Posted on 09/26/2002 5:32:04 AM PDT by Pern
Edited on 04/12/2004 2:10:06 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
You've mis-parsed my sentence; by "our liberties are in no danger because alcohol and tobacco are legal for adults" I meant that the legality of alcohol and tobacco has in no observable way endangered our liberties.
That's a different animal. Where can i get an MrLe parsing driver?
That's a novel approach. But have you never heard of a "happy drunk"? Alcohol doesn't make everyone aggressive.
Don't kid yourself either if you think marijuana can't intensify pre-existing anger, or foster brooding. I'd be willing to bet that more than a murder or two has been birthed in that dark world of introspection brought on for some by marijuana.
All we can do is play the odds. The effects of alcohol and pot are well known.
IMO, repeal is a nearly painless way to lay off thousands of bureaucrats and reduce corruption.
Can you imagine the day, say in fifty years, when it will be customary to plant hemp around flagpoles, as a symbol of the people overthrowing a corrupt bureaucracy? Could happen.
I could have imagined it when I used to smoke pot. Getting sober does funny things to the mind, though. Somehow I can no longer see pot as the locus of liberty.
How about getting rid of corrupt bureaucracies?
A Biblical sense of sin helps here: in this world sin will always be undermining even the best of human endeavours. There is no such thing as a world without corrupt bureaucrats.
The best we can hope for is to restrain evil. Eradicating it will be done by God someday (soon?); I don't think legalizing pot will do the trick.
Not physically addictive, actually it is more plausible that they just like to have a temporary escape from reality, similar to downing a 6 pack, smoking a cigar or playing an MMORPG.
Have you ever read under whom marijuana was made illegal and how they achieved it.
Indeed. But we can minimize the damage they cause to all of society. One way is eliminating their jobs. Private-sector bureaucrats are bad, but not nearly as dangerous nor as expensive in terms of taxes.
RE-legalization of pot will remove many temptations from them.
The less the gov't is allowed to mess with, the less corruption there will be.
Faulty logic. First marijuana isn't that 'harmful', it has no long term effects under every study I've seen and it is impossible to OD on. Secondly and more importantly, you will not be 'introducing' it. It's already everywhere, in your kids schools, in the halls of congress, in maximum security prisons and everywhere on the streets. The only difference is one way you shell out around 20 billion a year to not deter use, and the other way you could probably make 20-30 billion a year in taxes.
...in HIGH TIMES? Haha! Just kidding you unit rb22982. Seriously, this is debatable. There is no firm consensus yet. My hunch is that any leafy product smoked and inhaled through the lungs will eventually cause damage. Tobacco is a good starting point for research.
...and it is impossible to OD on.
This is an achievement? "You may fry your brains out, but take courage! You WON'T DIE!" Really, that's a silly and tired defense of pot which sidesteps the downside of being one of the living dead potheads. (hehe)
As for "introducing it" I didn't mean to imply it wasn't already making itself comfortable on the couch, kicking its legs up on the coffee table. I meant giving it status as an accepted, legal substance. In effect saying, "Could I get you a beer or make you a bowl of popcorn or get a pillow for your feet?"
Excellent point.
John Hopkins study published in May 1999, examined marijuana's effects on cognition on 1,318 participants over a 15 year period. Researchers reported "no significant differences in cognitive decline between heavy users, light users, and nonusers of cannabis." They also found "no male-female differences in cognitive decline in relation to cannabis use." "These results ... seem to provide strong evidence of the absence of a long-term residual effect of cannabis use on cognition," they concluded.
Source: Constantine G. Lyketsos, Elizabeth Garrett, Kung-Yee Liang, and James C. Anthony. (1999). "Cannabis Use and Cognitive Decline in Persons under 65 Years of Age," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 149, No. 9.
The DEA's Administrative Law Judge, Francis Young concluded: "In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating 10 raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. Marijuana in its natural form is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. By any measure of rational analysis marijuana can be safely used within the supervised routine of medical care.:
Source: US Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Agency, "In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition," [Docket #86-22], (September 6, 1988), p. 57.
Also, people who smoke marijuana do not smoke what would be the equivilent of a pack or more of cigarettes every day of marijuana. This is an achievement? "You may fry your brains out, but take courage! You WON'T DIE!" Really, that's a silly and tired defense of pot which sidesteps the downside of being one of the living dead potheads. (hehe)
That was just my point, you aren't 'frying' your brain. You are intoxicated for about a few hours, that's about the extent of it.
I meant giving it status as an accepted, legal substance.
This is faulty logic once again, just because it is legal, does not mean 'accepted.' Just because it is illegal, doesn't mean it is not 'accepted.' Rat poisoning is legal, but people are not digesting rat poisoining on a regular basis. Marijuana is illegal and people are digesting marijuana on a regular basis. There is no downside to legalizing marijuana.
Here are some upsides
1) Seperate the soft drug and hard drug market. Drug pushers can no longer push harder drugs on their 'clients' because their 'clients' are now going to a store similar to an ABC which has no desire to sell meth, heroin etc.
2) Marijuana smokers will know what is in their product. No one will be digesting/inhaling foreign chemicals that are often found in illicit substances. It's just like Budweiser vs Moonshine. You have no idea what is in the latter.
3) You will no longer be spending billions every year in tax dollars.
4) 600,000 non violent users each year will no longer have a difficult finding a job due to have a criminal record for smoking a substance safer than alcohol and nicotine
5) You cut funding to the drug gangs, the columbian cartel, etc.
6) You get rid of the 'stigma' attached to marijuana that makes kids interested in it, because they see it as fairly safe yet rebellious
7) Little reason to try and sell it in schools since the profits will be much more negligble. IOW not worth the risk. Do you see budweiser pushers in HS?
8) Allow our police to actually assist in violent crime instead of snooping in someone's back yard.
9) Free up jail space for longer sentences for violent criminals
10) It would still be illegal for minors.
There are no upsides to keep it illegal. Use is not detered.
That's priceless. Rat poison isn't seductively, pleasantly psychoactive—wherefore it is not desired as an intoxicant. But whadda ya know? The Rat Poison Analogy brought down the WOD nonetheless!
As for the "upsides", maybe we spar later. All this talk about pot is making me hungry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.