Everyone Who Wants to Smoke Pot Is Already Smoking Pot

[rjaypeters]

Diogenes:

Must something which is immoral also be illegal?

[kcdodd]

In my opinion, the only thing worse then a reasoned argument based on bad facts, is an emotional argument. The former can be shown to be wrong. The latter is whatever you want it to be no matter what.

[TallDave]

Diogenes,

I'm always curious why supporters of the WOD believe people who aren't using drugs now will start if it becomes legal. Would you use cocaine, heroin or meth if they were legalized? I sure as hell wouldn't. I doubt very many people who aren't desperately dysfunctional would.

Along that path lies only death and destruction. That is what the evidence shows, and that is what I believe.

The evidence does not show that. "Death and destruction" are facts of your policies. Our policies offer the best chance to end the death and destruction and replace them with something better.

You advocates seemingly cannot see the big picture of life, History and Humanity.

Actually we see it considerably better than you. Prohibition doesn't work.

You must learn your lessons through death and bloodshed

You're the ones promoting death and bloodshed. The drug gangs only exist because of your misguided quest to forcibly improve other people. You've created a world in which ruthless criminals can produce a substance for $1 in Colombia's hinterlands, and sell it for $10,000 on the streets of New York. I don't expect lefties to understand how this is problematic, but it always bothers me when conservatives don't.

, and then the knowledge only lingers as long as you do, and must be relearned again by the next generation.

Writing was invented several thousand years ago. That's how we know about Prohibition.

[choff]

At what age would children be allowed to purchase legalized drugs, and wouldn't making them legal provide that much more access for kids. People don't decide to start using alcohol, tobacco or drugs when they're above age 18 as a rule, they do it long before what constitutes age of consent for most other things. In fact that's the tobacco industries mantra, 'get them while they're young.'

Also, the bud being sold these day's isn't your hippy era weed, the THC level's way higher than when all they old studies were done. Funny thing about the medical marijuana campaign, it didn't happen till the push for legalization had exhausted all other means, and strange that so many stoner's have cancer that they need it. I saw one study on CBC tv that showed that yes, it does alleviate certain symtoms, the placebo was almost as good.

I ended up splitting rent with a co-worker early in my career, as I was moving in he told me that, " by the way, I did 2 years in the Pen for robbing a bank and trafficing hashish, but I had the last laugh since I was really dealing heroin." The very short time I spent living under the same roof with this character was an education in the drug culture and sociopathy.

So its not like I'm just some Conservative spouting off to members of the Libertine Party. The real push for legalization is coming from the desire to make money, and lots of it. The compassion arguement it just the very last ploy in decades, and since they took so long to get too it you can tell exactly how much they really care.

If you really want to see what`s behind the push to legalize, all you have to do is follow the money.

[TallDave]

choff,

It's a valid question. But it's generally easier for kids to get drugs than alcohol, because drug dealers don't have to worry about losing their licenses.

The first thing cops ask when they find underage drinking is "Where did you get it?" That often leads to criminal charges.

I would suggest 21 as a reasonable age.

Also, the bud being sold these day's isn't your hippy era weed, the THC level's way higher than when all they old studies were done

That's somewhat questionable, but really moot anyway. Higher THC just means you smoke less. It's actually healthier.

The real push for legalization is coming from the desire to make money, and lots of it.

This is something we really have to educate people on: legalization means the end of scummy drug dealers and insane profit margins. Distributors will be licensed and regulated and taxed. Instead of being a river of cash for sociopaths, drugs will be boring, just another unhealthy thing you can buy at the store along with liquor, tobacco, soda, and bacon.

In fact, many growers in CA oppose legalization because they know what it will do to their profit margins. There's a great piece floating around the web about them standing up in town halls and complaining.

[choff]

If you try to made the age 21 the 18 year old dealers would just complain, "I`m old enough to server in the army I should be old enough to smoke dope."

If it's all legal the scumbag dealers will become respectible millionaires that keep their cash in offshore banks legally and never pay taxes, plus they'll move on to careers in politics, like a few rumrunner families from the prohibition era. Something difficult to do with a criminal record, plus I don't see anything getting regulated with all the anti-government rhetoric they'll be supporting.

Since the Libertine Party is so worried about big brother taking over you might want to check out an old article in Playboy about the CIA and LSD. You might also want to do an internet search on the Venice Beach, Florida airport and drug smuggling, an open secret in your country that nobody ever talks about.

If I was in the security establishment and really wanted to bring in a totalitarian regime, a good way would be to create a drug abuse crisis that ultimately lead to a crackdown like in China with the opium trade.

[Diogenes]

In my opinion, the only thing worse then a reasoned argument based on bad facts, is an emotional argument. The former can be shown to be wrong. The latter is whatever you want it to be no matter what.

The Best argument is one which is both.

[kcdodd]

Both wrong and emotional? Or both rational and emotional? If the latter, I think that is oxymoronic.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,

I'm always curious why supporters of the WOD believe people who aren't using drugs now will start if it becomes legal.

I am curious why advocates of legalized drugs don't believe that one piece of burning wood will not catch another piece on fire. This is axiomatic. How can usage not spread and increase over time?

Would you use cocaine, heroin or meth if they were legalized? I sure as hell wouldn't. I doubt very many people who aren't desperately dysfunctional would.

What, are you kidding me? If I was a young pup starting off in my teens, and my friends said "Hey, this stuff is AWESOME! " I would say, "Let ME try it!" This "dysfunctional" notion wouldn't even occur to people who have no knowledge of it. (most young people.)

Along that path lies only death and destruction. That is what the evidence shows, and that is what I believe.

The evidence does not show that. "Death and destruction" are facts of your policies. Our policies offer the best chance to end the death and destruction and replace them with something better.

Do I need to draw a chart? Yeah, there's death and destruction from every aspect of drugs, but that is the nature of the beast. I am arguing that attempts at interdiction are aimed at producing a death and destruction "resonant null", or optimum point. We could get the deaths down even further if we used more negative feedback, but our society isn't ready to tolerate the actions necessary to drive the death null lower. Were we to stop completely, the deaths and addictions would rise over time until they wiped out our ability as a nation to survive. (How did China go from a 1% addiction to a 25-50% addiction?)

You advocates seemingly cannot see the big picture of life, History and Humanity.

Actually we see it considerably better than you. Prohibition doesn't work.

Really?

You must learn your lessons through death and bloodshed

You're the ones promoting death and bloodshed. The drug gangs only exist because of your misguided quest to forcibly improve other people.

BZZZT! Wrong answer. To PREVENT people from spreading the disease. The ones infected are mostly lost already. We aren't trying to improve them, we are trying to hinder the contagion.

You've created a world in which ruthless criminals can produce a substance for $1 in Colombia's hinterlands, and sell it for $10,000 on the streets of New York. I don't expect lefties to understand how this is problematic, but it always bothers me when conservatives don't.

We trade the scourge of drug gangs for the scourge of mass addiction. (China) Considering we are probably getting 10,000 to one in our favor on the body count, it is a good trade.

, and then the knowledge only lingers as long as you do, and must be relearned again by the next generation.

Writing was invented several thousand years ago. That's how we know about Prohibition.

You presume that writing equals knowledge and understanding. If that were true our Courts would have no trouble applying our constitution accurately. (actually in response to your earlier comment about people knowing the dangers of drug use because they can read.)

Prohibition works. Our whole legal system is based on the notion that an activity can be prohibited and most people will follow this prohibition. You seem to be arguing that because some people don't respect a prohibition, it must not be working. This is like arguing that an electric motor is a complete failure because only 95% of the electricity produces motive force.

The fact that we don't have massive addiction indicates to me that prohibition works. Just not perfectly.

[Diogenes]

Diogenes:

Must something which is immoral also be illegal?

At one time, they were considered to be virtually the same thing. That they no longer are says a lot more about how society has changed then what is the distinction between the two.

But to answer your question, no, not according to the rules nowadays. It is quite common to see something which is immoral made perfectly legal, and something which is moral made illegal. This is not how it should be, but is instead how it is.

[Diogenes]

Both wrong and emotional? Or both rational and emotional? If the latter, I think that is oxymoronic.

Not at all. Arguing that your enemy represents a threat to your survival is enhanced by pointing out that he is of a different religion and he ruthlessly murders helpless women and children, and kicks dogs as well!

What was our rational for Entering World War I? The Civil War?


Another example: Arguing that the ITER project may open a window to new physics, and by the way, throws some money in your direction and likewise pisses off (Insert country you don't like here.) and you've got a much better argument.


Another example:
Reason ----Federal spending is unsustainable.
Emotion---- Your CHILDREN will become SLAVES!


Reason is the persuader, Emotion is the convincer.

[Diogenes]

choff,

It's a valid question. But it's generally easier for kids to get drugs than alcohol, because drug dealers don't have to worry about losing their licenses.

MSimon has been repeating this endlessly. Is this like a drug legalization talking point or something? I keep pointing out:
Rock = $20.00 and a junkie will beat hell out of you for trying to steal it.
Beer = $1.00 and your parent's won't even know you took it.

The first thing cops ask when they find underage drinking is "Where did you get it?" That often leads to criminal charges.

I would suggest 21 as a reasonable age.

What, you believe in prohibition for people BELOW the age of 21? I thought prohibition didn't work? What about their FREEDOM? What about their RIGHTS? Who are YOU to think that you can IMPROVE people? Would you like the shoe for your other foot to be size 12?

Also, the bud being sold these day's isn't your hippy era weed, the THC level's way higher than when all they old studies were done

That's somewhat questionable, but really moot anyway. Higher THC just means you smoke less. It's actually healthier.

The real push for legalization is coming from the desire to make money, and lots of it.

This is something we really have to educate people on: legalization means the end of scummy drug dealers and insane profit margins. Distributors will be licensed and regulated and taxed. Instead of being a river of cash for sociopaths, drugs will be boring, just another unhealthy thing you can buy at the store along with liquor, tobacco, soda, and bacon.

We can look to England as an example about how to organize the whole thing. They have had experience setting this up in China, and everything worked swimmingly!

In fact, many growers in CA oppose legalization because they know what it will do to their profit margins. There's a great piece floating around the web about them standing up in town halls and complaining.

They have their distribution systems already set up, and they are relatively well protected from being caught. Why shouldn't they want the fruits of their monopoly? Everybody loves rent seeking.

[kcdodd]

Not at all. Arguing that your enemy represents a threat to your survival is enhanced by pointing out that he is of a different religion and he ruthlessly murders helpless women and children, and kicks dogs as well!

As soon as you use an appeal to emotion your argument no longer follows the rules of logical argumentation (look it up if you do not believe me). From emotion, truth does not follow. It does not enhance the argument precisely because it invalidates the argument. You cannot eat your cake and have it too Diogenes. The tactic will only work on those who do not care about logical rational, and so saying that it is rational only serves to delude you.

[Diogenes]

Not at all. Arguing that your enemy represents a threat to your survival is enhanced by pointing out that he is of a different religion and he ruthlessly murders helpless women and children, and kicks dogs as well!

As soon as you use an appeal to emotion your argument no longer follows the rules of logical argumentation (look it up if you do not believe me). From emotion, truth does not follow. It does not enhance the argument precisely because it invalidates the argument. You cannot eat your cake and have it too Diogenes. The tactic will only work on those who do not care about logical rational, and so saying that it is rational only serves to delude you.

And I am saying that group consists of practically everyone. YMMV

[kcdodd]

Congratulations. You just admitted to intentionally deluding yourself and others.