Why is Marijuana Illegal?

[CaptainF]

Heheheh. I confuse a lot of people this way. My opinions are a random mish-mash of left and right. More right than left, but how about if we just LEFT it at that........are you all RIGHT with this?


No. I wanna send people to jail for selling stuff that destroys the one thing that makes humans humans. Actually, I want the police to do it because I'm not a police officer and therefore I shouldn't be running around clobbering people on the head with a baton.

Funny, marijuana doesn't damage the brain.

Didn't you read that trustworthy WebMD article I posted on page 6?

 

[Sharwood]

Yeah, well, I think rape should be a capital crime.

Not gonna happen in America any time soon. Nobody said the world was perfect.

I doubt many would disagree with that. But WTH it has to do with this argument, I don't understand.

As for that last little statistic I used, 60% of medical students smoking marijuana, as compared to 30% smoking cigarettes, I used it solely to illustrate that your idea that many people aren't smoking cannibis is bs. I know damn well it is hardly conclusive, but if more than twice the number of people in any institution as large as a medical school use one substance than another, there's a fair chance that the use of the substance in question is not nearly as uncommon as you seem to think.

You say that marijuana should be illegal because it increases the risk of someone running you down while they're driving. All right. Under those guidelines, alcohol should be illegal. Mobile phones. Rain. Pedestrians in general. Learner drivers should learn in the middle of the desert. You cannot ban something simply because may raise the risk of something happening, in certain situations.

If someone got really stoned, it may affect their driving performance. You still haven't actually backed up that with statistics btw, but we'll accept it for the purpose of this argument. But, if someone smokes pot, and doesn't drive, why should they be punished in the same way as a person who does? They are not putting anyone's lives at risk.

I'll use this analogy. In the Air Force, and many (if not all, by this point) civilian aviation agencies, it is illegal for pilots and co-pilots to use Viagra. This is because it can affect perception of colour. This is important as different coloured lights can signal whether a pilot can land or should abort in case of communication difficulties. Now, under your logic, it should be illegal for anyone to use Viagra, or at least qualified pilots, whether they're going to be flying a plane anytime soon or not, as if they then fly a plane they are putting the lives of themselves and their passengers at risk. That's stupid.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with instituting marijuana use restrictions - although I don't know how one would go about instituting or enforcing them - for drivers, in the exact same way restrictions exist for alcohol, and in my country, mobile phone use. But, that is not justification for banning a substance outright. If you honestly think so, then you are proposing a system where what you say goes, because you say so. In other words authoritarianism of one sort or another, just as Berzerker said.

 

[Berzerker]

BC

No. I wanna send people to jail for selling stuff that destroys the one thing that makes humans humans.

You mean I'll cease being human if I smoke pot? How does that work?

 

[BasketCase]

I doubt many would disagree with that. But WTH it has to do with this argument, I don't understand.

Holy King was talking to me about how DUI laws would (probably) be extended to MJ if MJ were legalized.

Yeah, that would be nice. However, I'd prefer the stuff was just plain illegal. But we don't always get what we want. The mention of rape was a parallel example. Almost everybody in CFC despises rape--that's a good way to get everybody to tune in on my frequency. Most of us would prefer the penalties for it to be more stringent.....but we don't always get what we want.

As for that last little statistic I used, 60% of medical students smoking marijuana, as compared to 30% smoking cigarettes, I used it solely to illustrate that your idea that many people aren't smoking cannibis is bs.

That doesn't tell us anything useful.

I'm an alcohol user. Just about everybody is. What does that tell you about me? Nothing.

I drink around twelve beers a year. What does that underlined part tell you? Still nothing.

What if I told you that I drink one Mike's Hard Lemonade every month? That means I never get more drunk than ONE-THIRD of the legal limit.

What if I told you I drank twelve beers at the New Year's Day party? That means I got completely smashed and killed somebody on the drive home.


Fine and dandy, so lots of people "are users". Meaning what, that they smoked at least one joint in their entire lives? Hell, even I've inhaled one joint's worth of the Magic Smoke, just from sitting in the same car with a couple of friends who were taking hits on a vaporizer.

I posted figures showing that the ganja industry is much, much, MUCH smaller than the tobacco industry. Meaning there are (probably) far fewer regular users.

You say that marijuana should be illegal because it increases the risk of someone running you down while they're driving.

By a significantly larger factor than most other hazards.

All right. Under those guidelines, alcohol should be illegal.

Bravo.

Mobile phones.

Bravo also. I got one for Christmas, and I (*&@#ing hate the goddamn thing.

Rain.

No dice there, rain has compensating benefits. Like making plants grow so we can eat. Rain is a risk we're just gonna have to deal with.

Pedestrians in general.

Damn right, get the hell off my road.

Learner drivers should learn in the middle of the desert.

Tell it like it is, brutha!!

If someone got really stoned, it may affect their driving performance. You still haven't actually backed up that with statistics btw

No, I did not. You're absolutely right. I showed no link between marijuana use and impaired driving performance. I showed a correlation between marijuana use and car accidents. It's that simple. Could be drivers who try to roll a spliff on the way to work and get distracted while fumbling with the ZigZag paper. Who knows HOW. MJ + car = more accidents, pure and simple.

I'll use this analogy. In the Air Force, and many (if not all, by this point) civilian aviation agencies, it is illegal for pilots and co-pilots to use Viagra.

Viagra doesn't disable a person's reasoning centers. At least, not as far as I know. The problem with a lot of other drugs is that they mess up the part of your brain that makes you realize you're stoned and that you should stay the hell away from cars and power tools. I've heard a whole bunch of people in CFC say "I'd never get behind the wheel if I was stoned, I know better". Guess what, folks. Alcohol, cocaine, MJ, and other "hard" drugs short-circuit the part of your brain that causes you to know better.

At worst, Viagra would cause you to stare at womens' breasts when you should be watching the road ahead of you. And yes, I did see a woman's breasts cause a car accident in that one movie (Desperado, I think) but that was just a movie. So far, I haven't found any statistics on how many car accidents each year are the result of gorgeous melons. I'll get back to ya on that.

 

[Sharwood]

BC

You mean I'll cease being human if I smoke pot? How does that work?

Every full moon you turn into a were-Cheech.

 

[Sharwood]

The mention of rape was a parallel example. Almost everybody in CFC despises rape--that's a good way to get everybody to tune in on my frequency. Most of us would prefer the penalties for it to be more stringent.....but we don't always get what we want.

So, you mentioned rape because people weren't agreeing with you, and you decided to use an extreme example that had nothing at all to do with the argument in order to get people on your wavelength? That doesn't get people on your wavelength, it well and truly gets them off it. I've read every post in this thread, and I didn't know what the hell you were talking about, and I doubt I'm the only one.

That doesn't tell us anything useful.

I'm an alcohol user. Just about everybody is. What does that tell you about me? Nothing.

I drink around twelve beers a year. What does that underlined part tell you? Still nothing.

What if I told you that I drink one Mike's Hard Lemonade every month? That means I never get more drunk than ONE-THIRD of the legal limit.

What if I told you I drank twelve beers at the New Year's Day party? That means I got completely smashed and killed somebody on the drive home.


Fine and dandy, so lots of people "are users". Meaning what, that they smoked at least one joint in their entire lives? Hell, even I've inhaled one joint's worth of the Magic Smoke, just from sitting in the same car with a couple of friends who were taking hits on a vaporizer.

I posted figures showing that the ganja industry is much, much, MUCH smaller than the tobacco industry. Meaning there are (probably) far fewer regular users.

Not arguing with you on that. Just taking you to task for completely missing the point of why I posted those figures.

By a significantly larger factor than most other hazards.

Not from the evidence I've seen. I don't doubt it does, but there are many things that cause worse problems. The two next things I mentioned amongst them.

No dice there, rain has compensating benefits. Like making plants grow so we can eat. Rain is a risk we're just gonna have to deal with.

Just made my argument for me. "Rain has compensating benefits." So does marijuana. Glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and asthma are only some of the many ailments that can be treated by cannibis. Not to mention the myriad industrial uses of hemp products.

NO, I did not. I posted a correlation between marijuana use and car accidents. It's that simple. Could be drivers who try to roll a spliff on the way to work and get distracted while fumbling with the ZigZag paper. Who knows HOW. MJ + car = more accidents, pure and simple.

Fair enough, I'll accept you didn't actually mean a person had to be stoned for marijuana to make them crash their car, even though I think you're just messing with semantics. But if we accept your idea that rolling it made them lose concentration and crash, then tobacco should be illegal because people may roll their own cigarettes, and this makesit difficult for them to drive. Not to mention children in the car, birds flying around, and music on the radio.

Viagra doesn't disable a person's reasoning centers. At least, not as far as I know. The problem with a lot of other drugs is that they mess up the part of your brain that makes you realize you're stoned and that you should stay the hell away from cars and power tools. I've heard a whole bunch of people in CFC say "I'd never get behind the wheel if I was stoned, I know better". Guess what, folks. Alcohol, cocaine, MJ, and other "hard" drugs short-circuit the part of your brain that causes you to know better.

You've obviously never had a hard-on. It's actually been proven that people's reasoning centres are affected by arousal. Marijuana is not a hard drug.

I'll conclude with the part of my argument that effectively destroys your argument that marijuana should be illegal because of the dangers it poses.

No dice there, rain has compensating benefits. Like making plants grow so we can eat. Rain is a risk we're just gonna have to deal with.

Just made my argument for me. "Rain has compensating benefits." So does marijuana. Glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and asthma are only some of the many ailments that can be treated by cannibis. Not to mention the myriad industrial uses of hemp products.

I guess marijuana "is a risk we're just gonna have to deal with."

 

[CaptainF]

Holy King was talking to me about how DUI laws would (probably) be extended to MJ if MJ were legalized.

Yeah, that would be nice. However, I'd prefer the stuff was just plain illegal. But we don't always get what we want. The mention of rape was a parallel example. Almost everybody in CFC despises rape--that's a good way to get everybody to tune in on my frequency. Most of us would prefer the penalties for it to be more stringent.....but we don't always get what we want.

Yeah, we don't always get what we want, sometimes we have to take it.

I posted figures showing that the ganja industry is much, much, MUCH smaller than the tobacco industry. Meaning there are (probably) far fewer regular users.

You know, I somewhat agree with you. The ganja industry is smaller than the tobacco industry, easily. However, it also does generate a lot of money by itself, though once again not nearly as much as the (real) cancer sticks do.

No, I did not. You're absolutely right. I showed no link between marijuana use and impaired driving performance. I showed a correlation between marijuana use and car accidents. It's that simple. Could be drivers who try to roll a spliff on the way to work and get distracted while fumbling with the ZigZag paper. Who knows HOW. MJ + car = more accidents, pure and simple.

Does correlation imply causation?

Besides, you also ignore the fact that this is merely one study. Are you going to discredit all the other studies that show no correlation?

Viagra doesn't disable a person's reasoning centers. At least, not as far as I know. The problem with a lot of other drugs is that they mess up the part of your brain that makes you realize you're stoned and that you should stay the hell away from cars and power tools. I've heard a whole bunch of people in CFC say "I'd never get behind the wheel if I was stoned, I know better". Guess what, folks. Alcohol, cocaine, MJ, and other "hard" drugs short-circuit the part of your brain that causes you to know better.

Once again, you are putting all drugs under an umbrella and assuming they have the same effects.

Do you ever hear about stoned girls at a party getting date raped?

Marijuana doesn't affect your reasoning as much as alcohol. Not even close.

 

[BasketCase]

So, you mentioned rape because people weren't agreeing with you, and you decided to use an extreme example that had nothing at all to do with the argument in order to get people on your wavelength?

Nope, you've got it all wrong. You're playing "fling the dictionary". Dawgphood has been doing that too. Jumping on minor linguistic flubs. It's a very common debate foul.

"Marijuana should stay illegal. Yeah, if it is legalized, it will still be illegal for you to drive while stoned, but I'd prefer the stuff stays illegal."

Is that better? Got your brain wrapped around that?

Not arguing with you on that. Just taking you to task for completely missing the point of why I posted those figures.

Why you posted your figures is unimportant. The figures were useless.

Just made my argument for me. "Rain has compensating benefits." So does marijuana. Glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy and asthma are only some of the many ailments that can be treated by cannibis. Not to mention the myriad industrial uses of hemp products.

Old saying that just popped into my head: "if it sounds too good to be true, it is."

I categorically reject your worship of hemp as the Super Plant.

Fair enough, I'll accept you didn't actually mean a person had to be stoned for marijuana to make them crash their car, even though I think you're just messing with semantics.

Some study somewhere says MJ users have a significantly higher chance of being in a car accident. Work it out.

You've obviously never had a hard-on.

And I am supposed to disprove that.....how?? With photos????

I'm pretty sure that would violate every forum rule CFC has, and get me banned permanently. And also it would be totally GAY. You're just gonna have to take me at my word: I fly the flag for my lady friend every day--and she's quite the patriot.

 

[holy king]

It's legal to drive under the influence of cannibus in some US states. The supreme court (of Idaho or US, I'm not sure) ruled that someone with a prescription for weed and driving while smoking was not "driving under the influence". This is not as much because weed has limited affects once some acclamation of long term use occurs, but because we cannot set a standard of what qualifies as "drunk" like .08 for alcohol. You'd have to give people on the spot blood tests, and before that we would have to determine the THC content in blood that qualifies as "impaired". Some would argue that no amount of consumption, by a regluar user, qualifies as "impairment".

I think one state is Idaho, IIRC.

some german states have set amounts of thc in the blood that are illegal to drive a car with. (they differ from state to state, but it's a beginning.) that is not because it is a good idea to drive stoned, but because it is nonsense to lose your drivers license because you smoked pot two weeks ago...

 

[BasketCase]

Does correlation imply causation?

Good question. Correlation never says which direction. That's a speed bump to always be wary of with statistics. So, riddle me this: do car accidents cause THC to appear in the driver's system?

Gotcha. Yeah, I'd say causation is pretty well solid on this one. It's the THC that causes the car to go kaboom, not the other way around.

Besides, you also ignore the fact that this is merely one study. Are you going to discredit all the other studies that show no correlation?

Well, you ignore all the studies that do show correlation.

Turnabout is fair play.

Do you ever hear about stoned girls at a party getting date raped?

Yes, I have. With marijuana being named specifically.

However, the news media always jump on that sort of thing. Whenever it happens anywhere in the U.S., you hear about it. Media bias is definitely a factor.

 

[nonconformist]

I think another legitimate question is:

how come so many people who are regarded as having had extremely normal and constructive lives have smoked marijuana (and worse) and not ended up as retards, heroin users, wife beaters, or dead?

 

[CaptainF]

Good question. Correlation never says which direction. That's a speed bump to always be wary of with statistics. So, riddle me this: do car accidents cause THC to appear in the driver's system?

Gotcha. Yeah, I'd say causation is pretty well solid on this one. It's the THC that causes the car to go kaboom, not the other way around.

Once again, your study hasn't proven that the THC and the THC itself caused them to have accidents.

I think we are all aware of that by now, no?

Well, you ignore all the studies that do show correlation.

Turnabout is fair play.

I ignore this one study that shows correlation, because it proves nothing.

However, riddle me this. Why are these other respectable studies saying the exact opposite thing?

… The results to date of crash culpability studies have failed to demonstrate that drivers with cannabinoids in the blood are significantly more likely than drug-free drivers to be culpable in road crashes. …

Link

Yes, I have. With marijuana being named specifically.

However, the news media always jump on that sort of thing. Whenever it happens anywhere in the U.S., you hear about it. Media bias is definitely a factor.

The media probably also fails to mention the cocktail of other drugs the girl no doubt has in her system.

 

[twansalem]

I personally oppose the legalization of Marijuana because the second hand smoke gives me a headache, and I dislike the smell. I was in a bar that just sort of overlooked the illegal pot smoking going on, and I just couldn't take it.

Other than that, I suppose it's really not any worse than alcohol or tobacco (I drink, but I don't smoke or chew), but since both of those are legal anyway, why legalize one more drug?

 

[holy king]

I personally oppose the legalization of Marijuana because the second hand smoke gives me a headache, and I dislike the smell. I was in a bar that just sort of overlooked the illegal pot smoking going on, and I just couldn't take it.

Other than that, I suppose it's really not any worse than alcohol or tobacco (I drink, but I don't smoke or chew), but since both of those are legal anyway, why legalize one more drug?

simple solution: dont go to places where people smoke cannabis.

 

[twansalem]

simple solution: dont go to places where people smoke cannabis.

Yeah, but if it was legal, that might be easier said than done when talking about bars.

 

[CaptainF]

Yeah, but if it was legal, that might be easier said than done when talking about bars.

Cannabis would probably be treated like tobacco in that regard.

I imagine some bars would allow patrons to smoke, others wouldn't.

Then there wuld probably be smoking areas, etc.

 

[twansalem]

Cannabis would probably be treated like tobacco in that regard.

I imagine some bars would allow patrons to smoke, others wouldn't.

Then there wuld probably be smoking areas, etc.

True, but trying to find a bar around here that doesn't allow tobacco smoking isn't exactly easy. I would imagine that something similar would happen with pot. My guess is that for a while a lot of establishments wouldn't allow it, but as society got used to it, there would be few smoke free (tobacco or marijuana) bars.

 

[CaptainF]

True, but trying to find a bar around here that doesn't allow tobacco smoking isn't exactly easy. I would imagine that something similar would happen with pot. My guess is that for a while a lot of establishments wouldn't allow it, but as society got used to it, there would be few smoke free (tobacco or marijuana) bars.

I think what's more likely to happen is that you will see "bud bars" which are pretty much marijuana-only establishments. They have some set up in Vancouver BC.

I don't think your average watering hole is going to cater very heavily to cannabis smokers. That and marijuana isn't nearly as popular as tobacco.

 

[twansalem]

I think what's more likely to happen is that you will see "bud bars" which are pretty much marijuana-only establishments. They have some set up in Vancouver BC.

I don't think your average watering hole is going to cater very heavily to cannabis smokers. That and marijuana isn't nearly as popular as tobacco.

Yeah, you're probably right for most places, but I live in a college town, and that probably changes the equation a bit around here. My guess is there would be some experimentation by bar owners to see what restrictions make them the most money. Unless of course local governments required establishments to have marijuana licenses the way bars are required to have alcohol licenses, which would probably result in the "bud bars" you are talking about. I guess a lot of it would depend on whether it was regulated more like alcohol, or like tobacco.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

I don't think anyone of you have any worthwhile opinion on anything regarding drug use until I see you personally try five different drugs of my selection in my presence. If your up to the challenge and will be in the Detroit area any time soon, PM me.