• Thurs news: Lilly’s weight-loss drug prevents diabetes. Merck pays $588M for bispecific. Amgen speaks out about bone density issues with obesity drug. PTC gets gene therapy approval. JNJ’s 340B legal fight. See more on our front page

Illustrates the Stupidity of Marijuana Legalization





Man For All Seasons said:
We have a "full blown heroin crisis" going on in one of our states, meanwhile we have some states stupid enough to legalize weed which serves as a gateway to harder stuff. It's sheer madness!

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/01/0...hifts-focus-to-drug-abuse.html?_r=0&referrer=
Click to expand...

That's a pretty large leap. Heroin users and Casual Stoners, are two completely different people. Some of us like it to forget about all the shit in life, every once in a while. Heroin Abusers many times do harm to other Humans, to support their drug habit. Stoners are just bummed out. There is a lot of space between these two people.
 








First, thanks for responding. I was beginning to think you didn't love me anymore! LOL!

If in fact alcohol is a bigger gateway than Marijuana, so what? That doesn't mean that weed isn't a gateway drug on its own. So legalizing weed is still incredibly stupid. Besides, are we gonna go back to prohibition? Really? You want to propose that?

If not, you are dealing with an additive situation and if you argue with math, you will lose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:








I hope you bought the Calumet stock I told you about. X dividend date coming right up. Use it or lose it :rolleyes:
 




libluvsbukkake said:
That's a pretty large leap. Heroin users and Casual Stoners, are two completely different people. Some of us like it to forget about all the shit in life, every once in a while. Heroin Abusers many times do harm to other Humans, to support their drug habit. Stoners are just bummed out. There is a lot of space between these two people.
Click to expand...

You are correct however that still doesn't make it wise to add a far more benign but still highly problematic substance to the mix of legalized drugs.

To me it's stunning to be even considering legalizing another substance which results in dependency/addiction when we already have booze and we have a governor devoting his entire state of the state address to a "full blown heroin crisis". Let that sink in for a moment. It's a stunning fact.

While weed is far from being anywhere close to as dangerous as heroin or booze, it is still a problematic substance. The vast majority of people can drink without becoming raging alcoholics, but booze still causes us major problems. By the same token, there is a subset of people for whom weed is not a benign recreational drug that is used to relax. It creates dependence/addiction on its own and can be a gateway to harder stuff.

The stoner effect is not a good thing for the adolescent brain which is literally not finished developing. The last thing American youth need is something g else to make them uncaring and unmotivated. It is no joke that weed has the very real possibility of derailing a person's entire life if they get hooked on it as a teen and if its legalized teen usage will go up to a higher level than it is currently as an illegal drug.
 
Last edited by a moderator:




The problem here is that correlation isn’t cause. Hell’s Angels motorcycle gang members are probably more 104 times more likely to have ridden a bicycle as a kid than those who don’t become Hell’s Angels, but that doesn’t mean that riding a two-wheeler is a “gateway” to joining a motorcycle gang. It simply means that most people ride bikes and the kind of people who don’t are highly unlikely to ever ride a motorcycle.

http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/marijuna-as-a-gateway-drug-the-myth-that-will-not-die/

The notion that cannabis is a gateway drug has been so roundly disputed that modern scientific journals rarely publish work on this issue anymore.
In fact, a study published in the August issue of The Journal of School Health asserts that it is actually alcohol use that is a predictor for progression to harder drugs.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/22/marijuana-isnt-a-gateway-drug-and-doesnt-increase-aggression/

Now a Nobel Peace Prize laureate has come out to dispel what he calls myths around cannabis as more states have proposed halting prosecution.

http://www.ibtimes.com/nobel-prize-...teway-drug-heels-legalization-bill-pa-1008368

Also,Kids should not be smoking pot - just as they should not be drinking. The same laws that pertain to underage drinking should apply to marijuana.

The FACT remains that, in spite of the misinformed opinion of an ever growing minority, marijuana legalization is moving forward and more American's than not are in favor.
 




Correlation doesn't prove causation, but people are not rats or chemicals in a lab. Therefore wise people understand that in the realms of social science and public policy correlation is far more important than in the hard sciences. So we can dispense with that line of thinking immediately.

Some people still try to avoid the big questions which dismantle their arguments completely before they even begin diving into data minutia.

Questions such as:

If weed is so benign then why are there rehab programs for it?

Why is by far the most common reason for teens being in rehab weed?

Legalization is a very bad idea. Period.
 




libluvsbukkake said:
That's a pretty large leap. Heroin users and Casual Stoners, are two completely different people. Some of us like it to forget about all the shit in life, every once in a while. Heroin Abusers many times do harm to other Humans, to support their drug habit. Stoners are just bummed out. There is a lot of space between these two people.
Click to expand...

Exactly In most cases, daily marijuana use is an indication that the individual is attempting to mask or avoid issues. In such cases, the person is as 'addicted' to the escape from reality the drug can provide as they are to the drug itself. But it isn't a true 'addiction' in the actual sense of the word.

In contrast, lets look at alcohol and the millions of people who have entered AA in order to cope with day to day life. This is a substance that can cause true addiction. Withdrawal from alcohol can cause seizures, delirium tremens, and death if not properly managed. These do not occur with Marijuana use.

Withdrawal from Marijuana is not life-threatening and any rational person honestly compares the 2 would have no choice but to come to the conclusion that it would be best if our society gradually transitioned from alcohol to marijuana for recreational use. I use both 'now and then', certainly not daily but I realize alcohol is more dangerous if abused. I never have more than 2 glasses of red wine over the course of one evening.

And the older I get, the more nauseous I become after alcohol. It's a poison with the ability to kill. This isn't the case with pot and it doesn't happen with pot.
 




Vagitarian said:
Exactly In most cases, daily marijuana use is an indication that the individual is attempting to mask or avoid issues. In such cases, the person is as 'addicted' to the escape from reality the drug can provide as they are to the drug itself. But it isn't a true 'addiction' in the actual sense of the word.

In contrast, lets look at alcohol and the millions of people who have entered AA in order to cope with day to day life. This is a substance that can cause true addiction. Withdrawal from alcohol can cause seizures, delirium tremens, and death if not properly managed. These do not occur with Marijuana use.

Withdrawal from Marijuana is not life-threatening and any rational person honestly compares the 2 would have no choice but to come to the conclusion that it would be best if our society gradually transitioned from alcohol to marijuana for recreational use. I use both 'now and then', certainly not daily but I realize alcohol is more dangerous if abused. I never have more than 2 glasses of red wine over the course of one evening.

And the older I get, the more nauseous I become after alcohol. It's a poison with the ability to kill. This isn't the case with pot and it doesn't happen with pot.
Click to expand...

True addiction or not, marijuana wrecks lives. End of story.

Transitioning gradually from booze to pot is a pipe dream.

It's a game of addition, you are arguing with math and reality and you have lost.
 




Marijuana was outlawed for two major reasons. The first was because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy. The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" nonsense.

Only one MD testified at the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association said there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and no reason for the law. He pointed out that it was used in hundreds of common medicines at the time, with no significant problems. In response, the committee told him that, if he wasn't going to cooperate, he should shut up and leave.

The only other "expert" to testify was James C. Munch, a psychologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn't know what to conclude because he wasn't a dog psychologist. Mr. Munch also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. He then described how he flew around the room for two hours.

Mr. Munch was the only "expert" in the US who thought marijuana should be illegal, so they appointed him US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served and guided policy for 25 years.

If you read the transcripts of the hearings, one question is asked more than any other: "What is this stuff?" It is quite apparent that Congress didn't even know what they were voting on. The law was shoved through by a small group of lunatics with no real awareness by anyone else of what was happening.

See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm for an entertaining short history of the marijuana laws.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm for the complete transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
 




The question of what to do about drugs is not a new one. Over the last 100 years there have been numerous major government commissions around the world that have studied the drug laws and made recommendations for changes. You can find the full text of all of them at httpp://druglibrary.org/schaffer under Major Studies of Drugs and Drug Policy.

They all reached remarkably similar conclusions, no matter who did them, or where, or when, or why. They all agreed that the current laws were based on ignorance and nonsense, and that the current policy does more harm than good, no matter what you assume about the dangers of drugs. You don't have to take my word for that. Read them yourself.

If you are new to the collection, start with Licit and Illicit Drugs at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/cu/cumenu.htm That is the best overall review of the drug problem ever written. If you only read one book on the subject, make it that one. It will give you a good summary of what you would learn if you read all the other major reports.

In 1973, President Nixon's US National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse completed the largest study of the drug laws ever done. At the end of their study, they said the real drug problem was not marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine. The real drug problem, they said, was the ignorance of our public officials who keep spouting off with solutions but have never read the most basic research on the subject.

In a perfect illustration of their point, Nixon refused to read his own commission's report. The full text can be found at http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/Library/studies/nc/ncmenu.htm
 




wm97 said:
Marijuana was outlawed for two major reasons. The first was because "All Mexicans are crazy and marijuana is what makes them crazy. The second was the fear that heroin addiction would lead to the use of marijuana - exactly the opposite of the modern "gateway" nonsense.

Only one MD testified at the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. The representative of the American Medical Association said there was no evidence that marijuana was a dangerous drug and no reason for the law. He pointed out that it was used in hundreds of common medicines at the time, with no significant problems. In response, the committee told him that, if he wasn't going to cooperate, he should shut up and leave.

The only other "expert" to testify was James C. Munch, a psychologist. His sole claim to fame was that he had injected marijuana directly into the brains of 300 dogs and two of them died. When they asked him what he concluded from this, he said he didn't know what to conclude because he wasn't a dog psychologist. Mr. Munch also testified in court, under oath, that marijuana could make your fangs grow six inches long and drip with blood. He also said that, when he tried it, it turned him into a bat. He then described how he flew around the room for two hours.

Mr. Munch was the only "expert" in the US who thought marijuana should be illegal, so they appointed him US Official Expert on marijuana, where he served and guided policy for 25 years.

If you read the transcripts of the hearings, one question is asked more than any other: "What is this stuff?" It is quite apparent that Congress didn't even know what they were voting on. The law was shoved through by a small group of lunatics with no real awareness by anyone else of what was happening.

See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm for an entertaining short history of the marijuana laws.
See http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/taxact.htm for the complete transcripts of the hearings for the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
Click to expand...

Thanks for an entertaining and informative couple of posts, but I don't view them as the sort of "game changers" that I suspect you intend them to be.

While it is interesting to look into the history and motivation, good and bad, for marijuana policy, some key issues are unaddressed.

Today's pot is 10x more potent than the stuff that turned the guy into a bat and caused him to fly around the room! LOL!

If pot is so benign than why are there even rehab programs for it?

Why is pot by far the most common substance for which teens are in rehab?

And to reference my original post, when one of our states is suffering from
a full blown heroin crisis, what sense can it possibly make for other states to be legalizing an addictive drug?

No one has been able to provide satisfying, rational answers for any of these questions and I have my suspicions why. They want public policy based upon wishful thinking around their drug of choice instead of the facts of how problematic the drug can be.
 




By the numbers . . .

Fifty-two percent of adults favor legalizing marijuana, up 11 percentage points just since 2010, according to Pew. Sixty percent think Washington shouldn't enforce federal laws against marijuana in states that have approved its use. Seventy-two percent think government efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they're worth.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes since California voters made the first move in 1996. Voters in Colorado and Washington state took the next step last year and approved pot for recreational use. Alaska is likely to vote on the same question in 2014, and a few other states are expected to put recreational use on the ballot in 2016.

"By Election Day 2016, we expect to see at least seven states where marijuana is legal and being regulated like alcohol," says Mason Tvert, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national legalization group.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/marijuana-legalization_n_3521547.html

After a year of preparation, Colorado opened its doors to the legal marijuana, serving thousands of customers and racking up more than $5 million in taxed and regulated sales in just seven days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/legal-weed-next_n_4557583.html


In the end, the argument that will finally win this over will be financial. Soon it will be just as hard to ignore the economic benefits of legalization as it was to ignore the economics of casino gambling. Sure, your holy rollers will never accept it, but the amount of money states have gotten to pad their budgets after legalizing casinos here is astounding and I have no doubt the same will be true for those states who legalize pot.

Eventually, it will be the financial argument that wins the day on this issue.
 




Breakingnews said:
By the numbers . . .

Fifty-two percent of adults favor legalizing marijuana, up 11 percentage points just since 2010, according to Pew. Sixty percent think Washington shouldn't enforce federal laws against marijuana in states that have approved its use. Seventy-two percent think government efforts to enforce marijuana laws cost more than they're worth.

Eighteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized the use of marijuana for medical purposes since California voters made the first move in 1996. Voters in Colorado and Washington state took the next step last year and approved pot for recreational use. Alaska is likely to vote on the same question in 2014, and a few other states are expected to put recreational use on the ballot in 2016.

"By Election Day 2016, we expect to see at least seven states where marijuana is legal and being regulated like alcohol," says Mason Tvert, a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project, a national legalization group.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/29/marijuana-legalization_n_3521547.html

After a year of preparation, Colorado opened its doors to the legal marijuana, serving thousands of customers and racking up more than $5 million in taxed and regulated sales in just seven days.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/08/legal-weed-next_n_4557583.html


In the end, the argument that will finally win this over will be financial. Soon it will be just as hard to ignore the economic benefits of legalization as it was to ignore the economics of casino gambling. Sure, your holy rollers will never accept it, but the amount of money states have gotten to pad their budgets after legalizing casinos here is astounding and I have no doubt the same will be true for those states who legalize pot.

Eventually, it will be the financial argument that wins the day on this issue.
Click to expand...

And yet you still can't answer some simple questions! What does that say?

All you've proven with this post is that you are so incredibly gullible financially, that you willing to get absolutely hammered financially, despite the record with booze, gambling, etc.
 




Man For All Seasons said:
Thanks for an entertaining and informative couple of posts, but I don't view them as the sort of "game changers" that I suspect you intend them to be.

While it is interesting to look into the history and motivation, good and bad, for marijuana policy, some key issues are unaddressed.

Today's pot is 10x more potent than the stuff that turned the guy into a bat and caused him to fly around the room! LOL!
Click to expand...

How can you instantly tell when someone is lying about the issue and/or doesn't have a clue what they are talking about?

When they tell you that today's marijuana is 10X more potent than the old stuff.

Why do you instantly know that it is a lie? For two reasons. The first is that the means to test potency didn't even exist until the 1970s and then the tests were that done were typically done on old, deteriorated weed. The second is that anyone who has read any of the history knows that very potent forms of weed have been around for literally thousands of years.

Not that increased potency means anything. It is the same as the difference between beer and whiskey. With the more potent stuff, people just use less.


If pot is so benign than why are there even rehab programs for it?
Click to expand...

The first explanation is that rehab is big business. Most people sent into rehab for pot are casual users sent there by the court system. It makes as much sense as sending casual wine drinkers to rehab.

But, there are some people who have problems with weed. There are some people who have problems with just about anything -- like alcohol. In fact, alcohol wins all the prizes for those problems. Weed is nothing by comparison.

But you may notice that we don't prohibit alcohol just to try to save the relative few who have a problem with it. We tried that once and we proved conclusively that prohibition was a complete disaster. The same applies to marijuana.

Why is pot by far the most common substance for which teens are in rehab?
Click to expand...

Because the court system sends them to rehab when they don't really need it. It is big business.

And to reference my original post, when one of our states is suffering from
a full blown heroin crisis, what sense can it possibly make for other states to be legalizing an addictive drug?
Click to expand...

Where did you get the idea that the heroin crisis has anything at all to do with marijuana?

What sense could it make? Same general sense that repealing alcohol prohibition made. That is, we get better control over the problems when criminal gangs aren't running the entire trade. Do you get how that works? Read up on the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and get back to us.

Noting, of course, that you obviously failed to read any of the references. That is the typical pattern of prohibitionists. Prohibitionists have two primary characteristics.

The first is that they really don't know anything about the subject. You already proved that without a doubt.

The second is that they really don't want to know anything. This isn't a quest for knowledge to them, it is a holy crusade. Therefore, they will steadfastly refuse to read anything that might disagree with them. Knowledge actually terrifies them.

Thanks for the demonstration.

No one has been able to provide satisfying, rational answers for any of these questions and I have my suspicions why. They want public policy based upon wishful thinking around their drug of choice instead of the facts of how problematic the drug can be.[/QUOTE]
 




Man For All Seasons said:
And yet you still can't answer some simple questions! What does that say?

It all says that the majority of Americans support legalization of Marijuana and that financial benefits are projected to be at least 10 billion dollars by 2018. You have been presented with countless links on numerous threads that back up the premise of the financial benefits of legalization, including over 500 economists who see the benefits of pot being taxed, you just choose to ignore them.

http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/legalize_pot.htm

All you've proven with this post is that you are so incredibly gullible financially, that you willing to get absolutely hammered financially, despite the record with booze, gambling, etc.
Click to expand...

All you have proven is that you agree with a Governor's opinion as laid out in the OP. You are entitled to you opinion on this issue - It is just a FACT that your views on the legalization of marijuana are in an ever growing minority.

The title of this thread comes up a word short - It should read:

Illustrates the Stupidity of Marijuana Legalization Opposition
 




Man For All Seasons said:
Thanks for an entertaining and informative couple of posts, but I don't view them as the sort of "game changers" that I suspect you intend them to be.

While it is interesting to look into the history and motivation, good and bad, for marijuana policy, some key issues are unaddressed.

Today's pot is 10x more potent than the stuff that turned the guy into a bat and caused him to fly around the room! LOL!

If pot is so benign than why are there even rehab programs for it?

Why is pot by far the most common substance for which teens are in rehab?

And to reference my original post, when one of our states is suffering from
a full blown heroin crisis, what sense can it possibly make for other states to be legalizing an addictive drug?

No one has been able to provide satisfying, rational answers for any of these questions and I have my suspicions why. They want public policy based upon wishful thinking around their drug of choice instead of the facts of how problematic the drug can be.
Click to expand...

BTW, did you know that none of the currently illegal drugs were considered a major problem until 1915? They were completely legal. There were no drug laws at all.

Lots of over-the-counter medicines were fifty percent morphine. Cocaine was included in everything from toothache drops to soda pop to tobacco cheroots (tobacco and crack together). Heroin was included in some baby colic remedies.

There were no age limits, so kids could buy the stuff. In fact, some of it was recommended for kids. There were no labeling laws so people didn't even know what they were taking. There were no advertising laws so the sellers advertised that their concoction would cure any problem had by you or your mule. Even the Pope was in ads telling people to drink cocaine wine for the wonderful health benefits.

Even under those conditions, these drugs were not considered to be a major problem. There was no drug-related crime. There were no drug gangs. Addiction rates weren't any different than they are today, but addicts were not criminals and did not commit crimes and go to jail because of their addiction. In fact, the "father of modern surgery" was a morphine addict for forty years while he invented most of the basic techniques of modern surgery.

These drugs didn't become a problem in 1915. By the end of 1915 there were major problems with drug-related crime, addicts were going to jail, and medical societies across the nation were saying that we had a new medical, moral, social, and criminal disaster on our hands. It was all because of what happened in 1914.

Can you guess what happened that caused all this? If you had bothered to read any of the references, you might have some clue.
 




Man For All Seasons said:
And yet you still can't answer some simple questions! What does that say?

All you've proven with this post is that you are so incredibly gullible financially, that you willing to get absolutely hammered financially, despite the record with booze, gambling, etc.
Click to expand...


You obviously missed the real financial comparison. As you imply, the taxes from alcohol do not cover the costs of alcohol to society. But that is not the correct comparison.

The correct comparison is whether the costs of alcohol are greater under this regime, or under alcohol prohibition. We proved conclusively that alcohol prohibition only makes all the problems worse, and then there aren't any tax revenues to offset the costs.

Alcohol is not legal because the taxes cover the costs. Alcohol is legal for one reason and one reason only. Alcohol is legal only because prohibition is an unmitigated disaster that only makes all the problems worse.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back