BlizzForums

BlizzForums (http://www.blizzforums.com/index.php)
-   Serious Discussion (http://www.blizzforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Mary Jane (http://www.blizzforums.com/showthread.php?t=23273)

GenocideAlive 02-05-2009 06:59 PM

Mary Jane
 
I just spent like 30 minutes writing this at someone's request and while I didn't dedicate my life to it I think that someone else should be forced to suffer through it. I intend to start a dialectic debate in regard to marijuana, so please leave the flaming to chit chat. I didn't cite sources, because that was burdensome, but in the context of what is a honest reply I will do so.


Otherwise, my view on marijuana is that it is a drug that occupies a void in people's lives. When people lack direction, motivation, or purpose in their lives, they will often find something they enjoy and make a hobby of it. Marijuana is one such thing.

You cannot "casually" in these sense of having no committment to smoking because of its illegal status. You have to associate with someone who would be willing to sell you drugs (a felony), and thus people have to form a moderately "risky" relationship with a stranger to obtain the drug, and then develop a means to smoke it in relative safety, without fear of exposure to law enforcement. This requires a certain amount of diversion or dedication to achieve successfully.

Once established, they have the "reward" of the effects of the drug. They consume their free time enjoying themselves in a stupor, harming little and achieving little. There are physiological health effects from marijuana, but for most casual smokers that is much less concerning than the actual psychological preoccupation with the drug. Those that smoke marijuana casually often find it consuming large chunks of their time and energy. While under the influence, they eat uncontrollably, amuse themselves with vapid, mundane activity, and suffer from mild loss of attention spans and reaction speeds. And they want to do it again. And again.

Many times people compare alcohol and cigarettes to marijuana in a warped justification for legalization. I think both are valid comparisons, but think that cigarettes and alcohol should be outlawed instead. I think the government, who is responsible for a large number of drug abusers' health via public healthcare systems, would like to do this as well. They are well on their way to outlawing cigarettes, and I think alcohol controls will become so oppressive as to largely eliminate its casual use.

The end product of all moderate state-altering drugs is that people will abuse them. In animal studies with B. F. Skinner (a behavioralist), animals could be trained to respond to stimulus in varying ways. In more recent tests, they've found that rats will self-medicate themselves to death with varying drugs if trained how to use them. As many people know but do not understand, humans are animals and tend to fulfill their destinies in that manner. They will self-medicate or preoccupy themselves with medication until there is nothing else, or at the cost of several more worthwhile pursuits.

That is why the drugs became popularized, and that is why the intelligentsia of a society that act as the ruling body (congress, senate, etc.) should effect laws that are for the good of the populace. As we are a republic and not a democracy, we must realize that we are a nation led by experts, not an aimless, superstitious herd that operates on groupthink. Many people decry this as an offense to freedom, but that is a rather transparent appeal to basic human rights that obviously does not apply. Whether or not it technically is a reproach to freedom is irrelevant--the first criteria for a society is what is functional ("justice") then what choices citizens may make ("liberty").

In the vein of what justice is in this sense, if a person wishes to cut themself, we all know that is illegal. They will be arrested and placed in a mental institution. In effect, they do not have the right to hurt themselves. This is because as a society we believe that self-harm is effected only when an individual is disturbed and cannot see the consequences or cause behind their behavior. Similarly, if someone chooses to take drugs, they do so at a cost to their time, money, citizenship, and health. This is not a good model for the masses to adopt. It is helpful to know that drug abuse resulting in hospitalization makes up a significant chunk of activity (~25% by some estimates) in an ER. If they choose to take drugs with all of these risks, they are obviously either unaware of the consequences or simply do not care.

If they do not know of the consequences (or remain willfully ignorant) of drug abuse, they must be educated. If they don't care about the consequences, they are a sociopath or an addict. Regardless, it becomes an issue of controlled substances, with the keyword being "control". The government has stated clearly that it is not permitted, and the place for a protest is in a courtroom in front of a panel of judges, not behind closed doors in covert defiance.

Unfortunately, much of the subversive rhetoric behind drug culture (especially marijuana) is that often willful ignorance and apologist rhetoric substitutes fact. Denial is considered one of the staples of drug addicts, and can take such forms to work as a buffer against reality in communities of users. In effect, an abuser will continue abusing until they either believe the risks for usage are so high that they do not justify its use, or they are educated and appreciate the consequences against the backdrop of feeling good via a chemical stimulant.

And while the government can stop users from possessing a controlled substance, they will never be able to enter each person's life and address their personal problems that lead to abuse. That is a journey each person must take for themselves, and has no easy or straightforward entry or exit. Adding to the problem, but perhaps addressing the crux of the problem is that the person has to find something else that acts as a healthy part of their life to supplant their drug use.

Erwin 02-05-2009 07:15 PM

Re: Mary Jane
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GenocideAlive (Post 517080)
Otherwise, my view on marijuana is that it is a drug that occupies a void in people's lives. When people lack direction, motivation, or purpose in their lives, they will often find something they enjoy and make a hobby of it. Marijuana is one such thing.

You see, the major problem with your post is that you've insisted that all persons that smoke marijuana are alike when they smoke marijuana.

That's about as true as saying "all actors are as much of a cocksucker as Christian Bale when someone does something as minute as walking in 'his' scene".

You over-think the marijuana "issue" way too much, alot of people have a good time in a social situation with marijuana and I think that's how most of the population of marijuana smokers feel.

DemolitionSquid 02-05-2009 07:15 PM

Re: Mary Jane
 
The only reason marijana isn't legal is because the government would have no way to tax it, because unlike something like cigarettes, everyone can grow and manufacture their own pot.

Ace 02-05-2009 07:38 PM

Re: Mary Jane
 
See GA that's a well-written and well-thought out monologue. You make several good points and i agree with 95% of what you write. Why can't you write like that in every other discussion? It'd go a long way.

That being said, my only problem with what you wrote is that, like Erwin pointed out, you paint all pot smokers with the same brush--for some reason, in your opinion all pot smokers are hopeless addicts that don't even know it. Which is false...for example, this Michael Phelps bullshit that happened a couple days ago. Is he a drug addict because when he parties he likes to smoke pot? No. You've really, honestly got the wrong impression of people who smoke dope (as does HV). Now instea of lambasting my post here with some lame attempt at insult humour, think about the points that erwin and i made, just like we took the time to read your opinions in a calm, civilized manner.


btw you totally wrote that for DavetheRave, didn't you. He pm'd me too and i wrote out a similar piece for him. Perhaps i'll post it later.

Grog 02-05-2009 08:53 PM

Re: Mary Jane
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid (Post 517083)
The only reason marijana isn't legal is because the government would have no way to tax it, because unlike something like cigarettes, everyone can grow and manufacture their own pot.

This is not the case

We can brew our own beer and grow our own tobacco as well, and yet the vast majority of Americans do not do so. Hell, I could grow my own food if I wanted. Yet I do not - companies have made food so easily accessible that whatever personal garden I grow will likely be more costly, smaller in scale and,without a doubt, less convenient.

If marijuana was legal, I am positive companies would invest to profit from the herb.

Mass production would ensure cheaper marijuana than most anybody could grow on their own. Simply going to gas station rather than cultivating the plant yourself is obviously more convenient. Clearly cultivating marijuana on a mass scale would be profitable.

I see no reason why companies would turn down the opportunity to profit from the hypothetically legal plant. And the government loves taxing companies and the products they sell.

DemolitionSquid 02-05-2009 09:10 PM

Re: Mary Jane
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Grog (Post 517129)
This is not the case

We can brew our own beer and grow our own tobacco as well, and yet the vast majority of Americans do not do so. Hell, I could grow my own food if I wanted. Yet I do not - companies have made food so easily accessible that whatever personal garden I grow will likely be more costly, smaller in scale and,without a doubt, less convenient.

If marijuana was legal, I am positive companies would invest to profit from the herb.

Mass production would ensure cheaper marijuana than most anybody could grow on their own. Simply going to gas station rather than cultivating the plant yourself is obviously more convenient. Clearly cultivating marijuana on a mass scale would be profitable.

I see no reason why companies would turn down the opportunity to profit from the hypothetically legal plant. And the government loves taxing companies and the products they sell.

Most people don't brew their own beer. This is because it is quite expensive. Pot is much, much cheaper to farm. The reason it sells so high is because it is illegal. The producers want to make sure they're being compensated for the risk, and the buyers will pay it because its in short supply. If it was legal, everyone could have a grow-op in their home, and there would be hardly any market for it cause everyone could take care of their own garden.

Ace 02-05-2009 09:13 PM

Re: Mary Jane
 
That's precisely why it's illegal. It was made illegal in the first place to eliminate it as a commodity. Hemp is one of the single most useful substances on the planet. That wasn't the only reason it was made illegal though. First they banned opium so the asian immigrants couldn't use it to work ridiculous long hours, then that precedent forced them to ban cocaine because blacks had started to do the same thing. Eventually, hemp followed. It was made illegal for completely stupid reasons, and it won't be legalized any time soon. I prefer it that way, it makes the whole endeavor of finding a guy, buying it, and smoking it that much more fun.

missilX 02-05-2009 10:01 PM

Re: Mary Jane
 
Wait what? Cocaine caused black people to work hard?

Golgo 13 02-05-2009 11:29 PM

Re: Mary Jane
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by GenocideAlive (Post 517080)
Many times people compare alcohol and cigarettes to marijuana in a warped justification for legalization. I think both are valid comparisons, but think that cigarettes and alcohol should be outlawed instead. I think the government, who is responsible for a large number of drug abusers' health via public healthcare systems, would like to do this as well. They are well on their way to outlawing cigarettes, and I think alcohol controls will become so oppressive as to largely eliminate its casual use.

This shit will never work.

They already tried banning alcohol. It was called prohobition, and it failed spectacularly. The war on drugs has failed as well. It has made drugs orders of magnitude cheaper and availible, made millions of victimless criminals, and consumed billions of dollars.

Ace 02-06-2009 12:42 AM

Re: Mary Jane
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by missilX (Post 517163)
Wait what? Cocaine caused black people to work hard?

Nope, it didn't cause them. They caused it. They snorted coke so they could work longer hours. It didn't make them do anything.

JT 02-06-2009 12:51 AM

Re: Mary Jane
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by DemolitionSquid (Post 517136)
Most people don't brew their own beer. This is because it is quite expensive. Pot is much, much cheaper to farm. The reason it sells so high is because it is illegal. The producers want to make sure they're being compensated for the risk, and the buyers will pay it because its in short supply. If it was legal, everyone could have a grow-op in their home, and there would be hardly any market for it cause everyone could take care of their own garden.

I'm sure that most people who want to smoke weed would like it in an ready-to-smoke form instead of growing it from scratch. Sure, a few people would grow it (and likely more than those people who brew their own beer or grow their own tobacco), but there would still be a thriving cannabis industry.

/why yes, I am for it's legalization
//the sales tax from chips and Doritos alone will wipe out the federal deficit

Ace 02-06-2009 01:15 AM

Re: Mary Jane
 
i would definitely grow my own. if you grow it yourself and do it properly you can have some seriously high grade shit for almost free.

rendamr 02-06-2009 01:23 AM

Re: Mary Jane
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Erwin (Post 517082)
You see, the major problem with your post is that you've insisted that all persons that smoke marijuana are alike when they smoke marijuana.

That's about as true as saying "all actors are as much of a cocksucker as Christian Bale when someone does something as minute as walking in 'his' scene".

You over-think the marijuana "issue" way too much, alot of people have a good time in a social situation with marijuana and I think that's how most of the population of marijuana smokers feel.

He didn't say all marijuana smokers are alike, he said they all have a basic quality (that in essence, allows them to be lumped together).

Try thinking of it like food. People need food to eat to survive, but instead of food, take the drug analogy that people need marijuana to fill a void. Those who overeat still satisfy their basic need, but are a step further in filling a bigger void with even bigger acts.

But what I'm wondering is why you used Michael Phelps. GA never said he was a drug addict, but it can be inferred that Phelps has a void. You are implying that because he is a several time running gold medal champion that he can't have problems? Seems pretty asinine to do, because you are using a logical fallacy in the first place. Appeal to bla blah

I liked the OP though, and believed it left several things unexplored (such as not only the issue of drugs, but also other substances and habits), and while not the best attempt that I could see (unless several sources were used, then I could see this being very good, which I think they were).

Ace 02-06-2009 02:20 AM

Re: Mary Jane
 
Quote:

Try thinking of it like food. People need food to eat to survive, but instead of food, take the drug analogy that people need marijuana to fill a void. Those who overeat still satisfy their basic need, but are a step further in filling a bigger void with even bigger acts.
Right, but that's assuming that EVERYONE who smokes pot is filling some void with it. That's also terribly untrue. You wouldn't know this unless you've tried it or smoke it normally, but most people smoke pot because...*gasp*...it's fun! Not to fill some void.

Are there people that unconsciously use it in that manner? Hell fucken yes there are people that smoke it to fill a void. But that's not even close to reality, where a solid 80% or so of people who smoke pot use it recreationally and not enough to consider it a habit. Im talking from pure experience here. I've been around the pot smoking scene for a while now, years, and im not even a fan of the whole culture of it. I've met a lot of people who smoke pot, if i had to guess i'd say somewhere around the neigbourhood of 2500-3000 people, and out of that there are maybe 20 people that fit the typical stoner description; the types that just sit around all day and smoke pot. I find that to be stupid. I have shit to do during the day, i dont want to be ripped off my crocker. It's also a waste of money in my opinion. I, like many people, just like to end my day with a nice joint before i go to bed.

Quote:

But what I'm wondering is why you used Michael Phelps. GA never said he was a drug addict, but it can be inferred that Phelps has a void. You are implying that because he is a several time running gold medal champion that he can't have problems? Seems pretty asinine to do, because you are using a logical fallacy in the first place. Appeal to bla blah
I used Phelps because he's a good example of someone who smokes pot: someone you don't expect. There are millions of people in north america smoking pot the same way he did in the same atmosphere. Your distorted view of people who smoke marijuana is much different than the reality of it. I know GA didn't say he was a drug addict, but GA thinks that anyone who's ever done any drug is a drug addict.

But why would you think he has "problems?" Smoking dope at a party isn't a problem. You say it like you think he's some sad, desperate person who turns to the MJ to satisfy some need he has. Guaranteed, this is what happened:

Phelps: YO GUYS WAS GOIN ON
People: YO DUDE YOU DA CHAMPION
Phelps: I KNOW RITE? DRINK AND PARTY!
People: YO DOOD HERE YOU GO WE PACKED YOU A BOWL! SMOKE IT!
Phelps: FUCK YEAH

*camera flash*

Seriously, you and GA need to rethink what a pot smoker is. This isn't the 1960s.

GenocideAlive 02-06-2009 02:57 PM

Re: Mary Jane
 
I would like to preface my response by stating that I am looking for a dialectic debate. So if your response is a one liner or the summation of "your opinion is stupid because of this poorly thought out quip that you could refute but I would immediately revise into sophistic nonesense", I am simply not going to respond. I've taken time, effort, and energy to make a well-expalained, reasonable position that reflects my understanding. If you can't reciprocate, do not expect me to invest more of my time in a Sisphian pursuit of countering your willful ignorance. I am not referring to you thus far, Ace.

As for the topic matter, you are accusing me of a generalization, which is true. However, you'll note that I did not say "all people that smoke pot", but rather "pot smokers". My intent behind this was because there have been many people that smoked pot some pitiful number of times and never did so again. My generalization does not apply to them, and was never meant as such. If you read further, you'll see that in context, I refer to people that habitually smoke pot. Because only people that habitually smoke pot would have to form relationships with drug dealers. Free pot isn't uncommon at parties and the like (I have been offered), and I do not consider these pot smokers to be habitual smokers. That would be like saying people go to prom for the punch.

And as far as Micheal Phelps, yes. He most definitely has a void in his life. He has achieved a ridiculous amount of fame overnight and has all the problems that young people do--unstable, overconfident, and lacking direction and meaning in his life. What's he going to do when he can't do the Olympics anymore? What's he going to do for a career between Olympics events? He lived at home up until '08, has a rotating door where the love of his life should be, and he's been caught driving drunk. Does this seem like a person that has problems to you? It does to me.

Money and success do not equate a perfect, or even happy, individual. I'm not saying someone cannot be well-adjusted or intelligent and smoke pot, but again, people that smoke pot habitually are of whom I am speaking.
Quote:

This shit will never work.

They already tried banning alcohol. It was called prohobition, and it failed spectacularly. The war on drugs has failed as well. It has made drugs orders of magnitude cheaper and availible, made millions of victimless criminals, and consumed billions of dollars.
Preventing the smoking of cigarettes has been as simple as raising taxes. Number of smokers is falling through the floor, and states are opening up multitudes of novel law to prevent sidestream smoke from public places. 20 years ago you could see an ad on a billboard, go to the store, buy that brand of cigarettes for $1.50, and ask to be seated in a smoking section of a restaurant and smoke while you eat. Today, ads are illegal, cigarettes are $7 a pack, and are banned in and around public buildings, much less restaurants. Tobacco companies are folding and shrinking at rapid rates. You say whatever dumb bullshit you want, but the government wanted to remove cigarettes from mainstream society and they are succeeding in doing so. Apparently there are some differences between the year 2000 and 1920 that you overlooked with your shitty analogy.

The "failure" of the War on Drugs is another piece of partisan politics that is simply cherry-picking. You claim that they've been made more available and cheaper, but I highly doubt that the American business machine cannot find a way to mass-produce marijuana to make it even more cheaper and even more available. Increasing the availability and decreasing the cost results in more abusers; cigarettes is a prime example. Given the number of ER visits associated with drugs, one can only imagine the amount of money, lives, and cost associated with public healthcare of drug addicts in an environment where their usage is condoned.

I find it hard to believe some of you are claiming that if pot were illegal, you'd grow it in your own home. Are you unable to do so now? Wouldn't it be cheaper? Less risk of being caught? For some reason, I highly doubt that more availability and reduced cost would make you MORE likely to inconvenience yourself by growing it instead of simply buying it.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.