Legalize Marijuana

[Grisu]

You think I wrote that?

Well, I did, kind of. I wrote "ctrl c" and "ctrl v".

edit: But you got a point. Edited

hey, I actually liked Tommyknockers....guess that makes me a loser...but at least I don't smoke weed

 

[Sharwood]

hey, I actually liked Tommyknockers....guess that makes me a loser...but at least I don't smoke weed

It takes considerably harder drugs than weed to enjoy Tommyknockers.

Nah, in its defence, it's not necessarily bad, it's just like dealing with the new Indiana Jones film compared to the old ones. It's sub-par, compared to what else King has done.

 

[BasketCase]

I have replied too, and have not really recieved a response refuting what I said.

I know. I'm ignoring you. I told you I don't have the time to post 40,000 examples to prove my case, and your answer was "please try".

Obviously you're beyond redemption, so I'm not going to bother.

 

[Sui Generis]

I know. I'm ignoring you. I told you I don't have the time to post 40,000 examples to prove my case, and your answer was "please try".

Obviously you're beyond redemption, so I'm not going to bother.

Really? Thats how you win argument's, by trivial technicalities? Post your evidence or admit you lost the debate in this thread.

 

[CaptainF]

I love how no matter how ******ed the piggish, bloated federal government gets about it's drug laws, individual states representing millions of people are basically just ignoring all the lies and nonsense they exploit to their profit.

For example, Oregon is proposing some legislation that would really kick the current federal statutes in the balls, by legalizing marijuana beyond the realm of medicine.

The Oregon Cannabis Tax Act

If it passes, marijuana can be legally sold to and/or possessed by persons at least 21 years of age, and would be sold at liquor stores. In addition, a hemp products industry would be legalized and set up, giving farmers a profitable agricultural venture.

It's currently set to be voted on in the 2010 legislative session, and man oh man do I hope it passes.

People are starting to see that the Federal Government's tired old lines aren't working anymore.

 

[Sui Generis]

I support legalisation, but I would be remiss if I didn't point out (again) that MJ can trigger schizophrenia in a certain subset of the population. It's a bit like a peanut allergy, some people are susceptible. Because of that, I actually discourage MJ use among people who have never tried it, and I encourage others to discourage virgin users. Mainly because schizophrenia sucks, it sucks hard.

It's currently too difficult to determine if one has latent schizophrenic tendancies, and I don't know of any pretest to do to determine if you're susceptible. All that said, I'd prefer it be legalised. There are millions of people who are quite safe from MJ, and who would enjoy it. But please, use caution. Especially when recommending it to a friend.

The debate isn't whether it is harmless or not, the debate is whether it is worse then Alcohol and Tobacco. If it isn't worse, why should it be banned except to protect the aforementioned industries from competition?

 

[BasketCase]

What if I'm camped at the base of the cliff and the guy jumping is 300 lbs?

Why is BASE jumping illegal???

Nobody has ever been killed due to being hit by a falling base jumper. Nice try, but--bah, who am I kidding--weak try. Good for a laugh though.

Base jumping and overeating do not pose a significant risk to anybody but the jumper or the eater. Neither does the drug war, despite your claim to the contrary. The increased risk to you from the drug war is insignificant. You, Berzerker, are more likely to die from second-hand tobacco smoke than you are to get shot. No, I'm not joking--cigarette smoke kills more non-smokers each year than guns do.


Since personal responsibility and personal freedom come up a lot in these threads, I'm gonna go running off on a tangent. Mostly just for fun, but also because some of the people reading this are not potheads and will derive some good advice on how to analyze a problem.

Weed advocates are always trumpeting about how what you smoke is nobody else's business. But change the topic to guns or subprime lending, and the very same people who want you to lay off their drug habit are perfectly content to stick their noses in the business of people who want to buy guns or make poor investments.

The problem is this: many people decide first what they want to believe. Generally they pick a cookie-cutter philosophy and conform to it. They say "legalize weed, ban guns" because the Party Says So. Then, after choosing that philosophy, they look for reasons to support it. (Some of you probably deviate from the mold--maybe you are pro-weed and pro-guns at the same time--in which case more power to you, but people such as you are the exceptions)

That's going about it backwards. You must decide first what the rules are. And my basic rule is pretty simple: if it doesn't pose a significant risk to anybody except you, that's your business. If it does pose a significant risk to other people besides you, there's a problem. NOW you apply The Rule to stuff around you. Base jumping is harmless to anybody but you. So is fatty food. Sex is not--if she doesn't want it, well, you know how that goes. Alcohol and tobacco are unsafe also. Both kill people besides the user, in significant numbers.

So does weed. It's been medically proven. Weed impairs your judgement--in different ways from alcohol, but with the same detrimental results. You become clumsy and slow, causing you to do stupid things and run people over when you drive. Why does this hardly ever happen? Because very few people use weed compared to alcohol.

Why do so few people use weed? BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL.


Now, remember the rule: if you don't reply, I probably won't post again, and you can go about your business.

 

[El_Machinae]

The debate isn't whether it is harmless or not, the debate is whether it is worse then Alcohol and Tobacco. If it isn't worse, why should it be banned except to protect the aforementioned industries from competition?

Well, for me the debate is whether we should be hamstringing our society and subsidizing gangsters. I don't think we should be. The stuff should be legal. I just warn people that it might not be safe for them, that it's hard to tell, and the consequences suck. I'm not an alarmist on this topic, I'm not going to mention all the false warning stories. But I still think people should know that, for some people, MJ overuse can be sucky.

 

[holy king]

another "basket case tells the world how dangerous marijuana is and the world chuckles" thread? nice...

 

[Quiet Sound]

Is driving while drowsy more or less dangerous than driving while high? Should we do anything to prevent drowsy driving such as mandating ignition locks that test for drowsiness?

Why do so few people use weed? BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL.

Few?

 

[Sui Generis]

Is driving while drowsy more or less dangerous than driving while high? Should we do anything to prevent drowsy driving such as mandating ignition locks that test for drowsiness?




Few?

Seriously, our streak of former pot smoking presidents is about to go on three.

 

[Berzerker]

Why is BASE jumping illegal???

Nobody has ever been killed due to being hit by a falling base jumper. Nice try, but--bah, who am I kidding--weak try. Good for a laugh though.

Well at least I figured out what basejumping was without google But we did camp at the base of El Capitan a couple nights, our HS baseball coach was a summertime marshall up there and he invited us up for a weekend. It was good timing too, the Perseids were near their peak and it was soooo cool watching meteors (on weed) appear out of nowhere as the rock face blocked half the sky. C'mon BC, find a special occasion and a friend with a little pot and try it. Maybe a Pink Floyd laser concert or something. You only live once...

Base jumping and overeating do not pose a significant risk to anybody but the jumper or the eater.

But they cost health care dollars... Wasn't that one of your gripes about pot smokers?

Neither does the drug war, despite your claim to the contrary. The increased risk to you from the drug war is insignificant. You, Berzerker, are more likely to die from second-hand tobacco smoke than you are to get shot. No, I'm not joking--cigarette smoke kills more non-smokers each year than guns do.

Sorry, but my tobacco smoke aint second hand Take a look at homicide rates for the 20th century, we had 2 drug wars - Prohibition in the Roaring 20s (1920-33?) and when Nixon started his drug war ('69-present). Homicide rates are about twice as high during drug wars. Property crimes - muggings, robberies etc increase because the cost of drugs is inflated to black market levels. There are just so many crime stats that increase during drug wars, they go up across the board. We dont get rid of the drugs, we just turn the environment into a warzone.

Try watching that movie "No Country For Old Men", the background is the drug war in S Texas in the 80s (I think). Yes BC, my family is put at risk by the drug war, yours too. When prohibition was repealed in '33, the homicide rate dropped 13 years in a row to half the level, it stayed there until the turmoil of the 60s and Nixon's drug war and it peaked during Reagan's drug war shortly after the war on crack began and increased penalties for adults caught "trafficking" or "dealing".

What do you think happened when they started punishing adults more? Gang recruitment exploded as minors were invited into the black market in unprecedented numbers to avoid the harsher penalties. Juvenile crime began skyrocketing in the mid to late 80s and its still far higher than pre drug war years. I laugh when prohibitionists tell me "its for the children".

Since personal responsibility and personal freedom come up a lot in these threads, I'm gonna go running off on a tangent. Mostly just for fun, but also because some of the people reading this are not potheads and will derive some good advice on how to analyze a problem.

Weed advocates are always trumpeting about how what you smoke is nobody else's business. But change the topic to guns or subprime lending, and the very same people who want you to lay off their drug habit are perfectly content to stick their noses in the business of people who want to buy guns or make poor investments.

I support the 2nd Amendment too based on the same principle - personal responsibility and freedom. As for subprime loans, I understand those are artificially low loans to get people to buy houses. I consider that social engineering and prefer the market determine lending. But here we are, on the hook for another govt bail out. By your logic, shouldn't we ban banks? They just cost us a bunch of money like the unhealthy pot smokers.

The problem is this: many people decide first what they want to believe. Generally they pick a cookie-cutter philosophy and conform to it. They say "legalize weed, ban guns" because the Party Says So. Then, after choosing that philosophy, they look for reasons to support it. (Some of you probably deviate from the mold--maybe you are pro-weed and pro-guns at the same time--in which case more power to you, but people such as you are the exceptions)

Yeah, people who believe in freedom are the exceptions to the rule Here you are, pro gun but the govt owns our existence, even our minds under your philosophy. If the govt can decide what I ingest, I cant very well say I own myself. But please show me where in the Constitution it says Congress can make my personal decisions? The reason they couldn't ban pot outright under FDR was because it didn't fall under interstate commerce (it grew wild in many states), the fabricated loophole in the Constitution the left has used to expand federal jurisdiction over nearly everything under the sun.

That's going about it backwards. You must decide first what the rules are. And my basic rule is pretty simple: if it doesn't pose a significant risk to anybody except you, that's your business. If it does pose a significant risk to other people besides you, there's a problem. NOW you apply The Rule to stuff around you. Base jumping is harmless to anybody but you. So is fatty food. Sex is not--if she doesn't want it, well, you know how that goes. Alcohol and tobacco are unsafe also. Both kill people besides the user, in significant numbers.

So does weed. It's been medically proven. Weed impairs your judgement--in different ways from alcohol, but with the same detrimental results. You become clumsy and slow, causing you to do stupid things and run people over when you drive. Why does this hardly ever happen? Because very few people use weed compared to alcohol.

BC, trust me on this - there is no comparison between alcohol and pot impairment. And other drugs like speed actually diminish the effects of booze and speed has been used by militaries (the Blitzkrieg was fueled by speed), sports stars, pro drivers, etc because it enhances reaction time and keeps you alert. If you can find a "neutral" site that makes distinctions between accidents involving both in their reporting instead of throwing the stats all together, I'll check it out.

Why do so few people use weed? BECAUSE IT'S ILLEGAL.

How many people relative to population used pot when it was legal? How about where its legal today? Oh yeah, I think in the other thread you dismissed evidence from Europe or other countries because that was a cultural difference. Okay, so how many pot smokers in the US when it was legal? Oh yeah, I think in the other thread you dismissed that because it was a different time.

 

[Sharwood]

Weed advocates are always trumpeting about how what you smoke is nobody else's business. But change the topic to guns or subprime lending, and the very same people who want you to lay off their drug habit are perfectly content to stick their noses in the business of people who want to buy guns or make poor investments.

The problem is this: many people decide first what they want to believe. Generally they pick a cookie-cutter philosophy and conform to it. They say "legalize weed, ban guns" because the Party Says So. Then, after choosing that philosophy, they look for reasons to support it. (Some of you probably deviate from the mold--maybe you are pro-weed and pro-guns at the same time--in which case more power to you, but people such as you are the exceptions)

That's all very reasonable sounding BC. It's too bad it's a complete crock. I remember the other thread, where you made the same claim: weed advocates are predominantly against gun ownership. And exactly how many of the weed advocates in that thread wree against gun ownership? Um, a big fat zero. I've yet to meet one who was.

Considering it has been medically shown that marijuana is completely harmless to more than 90% of the population, it seems as if, gasp, you are deciding what to believe first - that marijuana is bad - and pushing a bullsh*t theory, with no proof, or even for that matter evidence at all, down people's throats. You seem to be looking for reasons to support the continuing ban on marijuana, when there aren't any.

Have you considered how many drug related problems there are in the US, Australia, and other countries where marijuana is illegal, compared to countries where marijuana is legal, like The Netherlands. Pretty much incomparable, because the only problems the Dutch have is supplying the stuff. In fact, the only argument I've ever heard against drugs in The Netherlands is that there are too many tourists, the hash bars can't keep up with demand, and that's fueling a black market trade in border towns. And the problem there isn't pot, it's the lack of it.

I'm pro-marijuana legalisation, even though I don't smoke it. I'm also pro-gun ownership, even though I don't have one. Even though guns are also far more dangerous than pot will ever be, I recognise the positives in having them. So do most pot advocates I know, and being at university, I know a frigging lot of them, ranging from intellectuals to morons I'd like to shoot with the aforementioned guns. So stop putting up strawmen, and quote some legitimate scientific or statistical research backing up your claims, or stop wasting everybody's time.

 

[BasketCase]

Alrightey then. Somebody posts a reply (a big one, at that), and you know what that means. It's time to rumble.

C'mon BC, find a special occasion and a friend with a little pot and try it. Maybe a Pink Floyd laser concert or something. You only live once...

Been to a Pink Floyd laser concert. Was bored out of my ass.

Heard this one a million times. All my life, people have been trying to turn me into them. "Be like me, and you'll be happier". Attention doofus: I AM NOT YOU. I DO NOT LIKE THE SAME THINGS YOU DO. And one of the things I do like is being sober so I can actually focus on the things I like.

But they cost health care dollars... Wasn't that one of your gripes about pot smokers?

For once, you're right--fatty food does cost health care dollars. But here's the part you left out: if I eat too many Red Robin cheeseburgers (which I do) and have a heart attack (which I never have) who pays the hospital bill? I do. It's my insurance. I've been paying the premiums for years, and I'm entitled to the benefits thereof. Plus, after the heart attack my insurance rate is going to go up.

But if you get stoned and run me over in your car? By rights you're the one who should pay the hospital bill, but that's not at all likely to happen. If I can't prove you did it, I get stuck with all the bills. And I've experienced this first hand. A year and a half ago some idiot ran a red light and smashed up the rear end of my car. And she got away with it because no witnesses came forward. Fortunately my insurance company didn't raise my rate because it was my first accident in ten years (apparently the average is one car accident every THREE years).

So, forget it. Huge difference between fatty food and weed.

Sorry, but my tobacco smoke aint second hand Take a look at homicide rates for the 20th century, we had 2 drug wars - Prohibition in the Roaring 20s (1920-33?) and when Nixon started his drug war ('69-present). Homicide rates are about twice as high during drug wars. Property crimes - muggings, robberies etc increase because the cost of drugs is inflated to black market levels. There are just so many crime stats that increase during drug wars, they go up across the board.

Absolutely. But, once again, you left something out: the costs that went down.

The costs to society from legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are estimated at between $100 billion and half a TRILLION dollars. Per year. The costs from illegal drugs are a lot lower because very few people use them.

Try out the following brain exercise (every bit helps): imagine if you legalized murder. The crime rate goes down (since murder isn't a crime any more). Does that make you safer? Of course not. But, if you ban murder, then you're creating a profitable market for hired hitmen, are you not? Absolutely. But the overall cost to society remains lower. Naturally, you and a bunch of other reeferheads tally long lists that only include the negatives of banning your pet drugs. Until you add the positives on those lists, they're worthless and I'm going to type out the following smiley in response to them:

I support the 2nd Amendment too based on the same principle - personal responsibility and freedom.

Excellent.

As for subprime loans, I understand those are artificially low loans to get people to buy houses.

If somebody wants one of those loans, that's their business. Not yours. Or is it....?

See? When the circumstances suit you, you're perfectly content to stick your nose in someone else's business and tell them what's best for them. Well, when a loan goes bad, does anybody get hurt besides the person who took out the bad loan? No. (If you can prove that the bank did something illegal, by all means take them to court....)

Yeah, people who believe in freedom are the exceptions to the rule

No, Zerk, that is not what I said. I said that people who deviate from the cookie cutter of their political party are the exception. You support legalizing pot, and you support the 2nd Amendment. You are not squarely following the political doctrine of American liberals. You are a deviate. So am I. I'm a conservative atheist. You and I both believe in freedom--but we disagree about how to resolve conflicts between those freedoms.

But please show me where in the Constitution it says Congress can make my personal decisions?

Simple: whenever you violate the rights of others (which just happen to be listed in that same Constitution......)

It all comes right back down to the same question: "does your behavior pose a significant risk to other people?"

BC, trust me on this - there is no comparison between alcohol and pot impairment.

According to medical stats I've found on the web, a person who is legally drunk is ten times more likely to be in a car accident, and a person who has used weed within three hours is nine times more likely to be in a car accident.

The comparison is fairly imprecise, because different people take different amounts of booze/weed to get blitzed. But it's clear that a toke of weed causes about the same level of risk as three or four drinks' worth of alcohol, and dissipates from the system at about the same rate.

If we legalize weed, it will cause the same kinds of damage alcohol does--a death rate in the six-figures range, and about the same rate of fatal accidents that kill people besides the smoker.

How many people relative to population used pot when it was legal? How about where its legal today? Oh yeah, I think in the other thread you dismissed evidence from Europe or other countries because that was a cultural difference. Okay, so how many pot smokers in the US when it was legal? Oh yeah, I think in the other thread you dismissed that because it was a different time.

And how much opium was Afghanistan producing while the Taliban was running the country....?

Almost none.

Gotcha. Check out a few other nations that run on strict religious laws, and you'll see the same thing. So there. I've got counterexamples to your counterexamples. Neener.

With everything else on the planet--murder, speeding, polluting, theft, trolling--the rule is the same: if you want to reduce it, you make a law against it. It's not that big of a leap.

Well, there ya go, folks: another thread full of BasketCase madness. You brought it on yourselves.

 

[BasketCase]

That's all very reasonable sounding BC. It's too bad it's a complete crock. I remember the other thread, where you made the same claim: weed advocates are predominantly against gun ownership. And exactly how many of the weed advocates in that thread wree against gun ownership? Um, a big fat zero.

Absolutely true. Because all the people in that thread are deviates. CFC members are abnormal. Smarter than average. We are a bad sample.

I did not say that most weed advocates in that thread are against gun ownership--I said that most weed advocates in general are against gun ownership.

Now stop putting words in my mouth.


Edit:

Considering it has been medically shown that marijuana is completely harmless to more than 90% of the population

Depends what you mean by "completely harmless". Weed impairs the reaction time and judgement of just about everybody who smokes it. That's been "medically shown" as you put it.

 

[Mercenary82]

I'm also pro-weed legalization and pro-gun. I don't smoke it, but to me being conservative means not wasting money on futile government plans and projects. Banning weed is and never will be successful and I don't want to waste my money on it.

 

[Sharwood]

Absolutely true. Because all the people in that thread are deviates. CFC members are abnormal. Smarter than average. We are a bad sample.

I did not say that most weed advocates in that thread are against gun ownership--I said that most weed advocates in general are against gun ownership.

Now stop putting words in my mouth.

I would argue against that. CFC seems to me to be a fairly accurate sample of the internet community accross the board. You've got liberals, conservatives, atheists, agnostics, Christians, Muslims, people from many different countries and nationalities, outright racists, and just plain morons. Is the internet a completely accurate sampling of society in general. Of course not. But it's still far from a bad sample.

And the idea that every single person in that thread deviates from the accepted norm of marijuana advocates is ridiculous. By that logic, everyone doesn't 100% agree with a political party is a deviant, even though there is a vast spectrum of supporters in that party. And for the record, it's deviants, not deviates. That means something completely different, wee don't need people arguing against that words meaning just because they misunderstood you, which is bound to happen if I don't point it out now.

Edit:

Depends what you mean by "completely harmless". Weed impairs the reaction time and judgement of just about everybody who smokes it. That's been "medically shown" as you put it.

Lack of sleep impairs reaction time. That has been medically shown. Should we ban getting less than the full eight hours? Ridiculous strawman BC.

 

[Quiet Sound]

The costs from illegal drugs are a lot lower because very few people use them.

Few? You keep using that word...

 

[Berzerker]

Alrightey then. Somebody posts a reply (a big one, at that), and you know what that means. It's time to rumble.

Been to a Pink Floyd laser concert. Was bored out of my ass.

Thats because you weren't high... Yer supposed to be buzzed or trippin for something like that.

Heard this one a million times. Had a million people try to turn me into them. "Be like me, and you'll be happier". Attention doofus: I AM NOT YOU. I DO NOT LIKE THE SAME THINGS YOU DO. And one of the things I do like is being sober so I can actually focus on the things I like.

How do you ever try anything new if thats yer attitude? I like football, baseball, and golf. Like any of them? And I can play them on pot or "sober". Jesus, get a grip, some people really need to calm down. You know, pot can be used for people who need attitude adjustments

For once, you're right--fatty food does cost health care dollars. But here's the part you left out: if I eat too many Red Robin cheeseburgers (which I do) and have a heart attack (which I never have) who pays the hospital bill? I do. It's my insurance. I've been paying the premiums for years, and I'm entitled to the benefits thereof. Plus, after the heart attack my insurance rate is going to go up.

Gee, I left out your personal history? And I was privy to yer diet before you told me all about Red Robin burgers?
What if yer insurance is the govt? Medicaid, Medicare, The VA, govt employee...? Well, most of us who aint got the govt insuring us also have private insurance and we've been paying premiums too, so dont blame us for someone'e else's lack of insurance.

But if you get stoned and run me over in your car? By rights you're the one who should pay the hospital bill, but that's not at all likely to happen. If I can't identify you, I get stuck with all the bills.

What if yer having a heart attack (or indigestion) and you run me over? Where is this website we can see how many people are run over by drivers under the influence of alcohol, pot, other drugs, cell phones, the radio, and that Red Robin burger? Thats a lame argument, we'd ban cars using your logic because people get run over by sober drivers too. Ban pot because of a hit and run driver? Yer reaching for the stars, come back down to earth.

And I've experienced this first hand. A year and a half ago some idiot ran a red light and smashed up the rear end of my car. And she got away with it because no witnesses came forward. Fortunately my insurance company didn't raise my rate because it was my first accident in ten years (apparently the average is one car accident every THREE years).

So, forget it. Huge difference between fatty food and weed.

Except when you keel over in public because of obesity and hurt someone. So you base your philosophy on 1 person you dont even identify as a pot smoker? I'll try to explain this again, thats an immoral foundation for an ideology. You're blaming and punishing the innocent for the actions of the guilty, and you've just proven my point - some idiot ran into yer car, and because of that millions of people must be put in cages for using pot. Forget the logic disconnect, just look at the hypocrisy - you dont want to be punished because somebody else hurt someone. But you advocate that for millions of people...

Absolutely. But, once again, you left something out: the costs that went down.

The costs to society from legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco are estimated at between $100 billion and half a TRILLION dollars. Per year. The costs from illegal drugs are a lot lower because very few people use them.

But those costs dont go down under prohibition, they go up because you aren't stopping enough people from doing the drugs to make up for the cost of trying to stop everyone from enjoying their freedom. Fewer people use the other drugs because of the nature of people and the drugs, when all drugs were legal alcohol and tobacco were more popular than other drugs, just as now. Why doesn't everyone who wants to use a drug just get drunk? Its legal. Because alcohol - and its effects - dont appeal to everyone. Well, thats true for all drugs - use depends more on the person and the effects of the drug.

Try out the following brain exercise (every bit helps): imagine if you legalized murder. The crime rate goes down (since murder isn't a crime any more).

Murder is a crime, dont matter what the law says. Govt didn't invent crime, govt was invented to help stop crime. Yer brain exercise requires me to equate murder with pot?
What happens when people retaliate for the deaths of their loved ones? Sounds like an extremely hostile environment where people are shooting the place up seeking revenge because the govt said murder aint a crime any more.

Does that make you safer? Of course not.

Makes me less safe, just like the drug war.

But, if you ban murder, then you're creating a profitable market for hired hitmen, are you not?

Yup, and that we have.

But the overall cost to society remains lower.

Thats true, but the black market in hit men is miniscule compared to the black market in drugs. They aint even in the same ballpark, BC.

Naturally, you and a bunch of other reeferheads tally long lists that only include the negatives of banning your pet drugs. Until you add the positives on those lists, they're worthless and I'm going to type out the following smiley in response to them:

Thats a strange comment given how you just ignored my point about homicide (and crime) rates going up during drug wars. You haven't explained how that makes my family safer.

Excellent.

Just consistent

If somebody wants one of those loans, that's their business. Not yours. Or is it....?

None of my business

See? When the circumstances suit you, you're perfectly content to stick your nose in someone else's business and tell them what's best for them. Well, when a loan goes bad, does anybody get hurt besides the person who took out the bad loan? No. (If you can prove that the bank did something illegal, by all means take them to court....)

What are you talking about? I'm not sticking my nose in their business, I said the market should determine lending practices. Subprime IS sticking the govts nose in lending practices.

No, Zerk, that is not what I said. I said that people who deviate from the cookie cutter of their political party are the exception. You support legalizing pot, and you support the 2nd Amendment. You are not squarely following the political doctrine of American liberals. You are a deviate. So am I. I'm a conservative atheist.

I dont see any conservatism in giving govt the authority to dictate what we can or cannot put in our own bodies. And I dont see such a power in the Constitution, so what are you conserving?

Can you visualize George Washington (the continent's biggest whiskey producer), Thomas Jefferson (one of the biggest producers of wine) and Ben Franklin (opium user) coming to the American people with a document giving a central govt the authority to ban drugs? I cant...

Simple: whenever you violate the rights of others (which just happen to be listed in that same Constitution......)

You have a right to jail millions of people based on a paranoia about pot smokers? No BC, our rights are not listed in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment clearly states that we have innumerable rights, far too many to list. And that these rights are just as valuable to a human being as any right they did list, and they were right. And they said the enumeration of certain rights should not be used to deny or disparage these other unlisted rights. The Framers were only concerned with listing the rights seen as protectors of freedom, the rights a tyrant would seek to restrict first. Religion, speech, the press, freedom of assembly (association), guns (2nd) and privacy (3rd & 4th). Is that our list of rights, BC? Tell me, what happens to the person who uses pot in their religion under yer "Conservatorship" of our rights under the Constitution?

It all comes right back down to the same question: "does your behavior pose a significant risk to other people?"

I dont see that in the Constitution. Your ideology poses a significant risk to others. The homicide rates go way up during drug wars. Thats a subjective argument, how does one define significant risk? For example, lets say you're sitting home watching TV and smoking pot - how are you a significant risk to me? You aren't any risk to me.
You have to change the example to make an argument, and that means you are punishing the guy in my example for what someone else did. Thomas Jefferson gave the definition of freedom in a fairly well known quip, but I'll have to paraphrase - it matters not if my neighbor believes in 100 gods or no god, that neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket. He must have forgot the "significant risk" posed by all those people drinking his famous wines.

According to medical stats I've found on the web, a person who is legally drunk is ten times more likely to be in a car accident, and a person who has used weed within three hours is nine times more likely to be in a car accident.

Okay, link? And legally drunk is not accurate, a drunk driver has proven themselves to be drunk by their inability to control the car. Going over some legal blood alcohol limit is not the same thing. People can be at or just above the legal limit without being drunk. But I find that laughable, seriously I've driven drunk and I've driven under the influence of pot, no comparison.

Some guys in Britain recently did a video comparing pot and booze (for real, I saw them) and it was the typical swerve in and out of the cones type driving test. The guy was fine under the influence of pot, didn't hit the cones, didn't go off the course for a Red Robin burger, but under the booze? Heh, what do you think happened? He got drunk and started ramming cones and losing track of the course etc.

The comparison is fairly imprecise, because different people take different amounts of booze/weed to get blitzed. But it's clear that a toke of weed causes about the same level of risk as three or four drinks' worth of alcohol, and dissipates from the system at about the same rate.

It dont take 3 or 4 drinks to hit the legal limit, 2 beers is enough. I play golf and not to brag but I'm very good. I've played under varying amounts of alcohol, pot, other drugs, and obviously "sober", and only the booze will turn me into a hacker. I can shoot par sober or with pot, but 3 or 4 drinks and I'm not gonna shoot par. I wont be close to par... And I can tell the difference... There's just no comparison. Also, when yer looking for stats about pot and driving, find stats for actual adults who use pot and drive. I imagine a relatively higher number of pot smokers involved in accidents are youngsters (just a hunch )

If we legalize weed, it will cause the same kinds of damage alcohol does--a death rate in the six-figures range, and about the same rate of fatal accidents that kill people besides the smoker.

You've made these dire predictions before, why didn't we see that when pot was legal? Hundreds of thousands of people dying from pot? I dont even think that many people would start smoking pot if it was legal.

And how much opium was Afghanistan producing while the Taliban was running the country....?

Almost none.

Gotcha.

And this is yer model society? What is your point (other than not answering my questions)?

With everything else on the planet--murder, speeding, polluting, theft, trolling--the rule is the same: if you want to reduce it, you make a law against it. It's not that big of a leap.

Unless its Murphy's Law... Try to ban freedom and the law of unintended consequences enters the picture. Creating massive black markets that generate crime does not make us safer.

 

[Berzerker]

Hey BC 1 more

I did not say that most weed advocates in that thread are against gun ownership--I said that most weed advocates in general are against gun ownership.

They wanna ban guns so you wanna ban pot? They're using the exact same argument you're using, guns increase risk. And they're right, hell, I'll admit that much. Freedom aint perfect, its just better than throwing it onto the auction block every election. What did Ben Franklin say about freedom and security, sacrifice the former and you wont get the latter? How about Mel Gibson in "The Patriot", why should I exchange 1 tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants 1 mile away? Well, the drug war is the best example I can think of proving Ben's warning. If drug wars reduced crime, Mexico and Latin America would be havens of peace and security.