EPTShould weed be legalized? - Page 9
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
| ||
|
NTTemplar
609 Posts
On September 02 2012 12:27 JacobShock wrote: If you believe in educating people about health and their body from an early age, then why would you worry about people ingesting "harmful" things at their own volition? If you want to unit people under a banner called whats right, there is no reason to illegalize anything. People will judge evidence for themselves, risks, rewards, ect. And the people with the same values as you (no matter how wrong I might find them to be) will come running to your side, while people who you have nothing in common with will do other things. I agree with educating, but I don't believe in limiting. If the evidence is strong enough that a certain thing is harmful, then the smart people will stay away from it. If your arguments are weak and the evidence non existing, then no. It dosen't have to be any more complicated than that. Not every person got good judgement, also the majority of people in their early teens smoke/drink/etc for all the wrong reasons like either fitting in, "rebelling" etc and often lack the capacity to make the right call. On my list I would exclude alcohol if people could control themselves better as it is helpful for many to have a better time in many social gatherings and its harm is minimal when taken at reasonable amounts, as it mostly is just like candy that it is unhealthy food; however still exclude smoking since I am allergic and how it directly affects those around you, as compared to drinking which only affects you (but you in turn of course can do stupid things if you get too drunk) Also my values are just what is biological optimal for the body; which is excercise, proper eating habits and healthy food. That smart people will stay away from something doesn't mean we let stupid people harm themselves, to me that is like letting someone with autism live like a normal person, let them have to take care of everything themselves, which is beyond the capabilites of a lot of autists, or let someone with depression deal with it as they see fit, maybe through drinking deadly amounts of alcohol to cope with the mental pain the disorder cause. If you do drugs, or drink significant amounts often, or smoke, or have similar habits, you are lacking judgement in a particular field. Not limiting harmful substances to me is an elitist view, feels like the smart people don't care if less fortunate people kill themselves and if the world went to hell they would have no problem staying in a bunker and watch millions outside be nuked to death or whatever. You will of course have to judge the strength of my arguements yourself, but as for evidence alcohol kills ontop of being unhealthy as compared to candy that only has a history of being unhealthy, smoking kills ontop of harming those around you (unless you only smoke with other smokers or alone, ALWAYS) and a lot of drugs also kill. ONLY thing all of the substances have in common is a temporary benefical effect for your psyche, smoking is a stressreliever, drinking takes away emotional pain, drugs do all short of weird stuff depending on which you take, but I believe most can be put under giving the effect of being "high". I believe in the freedom of choice, but also in protecting people with poor judgement, because all people are someones loved ones, and it is terrible to lose or even just see them harmed. | ||
|
HunterX11
United States1048 Posts
On September 02 2012 15:57 TheRabidDeer wrote: I think alcohol and weed are equally addictive. That is to say, the only way you become addicted to either is when you use them as escape mechanisms (or maybe if it runs in your family). Cigarettes however, are truly addictive and the only reason they are legal (hopefully) is because prohibition wont work on them at this point. You can think that all you want, but it is objectively wrong. On top of that alcohol withdrawal can kill you. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On September 02 2012 16:02 NTTemplar wrote: On my list I would exclude alcohol if people could control themselves better as it is helpful for many to have a better time in many social gatherings and its harm is minimal when taken at reasonable amounts, as it mostly is just like candy that it is unhealthy food; however still exclude smoking since I am allergic and how it directly affects those around you, as compared to drinking which only affects you (but you in turn of course can do stupid things if you get too drunk) I don't think you're nearly as smart as you think you are. Alcohol is BY FAR the most lethal recreational drug to innocent bystanders in America, especially if you're looking at drugs taken at low doses and by nonaddicts (we call most of these lethal incidents "DUIs"). You'd have to raise the currently average tax on alcohol by approximately 300% to completely internalize the cost alcoholics do to society at large. When I see stuff like this, I don't see a benevolent intellectual concerned with the good for the general populace. I see a rather normal someone who can't but help impose his own prejudices onto others by law, while arguing for exemptions for his own personal vices. Especially stuff like this: On September 02 2012 16:02 NTTemplar wrote: Not limiting harmful substances to me is an elitist view, feels like the smart people don't care if less fortunate people kill themselves and if the world went to hell they would have no problem staying in a bunker and watch millions outside be nuked to death or whatever. The implication that the unwashed masses need your personal guidance on which vices are acceptable and which are not. You know what elitism is? You're looking at it. Respecting the fact that everyone has their own personal uses for their own personal money isn't elitism. Respecting that everyone has a right to spend their life as they see fit on their vices isn't elitism, either. That's the exact opposite of elitism. Incidentally, the unwashed masses aren't the only people who use these drugs you want to ban. Plenty of people smarter than you or me use or used these drugs as well. | ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On September 02 2012 16:05 HunterX11 wrote: You can think that all you want, but it is objectively wrong. On top of that alcohol withdrawal can kill you. Alcoholism has worse effects compared to addiction to weed, thats for sure. But the odds of becoming addicted are about equal. Think of all of the people that drink casually or socially or just infrequently when compared to the people that HAVE to drink. Just to back this up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcohol_dependence 12% of american adults develop it at least once in their life http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/marijuana 9% of users become addicted So like I said, the numbers are around the same for each. I dont know about the stats for the "daily users" of marijuana, but that 9% is about what I find from other sources (it ranged from 9-10% everywhere I found information on it). | ||
|
mdb
Bulgaria4059 Posts
| ||
|
waxypants
United States479 Posts
| ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
| ||
|
Thalandros
Netherlands1151 Posts
| ||
|
Groog
127 Posts
| ||
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
On September 02 2012 16:05 HunterX11 wrote: You can think that all you want, but it is objectively wrong. On top of that alcohol withdrawal can kill you. Alcohol is a very core food product. You cannot even make bread without it. Banning weed is much more reasonable than banning alcohol. | ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
On September 02 2012 16:29 Sea_Food wrote: Alcohol is a very core food product. You cannot even make bread without it. Banning weed is much more reasonable than banning alcohol. You can't make bread without alcohol? I've been making bread wrong all these years! | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On September 02 2012 16:29 Groog wrote: People saying weed isn't addictive have not been in a period where you smoke every day. Sure you don't develop a physiological dependence, but you sure as fuck get addicted. Everything is addictive in the pyschological sense, from food to finger tapping to Starcraft. That's why physiological dependence is used. On September 02 2012 16:29 Sea_Food wrote: Alcohol is a very core food product. You cannot even make bread without it. I think you're thinking about "yeast", not alcohol. Closely related, but not identical. Which would still be incorrect, you can make bread without yeast and you don't need alcohol to get yeast. Same way you can get shirts without hemp. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
TheRabidDeer
United States3806 Posts
On September 02 2012 16:31 SpiffD wrote: You can't make bread without alcohol? I've been making bread wrong all these years! You cant make bread without yeast Yeast eats sugar and produces alcohol (among other things) EDIT: Well you can make bread without yeast, just not good bread. | ||
|
Shady Sands
United States4021 Posts
On September 02 2012 15:26 farvacola wrote: If properly couched in terms of economic value, along with a concrete societal backing (I'm thinking public support from groups like the ACLU and the AARP), legalization of marijuana would be entirely possible. The biggest issue is congealing public support and removing the taboo from mainstream politics, something which has already begun to an extent. Chicago just de-criminalized weed consumption and possession under 50 grams a few weeks ago. One of the guys I used to work with at Bain headed up the policy team that did that bit of work. According to him, one of the biggest quiet lobbies for weed legalization in Illinois (where I live) is the Chicago Fraternal Order of Police aka the police union. Apparently cops are just as tired of having to waste time on weed offenders as other people are--easy weed arrests inflate arrest statistics everywhere, forcing honest cops to game the system in order to stay "competitive" in terms of arrest stats. Basically, some Chicago policemen are just saying "fuck it, we don't want to screw shit up any longer so we're just not going to arrest anyone with weed"; and the idea caught on, etc. etc. I think this is an interesting point that marijuana advocates might want to look into. Building up relationships with local law enforcement based on trust and respect would go a long long loooong way to decriminalizing marijuana, as opposed to working purely from a legislative angle. | ||
|
drwiggl3s
Canada167 Posts
| ||
|
SpiffD
Denmark1264 Posts
On September 02 2012 16:34 TheRabidDeer wrote: You cant make bread without yeast Yeast eats sugar and produces alcohol (among other things) Buddy you better reread your biology textbook from highschool. Yeast only makes alcohol in the absence of oxygen which is not the case when breadmaking. Even if it did make alcohol as a byproduct when making bread wouldn't make alcohol a core food product. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On September 02 2012 16:34 TheRabidDeer wrote: You cant make bread without yeast Yeast eats sugar and produces alcohol (among other things) EDIT: Well you can make bread without yeast, just not good bread. You don't need alcohol to make yeast. You're confusing causation. | ||
|
Chalaza
Canada46 Posts
I am for legalizing MJ. If people dont want to do it they dont have to, nobody is forcing anybody to do things they dont want to do. Educate people with the truth and facts, and then let people decide for themselves whether or not they want to do these things. I think smoking weed is just like anything else that you enjoy, and people should be allowed to do things they enjoy, its called freedom. (so long as its not harming anyone else of course) EDIT On September 02 2012 16:29 Groog wrote: People saying weed isn't addictive have not been in a period where you smoke every day. Sure you don't develop a physiological dependence, but you sure as fuck get addicted. There was a time when i smoked at the very least 3 times a day, and i never felt once that i needed to do it. Maybe its just my personality, but i just smoked for the first time in about a month, sure i enjoyed it like i always did, but during that time it was never the first thing on my mind, neither that i felt incomplete without it. | ||
| ||
