely amplified effect on those in poverty. there is already a losing battle being fought with assistance groups, shelters, drug-recovery programs and some really heroic people trying to stem the cycle of substance abuse, lack of education, lack of opportunity, and being poor. but because a few pampered, whiny post-Baby Boomer bourgeoisie stomp your feet and demand more things for you, let's throw some more weight on an already shaky drug-management problem.

Yep, I understand your points. And seeing how being a part of this boreds is getting more and more embarrassing to be a part of this will probably be my last post but...

I'm sure you can see the hypocrisy when comparing to the abuse of legal substances that is going on now. But I'm trying to say it doesn't work the way you make it out to be. I don't smoke cigarettes and I am over 18. I don't abuse alcohol and I am over 21. I don't abuse cough syrup and I am less than a km from the nearest pharmacy. I do abuse caffeine because I choose to do so. Do recreational/safe users have to carry the burden for abusers? Is alcohol (or any substance) to blame over its abuse? Is it not up to the person? Is there enough education to counter alcohol's over-glamorization? Is alcohol abuse being addressed effectively, logically, reasonably? Did alcohol prohibition work? Consistency is needed. Having a harmful and potentially dangerous drug (alcohol) stay legal because people are comfortable with it shouldn't be a reason for legalization.

It won't necessarily mean an increase of users over the long run. Do you not smoke because marijuana is illegal? People will partake and people will not. Education is key and lacking at the moment. This picture of people flocking like sheep after legalization is a bit unfair. Better/substantial education will absolutely need to happen. But this is true for all substances we currently abuse: trans-fats, alcohol, cigarettes. It doesn't have to be available and shouldn't be available on supermarket shelves. This is an unfair picture. I do not even think proponents for legalization would go for this. It needs to be highly regulated and thus, more difficult for ignorant and naive children to partake in.

Labeling drugs as evil has not and does not work. Current standards of regulation do not work effectively. I would rather see drugs highly regulated in a proper venue for a proper clientele through proper education and strict laws rather than picking and choosing substances to be labeled as evil, to be distributed on dangerous black markets, and to scare people from knowing the truth about these things.

Substance abuse may be prevalent in poorer communities. What is the point? The substance abuse is a product of their poverty/lack of education. Remove the drugs, these people are still poor and uneducated.

1 The poor often abuse drugs

2 ?

3 ?

:4: Conclusion?

How is prohibition better?

Why is hypocrisy not important because it's too hard to address?

Isn't effective education and strict laws for drugs a more logical reaction?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do recreational/safe users have to carry the burden for abusers?

emphatically yes. that's why i can't drink and drive, or snort cocaine, or hunt deer with my .50 caliber machine gun.

Is alcohol (or any substance) to blame over its abuse? Is it not up to the person?

sure it is. there are people who have hard drug habits and continue to more or less function normally in public (Ted Haggard was using crystal meth and holding weekly prayer meetings with the President of the United States), but you can't legislate for individual responsibility when the net social costs are as prospectively high as we assume they'd be.

Did alcohol prohibition work?

no it didn't. neither worked. prohibiting alcohol altogether failed to stop people from drinking, and permitting it continues to result in alcohol-related deaths and a large social cost. you would find it very difficult to argue that legalizing marijuana would not result in far greater usage of marijuana, so in that sense prohibiting it is working to keep usage artificially low.

Consistency is needed. Having a harmful and potentially dangerous drug (alcohol) stay legal because people are comfortable with it shouldn't be a reason for legalization.

and in a perfect world, with the wave of a magic wand, that'd be great. i'm already on the record as saying i'm all for it, in that abstract sense. but it is a practical impossibility, and in fact our same problem swings both ways: we're having problems containing marijuana use even though it's illegal, so how could we similarly criminalize alcohol; and we're having problems containing the effects of alcohol abuse, so why would we decriminalize marijuana?

the common thread is the inability of our outstanding drug and recovery policies to adapt and tackle substance use and abuse on a national scale. i find it very hard to believe that, and indeed no-one has been able to cogently provide me with a case that suggests, marijuana use being legalized would subtract rather than add to that existing problem.

Substance abuse may be prevalent in poorer communities. What is the point? The substance abuse is a product of their poverty/lack of education. Remove the drugs, these people are still poor and uneducated.

it's actually not as prevalent as many might think, compared to higher income brackets. however, due to the limited education, opportunities and incomes of those struggling with it, drug use/abuse has a hugely amplified effect on them. a family making $400,000 a year might be just as psychologically affected by drug abuse of a member as any other family, but they're far more likely to have both the ability to seek and access to treatment and have the income cushion that prevents them from spiraling into disaster; a family that makes $24,000 a year is just as likely to not have these advantages, hence the greater impact of drugs upon that level of the socioeconomic strata.

How is prohibition better?

Why is hypocrisy not important because it's too hard to address?

Isn't effective education and strict laws for drugs a more logical reaction?

i don't know what these questions mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no it didn't. neither worked. prohibiting alcohol altogether failed to stop people from drinking, and permitting it continues to result in alcohol-related deaths and a large social cost. you would find it very difficult to argue that legalizing marijuana would not result in far greater usage of marijuana, so in that sense prohibiting it is working to keep usage artificially low.

But permitting it did reduce the influence the Mafia and other organized criminals had over it's supply in the United States, which prevented a number of deaths. That's just alcohol: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/the-mystery-of-the-tainted-cocaine-part-ii/Content?oid=5393442

and in a perfect world, with the wave of a magic wand, that'd be great. i'm already on the record as saying i'm all for it, in that abstract sense. but it is a practical impossibility, and in fact our same problem swings both ways: we're having problems containing marijuana use even though it's illegal, so how could we similarly criminalize alcohol; and we're having problems containing the effects of alcohol abuse, so why would we decriminalize marijuana?

You can't "contain" a hippie, it is not a "containable" substance. If you are all for achieving a perfectly groomed society with no drug use of any sort, you'd be shooting for an impossible ideal. With that in mind, marijuana is far less of a social concern than other things, doctors smoke it, cops smoke it, all sort of ordinary people smoke it and accept it as part of society already. Who cares about Prop 19.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's actually not as prevalent as many might think, compared to higher income brackets. however, due to the limited education, opportunities and incomes of those struggling with it, drug use/abuse has a hugely amplified effect on them. a family making $400,000 a year might be just as psychologically affected by drug abuse of a member as any other family, but they're far more likely to have both the ability to seek and access to treatment and have the income cushion that prevents them from spiraling into disaster; a family that makes $24,000 a year is just as likely to not have these advantages, hence the greater impact of drugs upon that level of the socioeconomic strata.

That is an economic problem, and considering crack and meth are illegal, they still have a HUGE EFFECT on that economic strata. It's more a matter of better outreach to those communities, than it is about making anything "illegal".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read some of this thread today to laugh at how much stupid shit was typed here 6 years ago.

Also, super late congrats to California on getting it right this time.

I got high and forgot to mention it earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now