Warcraft Legacy Starcraft Legacy BlizzForums
The Future?

Go Back   BlizzForums > General Forums > Serious Discussion

Serious Discussion Intelligent Debate and Discussion of Important Life Topics.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes


Old 02-06-2009
 
#16
Canada Ace
Music is my Catharsis
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,405
 Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!
Default Re: Mary Jane

Quote:
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.
Fair enough. I can respect this paragraph.

Quote:
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.
While i dont think you're neither right nor wrong here, i do believe it's unfair to say this. None of us can really know for sure if he's a struggling individual, although for sure it's very easy to assume that because of his newfound fame and exorbitance, he's lacking true "substance" in his life, if you will. But since neither of us know him personally, we can't accurately make that assessment.

Quote:
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.
Mmm. But GA do you believe that every person who tokes habitually (which in itself is a loaded word, we'd have to define "habitual") is using the drug to escape a reality they don't want to face, ergo filling the proverbial void?

Quote:
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.
The only thing is, people that end up in the ER with drug-associated problems--whether it be an overdose or a dangerous mixing--are not there because of pot. It's usually cocaine, heroin, meth, ecstasy, or any similar type of drugs. No single person, ever, has died from the use of pot. I certainly don't condone the use of these harder drugs, and i believe that the real problems with drug use stem from 3 major ones (meth, heroin, and coke). It is possible, although not likely at all, to be able to use these 3 drugs recreationally without consequence. My main point from all of this is that pot is a harmless drug with harmless effects, and that no single person that uses pot exclusively is a drug addict.

Quote:
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.
You mean if it were legal? Well, i would grow it myself right now, except that im not in a position to accept the legal ramifications should i be caught. Growing it is a very tricky sort of horticulture, and i'd love to tackle it someday. As long as it's illegal though im not going to do anything except smoke it.
 
Ace has 14,405 Posts

 

Ace is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via MSN to Ace  
Reply With Quote


Old 02-06-2009
 
#17
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive View Post
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.
Your critcisms of marijuana while valid do not in any way support your conclusion that it should be illegal. Video games for example have little net benefit to society besides creating happiness, and everything you stated above we could substitute the word "marijuana" for "video games." This is not a valid reason to make video games illegal, simply because you don't approve of them.

Peoples freedom and happiness trumps your desire to control others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenoideAlive
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.
How do you think a new prohibition would be more effective than the first two (18th amendment and drug war)? What would be different about the new drug war that would make it successful whereas previous two were epic failures in terms of improving life in this country?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive
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.
I assume you don't need me to point out the significant differences between rats and human beings, and that drug use will not necessarily lead to death.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive
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").
You've defined "functional" in such a way as to make your argument unfalsifiable. We could not, even in principle, disprove your assertion if we accepted that premise.

I could however reply that liberty IS just, and any system that does not have liberty is in fact unjust.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive
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.
Here you are using inconsistant logic. We know that the greatest source of problems in America are heart problems followed closely by cancer. Heart problems are most often created by poor diet and lack of excercise, yet I don't see you calling for a ban on fast food or forcing fat people to excercise. Why the inconsistancy?

Then you go off and say what "we" believe as a society, when in reality you can only speak for yourself. I personally don't think suicide should be illegal, and I don't think you or society have a right to tell people they should be forced to live. Dr. Kavorkian is a hero, and you and your "society" condemned this innocent man to prison for no legitimate reason.

But if you believe society has the right to dictate how people live, where do you draw the line? Why doesn't society have a right to tell rich people they should help out the poor? Why doesn't society have a right to tell Nuts that he should pay more taxes to help "society?" Why shouldn't the government regulate how much time people spend on the internet, or playing video games, or watching t.v.? Using your logic we could defend each and every one of these measures, and thats when we see how foolish and irresponsible such "reasoning" is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GA
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.
See my point here? You've already decided that you are right, so your argument is essentially circular. You open by saying that something is illegal and since it's illegal we shouldn't do it, and therefore it should be illegal.

And I like that bit about "re-education camps," that worked quite well for Stalin and the communists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive
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.
I agree, fat and obese people continue to deny the fact that what they are doing is bad for them. So do smokers. Therefore, I think cigarettes and fast food should be illegal.

Actually, your idea of the perfect society was made into a movie.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition_Man_(film)
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-07-2009
 
#18
United States Reflection
Before I Pine Away...
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 220
 Reflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwnsReflection simply pwns
Default Re: Mary Jane

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive View Post
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.
Marijuana, for the most part, is smoked socially. To say people do it when they lack direction, motivation, etc, is a broad and untrue generalization. Marijuana is less destructive than alcohol, better for you, and non-addictive.
Quote:
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.
The only part of this that really matters is "because of its illegal status". If it were changed, than all of the assumptions that follow would become moot.
Quote:
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.
This whole thing is once again based on wide sweeping broad assumptions. Once again, people do smoke casually. I hate to go to anecdotal evidence, but I know many people who smoke that have productive lives and careers.
Quote:
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.
I agree with you on the part about cigarettes, which sucks because I smoke, but if you think alcohol is going anywhere anytime soon you are severely mistaken. They tried this and it didnt work. When you outlaw something like alochol, or make it hard to obtain, you will have a seedy underworld rise to pickup the demand. This is obviously what happened to Marijuana, and what happened during prohibition.

I also dont think it is right to simply dismiss comparisons between alcohol and marijuana. I have never heard of someone withdrawaling from Marijuana. People who smoke dont become violent. People who smoke generally dont kill people with there cars. The number of alcohol related deaths compared to Marijuana is staggering. I dont think you can just dismiss the comparisons when they are so compelling. This is all moot anyhow, when you outlaw either, you are making war on personal freedom. I believe people should be able to make there own decisions about what to do with there bodies, and only when it impedes on someone elses rights should they be held liable.
Quote:
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.
This experiment seems rediculous, comparing the intelligence of a rat to that of a human being. Tell me, did they teach the rats about the detrimental effects of abusing the drug? I think not. Marijuana can be abused, but the worst that is going to happen is you are late for work and get fired. I have never known anyone to withdrawal from the drug, smoke themselves to death, or kill someone in a fight. I think the abuse cap for marijuana is set pretty low, and just because some people choose to smoke and let there lives go to shit due to laziness or whatever, shouldnt ruin it for everyone else.
Quote:
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.
Who are you to decide what is a more worthwhile pursuit for anyone else?
Quote:
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").
Governments should keep there noses out of there citizens personal business when that business has no detrimental effect on anyone except arguably the person involved. Boston legalized marijuana, they still seem pretty functional.
Quote:
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.
This is a pretty big mistake people make when analyzing suicides. The logic is circular. "The patient hurt themselves. Only the mentally ill would do such a thing. The patient must be mentally ill." If someone wishes to die, they should be able to do so. Personal freedom should rain over all untill it effects other peoples rights. You are also wrong about cops showing up, suicides are treated as a medical issue.
Quote:
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.
And it is there perogative to not care if they choose to. You can make this argument about fatty foods. Heart disease is the number one cause of death in the United States. To eat fatty foods, you do so at the cost of your time, money, and health.
Quote:
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.
I know about the effects of alcohol. I choose to drink anyhow. Does this make me a sociopath or an addict? No. I dont drink gratuitous amounts, I dont drink and drive, and when I dont have a drink for a week I dont go into withdrawal. The end result of mild state altering drugs is not abuse. The millions of casual drinkers across America are the proof.
Quote:
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.
This is true, and people who smoke do so at there own risk. People are starting to come around though. When you have prisons overflowing full of non-violent offenders like we do, the courts will be forced to make a decision. Does the government want to willfully destroy someones life because they sold a bag of weed to a friend in college? I think not, and I believe we are starting to see meaningful change with the de-criminalization of marijuana in Boston and parts of California.
Quote:
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.
Your entire arguments rests on the ideas of abuse and the suppression of free will. You leave out the countless social users who use in moderation that lead meaningful and productive lives. The risks of Marijuana when it comes to abuse are so miniscule compared to other drugs it is rediculous that it was outlawed.
Quote:
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.
Once again, your broad assumption that everyone who uses a controlled substance is either an addict are on there way to becoming one is simply false. I dont smoke weed, but if someone else chooses to, they should be allowed to.
 
Reflection has 220 Posts

I have come curiously close to the end, though
Beneath my self indulgent pitiful hole. Defeated I
Concede and move closer. I may find comfort here
I may find peace within the emptiness. How pitiful.
It's calling me...
 

Reflection is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-08-2009
 
#19
United States remixedlife91
I want flashing lights
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 272
 remixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than youremixedlife91 is clearly better than you
Default Re: Mary Jane

Isn't the only reason marijuana is illegal is because it is a weed and cannot be taxed?
 
remixedlife91 has 272 Posts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
If I told a bitch I loved her and she said "you're welcome" I'd smack her and tell her to get the fuck out.


Sometimes.... I want to be a pornstar!!
 

remixedlife91 is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to remixedlife91  
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#20
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Weed is illegal because of the morality tyrants. Morality tyrants are people who believe it is their moral imperative to "protect" society from whatever evils they deem to be "too dangerous" or otherwise "not good for them." This includes anything from drugs (marijuana for example) to what kind of sexual acts we are allowed to engage in (sodomy laws). All morality tyrants favor some form of Nanny State, they only vary in the degree to which they believe the government should "protect" it's citizens from themselves.

GenocideAlive for example, is a morality tyrant. His position is basically that since weed is not good for you it should be illegal (he also thinks we should try another prohibition on alcohol, and also cigarettes). This is the meat of his argument, everything else is pretty much centered around this simple premise.

Of course there is a blatant contradiction in his position, for example he probably wouldn't approve of the government regulating what kind of foods we are allowed to eat (deep fried foods, high cholesterol, fast food, etc.) even though heart complications are the greatest health risk in the United States today, and the #1 cause of death.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#21
Canada Ace
Music is my Catharsis
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,405
 Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!
Default Re: Mary Jane

Well Hawaiin that is not true. Here is the truth behind the illegality of it:

In order to explain why hemp, the most useful plant known to mankind, became illegal, we have to understand the reasons why marijuana, the drug, became illegal. In fact, it helps to go way back to the beginning of the century and talk about two other drugs, opium (the grandfather of heroin) and cocaine.

Opium, a very addictive drug (but relatively harmless by today's standards) was once widely used by the Chinese. The reasons for this are a whole other story, but suffice to say that when Chinese started to immigrate to the United States, they brought opium with them. Chinese workers used opium to induce a trance-like state which helped make boring, repetitive tasks more interesting. It also numbs the mind to pain and exhaustion. By using opium, the Chinese were able to pull very long hours in the sweat shops of the Industrial Revolution. During this period of time, there was no such thing as fair wages, and the only way a worker could make a living was to produce as much as humanly possible.

Since they were such good workers, the Chinese held a lot of jobs in the highly competitive industrial work-place. Even before the Great Depression, when millions of jobs disappeared overnight, the White Americans began to resent this, and Chinese became hated among the White working class. Even more than today, White Americans had a very big political advantage over the Chinese -- they spoke English and had a few relatives in the government, so it was easy for them to come up with a plan to force Chinese immigrants to leave the country (or at least keep them from inviting all their relatives to come and live in America.) This plan depended on stirring up racist feelings, and one of the easiest things to focus these feelings on was the foreign and mysterious practice of using opium.

We can see this pattern again with cocaine, except with cocaine it was Black Americans who were the target. Cocaine probably was not especially useful in the work-place, but the strategy against Chinese immigrants (picking on their drug of choice) had been so successful that it was used again. In the case of Blacks, though, the racist feelings ran deeper, and the main thrust of the propaganda campaign was to control the Black community and keep Blacks from becoming successful. Articles appeared in newspapers which blamed cocaine for violent crime by Blacks. Black Americans were painted as savage, uncontrollable beasts when under the influence of cocaine -- it was said to make a single Black man as strong as four or five police officers. (sound familiar?) By capitalizing on racist sentiments, a powerful political lobby banned opium and then cocaine.

Marijuana was next. It was well known that the Mexican soldiers who fought America during the war with Spain smoked marijuana. Poncho Villa, A Mexican general, was considered a nemesis for the behavior of his troops, who were known to be especially rowdy. They were also known to be heavy marijuana smokers, as the original lyrics to the song `la cucaracha' show. (The song was originally about a Mexican soldier who refused to march until he was provided with some marijuana.)

After the war had ended and Mexicans had begun to immigrate into the South Eastern United States, there were relatively few race problems. There were plenty of jobs in agriculture and industry and Mexicans were willing to work cheap. Once the depression hit and jobs became scarce, however, Mexicans suddenly became a public nuisance. It was said by politicians (who were trying to please the White working class) that Mexicans were responsible for a violent crime wave. Police statistics showed nothing of the sort -- in fact Mexicans were involved in less crime than Whites. Marijuana, of course, got the blame for this phony outbreak of crime and health problems, and so many of these states made laws against using cannabis. (In the Northern states, marijuana was also associated with Black jazz musicians.)

Here is where things start to get complicated. Put aside, for a moment, all the above, because there are a few other things involved in this twisted tale. At the beginning of the Great Depression, there was a very popular movement called Prohibition, which made alcohol illegal. This was motivated mainly by a Puritan religious ethic left over from the first European settlers. Today we have movies and television shows such as the "Untouchables'' which tell us what it was like to live during this period. Since it is perhaps the world's most popular drug, alcohol prohibition spawned a huge `black market' where illegal alcohol was smuggled and traded at extremely high prices. Crime got out-of-hand as criminals fought with each other over who could sell alcohol where. Organized crime became an American institution, and hard liquor, which was easy to smuggle, took the place of beer and wine.

In order to combat the crime wave, a large police force was formed. The number of police grew rapidly until the end of Prohibition when the government decided that the best way to deal with the situation was to just give up and allow people to use alcohol legally. Under Prohibition the American government had essentially (and unwittingly) provided the military back-up for the take-over of the alcohol business by armed thugs. Even today, the Mob still controls liquor sales in many areas. After Prohibition the United States was left with nothing to show but a decade of political turmoil -- and a lot of unemployed police officers.

To make a long story short, during the first decades of this century, opium was made illegal to kick out the Chinese immigrants who had flooded the work-force. Cocaine was made illegal to repress and control the Black community. And, marijuana was made illegal in order to control Mexicans in the Southeast (and Blacks.) All these laws were based mainly on emotional racism, without much else to back them up -- you can easily tell this by reading the hearings held in state legislatures. Also at this time, the end of Prohibition left us with a large force of unemployed police officers, who looked for work enforcing the new drug laws. Consequently, these same police officers needed to convince the country that their jobs were important. They did so by scaring parents about the dangers of drugs. All this set the stage for a law passed in the Federal legislature which put a prohibitive tax on marijuana. This is what killed the hemp industry in 1937, since it made business in hemp impossible.

Before the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, the state of Kentucky was the center of a relatively large American hemp industry which produced cloth and tow (rope for use in shipping.) The industry would have been larger, but hemp had one major disadvantage: processing it required a lot of work. Men had to `brake' hemp stalks in order to separate the fiber from the woody core. This was done on a small machine called a hand-brake, and it was a job fit for Hercules. It was not until the 1930's that machines to do this became widely available.

Today we use paper made by a process called `chemical pulping'. Before this, trees were processed by `mechanical pulping' instead, which was much more expensive. At about the same time as machines to brake hemp appeared, the idea of using hemp hurds for making paper and plastic was proposed. Hemp hurds were normally considered to be a worthless waste product that was thrown away after it was stripped of fiber. New research showed that these hurds could be used instead of wood in mechanical pulping, and that this would drastically reduce the cost of making paper. Popular Mechanics Magazine predicted that hemp would rise to become the number one crop in America. In fact, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was so unexpected that Popular Mechanics had already gone to press with a cover story about hemp, published in 1938 just two months after the Tax Act took effect.

Now you know the entire history of it. Sleep tight DE.
 
Ace has 14,405 Posts

 

Ace is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via MSN to Ace  
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#22
United States Golgo 13
ಠ_ಠ
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,559
 Golgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

There's more. `Chemical pulping' paper was invented at about this time by Dupont Chemicals, as part of a multi-million dollar deal with a timber holding company and newspaper chain owned by William Randolph Hearst. This deal would provide the Hearst with a source of very cheap paper, and he would go on to be known as the tycoon of `yellow journalism' (so named because the new paper would turn yellow very quickly as it got older.) Hearst knew that he could drive other papers out of competition with this new advantage. Hemp paper threatened to ruin this whole plan. It had to be stopped, and the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 was the way they did it. As a drug law, the Tax Act really was not a very big step -- it did not really accomplish much at all and many historians have caught themselves wondering why the bill was even written. Big business interests took advantage of the political climate of racism and anti-drug rhetoric to close the free market to hemp products, and that, my friend, is how hemp became illegal.

For the 1930's, this business venture was one very large transaction; it included other timber companies and a few railroads. Dupont's entire deal was backed by a banker named Andrew Mellon. The same Andrew Mellon who appointed his nephew-in-law Harry Anslinger to head up the Federal Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (FBNDD) in 1931. The Marijuana Tax Act was passed in a very unorthodox way, and nobody who would have objected was informed about the bill. The American Medical Association found out about the bill only two days before the hearings, and sent a representative to object to the banning of cannabis medicines. A hemp bird seed salesman also showed up and complained. However, the bill was passed, partially due to the testimony of Harry J. Anslinger.

Not that Americans would have protested against this bill, even if they had known it existed most Americans did not know that cannabis hemp and marijuana is the same thing. The separate word `marijuana' was one of the reasons for this. Nobody would associate the evil weed from Mexico with the stuff they tied their shoes with. Also, this was the time when synthetic fabrics were the latest fad -- nobody was interested in natural fibers any more. To top this all off the word `hemp' was often wrongly used to refer to other natural fabrics, specifically jute.

The ignorance of hemp continues today, but it is even more scary. During the 1970's (Reefer Madness II) all mention of the word `hemp' was removed from high school text books here in the United States. So much for free speech! When Jack Herer, the world's most beloved hemp activist, asked a curator at the Smithsonian Museum why this word had been removed from all their exhibits, the answer he got was astounding: "Children do not need to know about hemp anymore. It confuses them.'' Jack Herer went on to uncover a film made by the United States government, a film which the government did not want to admit existed. The film "Hemp For Victory'' details how the United States government bypassed the Tax Act during World War II, when they needed hemp for the War Effort, and ran a large hemp-growing project in Kentucky and California.

There are several leassons to be learned here. The first of which is that hate does not pay. It is ironic that the racism of the American people would end up hurting them this way - a sort of divine justice if you will. Because Americans were blinded by fear, hatred, and intolerance of other races, they allowed a prosperous future to slip between their fingers. Another thing this whole history tells us is that Americans need to take Democracy more seriously. If they had devoted more of their time to informing themselves about the world around them, they would have known what the real issues were. Instead they read the tabloids -- look where that has gotten us. Finally, now that we have put marijuana prohibition into historical context, we can see clearly that it had nothing to do with public safety, or national security, or what have you. By all rights, marijuana should not have been made illegal in the first place. If today prohibition still has no rational basis to stand on, then let us repeal it.

One point which bears emphasizing is this: the laws which are passed in this country may not mean what they say on paper. Historically the United States has a long record of passing laws with ulterior motives. Even when there is no ulterior motive, though, passing laws which are not specific enough leads to abuse. Most of our tough drug laws are like this - enacted to fight drug kingpins, but enforced against casual drug users and small-time drug dealers. In fact, most of these laws never even get used against a real drug kingpin, and the first people prosecuted under the statutes are not what the legislators had in mind. If this upsets you, you should pay more attention to what goes on in your legislature.

- source

A recent example of such abuse would be these children that send each other nude photos on their cell phones ("Sexting" as it is called) having their entire lives permanently destroyed by being prosecuted for producing/posessing/distributing child pornography, being labeled as sex offenders, being logged in the national sex offender registry, and being forced to drop out of school since they cannot come within a certain proximity of a school building.

That's not what the laws were wrote for, but that's how they are being used.
 

Last edited by Golgo 13; 02-09-2009 at 04:23 PM.
Golgo 13 has 10,559 Posts

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit."

- Josiah Charles, President of the Bank of England & 2nd richest man in Great Britain (1880-1941)
 

Golgo 13 is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#23
United States GenocideAlive
You Want My Shoes?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,277
 GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: Mary Jane

If you wish to respond to me, please do so in paragraph form, with the thesis of your position paramount. I cannot and will not reasonably carry on debate with four individuals at a time under laborious quote-mining that merely serves as fodder for bickering. If you truly have an interest in the topic, you can afford me the same courtesy that I afford you. I will, however, point at Reflections' first and second quotes, and laugh my ass off. "Generalizations are wrong!" Generalization. Generalizations are inherent to meaningful discussion, as you so incompetently stumbled upon. Get over it or don't bother.

Additionally, please avoid pages-long diatribes on unrelated history, factoids, and subtyping of marijuana. While I kept the title simple, it was obviously never my intent to see or participate in an elaborate ruse for the extrapolation of drug culture. Certainly there are other, more conducive forums (no double entendre intended).

I will say, Ace, that there are exceptions to the generalization that I used, otherwise I wouldn't have immediately acquisced that indeed, it's a generalization. However, by and large, it is correct. Even when you thought you found an exception (as with Michael Phelps), I could easily point to a history of drug abuse. Drug problems are somewhat innocuous in many people's lives. This doesn't mean that they're not there, or that they're harmless. It simply means that they're learning to live with them. I hardly think that people whose lives are so grossly interrupted as to be homeless or penniless over the course of a few short years as with cocaine, crack, etc. is the only "true" addiction to be had with drugs as you are implying.

As for marijuana being completely unaddictive and harmless, I can only say that you are parroting anti-drug rhetoric. There are multiple marijuana addiction treatment centers that are actively being employed to treat people who, for all intents and purposes, have become addicted to marijuana. They accept and realize they need help, and the center claims to have certified professionals that can assist them. This is one hell of a fraudulent activity under a large scale, according to your logic. Would you care to explain why this is occuring, if marijuana is so harmless and unaddictive?

While Hawaiian labeling me as a "morality tyrant" is somewhat inflammatory, I think there is a valid diversion to be had deserving of a reply.

When a society makes laws, the reasoning behind laws is patently in keeping with society's best interests. How a society can function at optimal efficiency, while permitting it citizens as many freedoms as possible. The meaning of the word "efficiency" in this context is very sophisticated and convoluted, but permit me a moment. A government must consider many factors when determining the quality of a law, including punishments that also offer maximum benefit to society and the offender as a member.

In keeping with these theorems, when a citizen chooses to harm themselves in recreation, the government must take interest. Is this self-harm of long-term detriment to the society as a whole? Will its workforce be harmed, or its future generations? The society, reasonably, should act to preserve itself. When this person self-harms, one of the most imminent questions that the society will ask is "what is the harm"?

If the person is cutting their skin for sexual pleasure, obviously this is something that is of concern, but not necessarily something that should be actively pursued as criminal. This person will not ostensibly die from incisions. Additionally, when looking at the society as a whole, these people are the gross minority, and thus are not of any kind of threat to society's means or efficiency.

Additionally, sex is widely recognized as a necessity of good quality of life, just as food is. Healthy, normal adults have a sexual drive that lowers their quality of life when unrequited. Thus, the society must examine the nature of the necessity of the act, and weigh it against the harm done. In this particular case, in order for this person to lead a healthy, happy sex life, they need to have superficial incisions. In this particular case, if the government were to get involved at all, they would more than likely offer assistance in the way of managing their care post-coitus vis a vis wound dressings and asepsis.

Recreational drugs, on the other hand, are arguably of little to no value when examining the necessities of maintaining a good quality of life. While I certainly recognize and respect these artifacts from tribalism, I think that they have no place in industrialized society. A person's quality of life can be improved via other means with no discernible loss. Two relevant facets of industrialized society that is not present in tribalism are elongated life expectancy and standardized socialized healthcare. These two factors complicate the usage of drugs.

Drug users may not get ill after one or two uses, though a minority do. Typically in tribalist settings, this would be enough to justify the pleasurable sensation. Users weren't planning on living past 40 anyway. But now that smokers are living to 70 and 80, they contract emphysema. Emphysema is a irreversible, degenerative disease; once someone contracts it via smoking, they are guaranteed to put severe drain on the healthcare system until they die from it. Our healthcare paradigm states that as long as someone is alive, cost is no object.

Some argue that these drugs offered in other forms or consumed via involved means can avoid much, if all of the health effects--like vaporizers and marijuana. But enforcing such standards is neigh impossible. If someone chooses to break a consumption law, there are issues of habeus corpus and privacy that are so inadequate to address this as to be ridiculous to suggest. We would have to dedicate hundreds of thousands of man hours to our entire justice system to account for the way that someone smokes their pot. People who avoided detection would put additional load on the healthcare system.

This is simply addressing the basic application to society, ignoring other pressing ethical issues with regard to drug legalization. What about the effects on children? Once it becomes widely available, it's only a matter of time before someone's terrific parenting comes to point. What are the effects on automobile usage? How will these drugs affect work habits? Etc, etc. Answers to these questions range from "mostly harmless" to "grim". There are not enough "mostly harmless" answers to justify legalization for purposes of supplanting some other, more healthy alternative. $2.5B annually in healthcare for emphysema patients while marijuana is illegal--the cost associated with thousands of new cases due to marijuana smoke are prohibitive.

While DE is conflating food, sex, and drugs, I think it's fairly obvious to anyone with an operating brain that food is required to live, sex is required for a good quality of life, and drugs are a recreational choice that isn't necessary in the least. Of course, DE operates under the cognitive dissonant that law SHOULD operate solely under the premise of personal responsibility, despite that it obviously does not.

Golgo may state that laws are being abused and used for unintended purposes, but the fact remains that the majority of society is complicit, not ignorant. You can put up all the "education" material you want, telling everyone the government is evil and abusive, but the problem isn't that people are stupid, but rather that they do not agree with you. The fight to legalize illegal substances fails to convince anyone that is exposed to the dire straits that the healthcare system is in, and the frank reality that drugs are not necessary for anything completely undermines the sense of urgency you inject into your paraphenelia.

Most people over 21 realize that the government, its soldiers, and its police, are made up of citizens that do not possess the inherent want to abuse their fellow citizens. They simply wish to see society function in an optimal manner, in which EVERYONE, including people who do not wish to be exposed to health-hazardous sidestream smoke, see their freedoms recognized. Assigning random moral judgements on legislative and enforcement branches of the government based on your rankled experiences with authority while you and your underaged friends break curfew, brandish deadly weapons, and slum around while "behaving like upstanding citizens" fools no-one.
 

Last edited by GenocideAlive; 02-09-2009 at 02:54 PM.
GenocideAlive has 2,277 Posts
 

GenocideAlive is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#24
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Fast food is not required to live, GA. Why doesn't the government have the right to regulate what kinds of foods we are allowed to eat? You are just contradicting yourself again. You say "well we need food to live." Well many people require drugs to live.

What you are really saying is that "society" has the right to regulate which kinds of drugs we can use. By that same token, society should be able to regulate which kinds of food we eat. From a medical standpoint, heart-related problems are much further up the list than smoking marijuana, and thus by your reasoning unhealthy foods should be illegal. They are certainly a bigger drain on the health care system, from which most of your argument seems to center around (as if we have to accept socialized health care as a given, or that drug addicts have a right to free health care). Have you not heard about the obesity epidemic affecting America today?

Like I said earlier, your ideas have been made into a movie called Demolition Man. And yeah, this society looks pretty damn clean and somewhat cool (but lame at the same time). Most people right now would not accept government regulation of what kinds of food we can eat, but if they had always been illegal as long as we can remember (most Americans don't remember a time when drugs were legal) it's likely everyone would come to accept this as "normal," being that most people are stupid and ignorant.

Now before you go off on another rant, we need some questions answered.

1) How effective do you think another prohibition would be? In terms of improving life in this country the 2nd prohibition (war on drugs) has been a tremendous failure, and has consumed an ever-increasing amount of our tax dollars, while at the same time increasing both the price and availability of cocaine, in turn creating warzones (Colombia, Mexico, American cities) and druglords. More people use drugs now than when drugs first became illegal. In other words, the exact same thing that happened during the 1st prohibition on alcohol.

2) Why would another prohibition against drugs, alcohol, and tobacco be more successful? What new advantages do we have that make the likelihood of success at least remotely feasible? What has changed, and what is different? Or do you admit that this is an unwinnable war, since drugs and alcohol clearly won the first 2 wars?

3) Why does the government have a right to regulate which drugs we can use but not which foods we can eat?

4) How does America benefit from prohibition? As always, consider the costs when doing your math to calculate a net benefit. Politicians always seem to somehow miss that part about costs, and please include sunk costs and oppurtunity costs (see Fallacy of the Broken Window). These are simple economic principles that anybody can understand.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#25
United States Golgo 13
ಠ_ಠ
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,559
 Golgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

You do realize that the same arguments you are using against cannabis could be used against many modern drugs used in medicine, do you not? People get addicted to oxycontin, vicodin, darvocet, klonopin, percocet, demerol, et al. You could argue that these all have valid uses other than recreational drug use, but the same argument applies in an even greater fashion for cannabis.

As far as addiction goes, some of the effects of pot are produced the old-fashioned way through alterations along the limbic reward pathway. So it's addictive in the same sense that video games or gambling or essentially any other activity can be addictive.
 

Last edited by Golgo 13; 02-09-2009 at 04:39 PM.
Golgo 13 has 10,559 Posts

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit."

- Josiah Charles, President of the Bank of England & 2nd richest man in Great Britain (1880-1941)
 

Golgo 13 is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#26
United States GenocideAlive
You Want My Shoes?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,277
 GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...GenocideAlive would like to thank all of the little people...
Default Re: Mary Jane

Oxycontin, vicodin, or darvocet are not used in recreation as mood-altering drugs, they are controlled substances which if caught being used for non-medically sound purposes, will levy the same penalties as marijuana. The active ingredients of marijuana have been removed and sold in pill form, but for some wild reason they still aren't used by the same advocates that claim that it's the only thing that kills their pain without side effects. Why is that? Could it be because medicinal marijuana is just yet another facade by pro-activists that want to see it legalized at the cost of intellectual honesty? The jury is out on that one.

As for the limbic reward pathway, video games doesn't give you lung cancer.

And DE, your constant references to Demolition Man are really cute, but I think it would improve the quality of discussion if you could move away from repeating insipid popculture references. As to your "drugs" remarks, medically necessary drugs are equivalent to food in the hierarchy of need, you are correct. Marijuana is not medically necessary.

The rest of your questions are attempting to redirect the debate, and quite honestly if you want to discuss prohibition you should open another thread instead of trying to derail this one.
 
GenocideAlive has 2,277 Posts
 

GenocideAlive is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#27
United States The Hawaiian
Ua mau ke ea o ka ʻāina i
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,445
 The Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too muchThe Hawaiian might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Complete dodge, and it's totally obvious. You brought up the subject of other drugs, I merely followed up. But if you want to stick just to marijuana, thats much easier for me since there is the least amount of opposition and objection to marijuana.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive
Marijuana is not medically necessary.
And neither is fast food.

Tell me are you seriously going to do this merry-go-round bullshit? Stop tapdancing around the issue and answer the questions. Confront the contradictions in your logic, this is your burden not mine. Do it for yourself, man.
 
The Hawaiian has 8,445 Posts

"The Khala awaits me, and though I fear not death, you will not find me easy prey."
 

The Hawaiian is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#28
Canada Ace
Music is my Catharsis
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 14,405
 Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!Ace could seriously be the president one day, maybe even a senator... so be afraid, be very afraid!
Default Re: Mary Jane

I don't think i said it's completely unaddictive. People can get addicted to some pretty weird shit. Almost anything that is pleasurable can be addictive, it just rests on the individual person's personality. Addictive personalities procure addictions, ranging from mild (say, being addicted to playing Xbox) to very severe (addiction to self-mutilation or harmful drugs). To say that nobody on the planet can get addicted to marijuana is ridiculous, but it is not chemically addictive like many other drugs. I just want to clarify that, so from hereon out, marijuana is not chemically addictive but people can and have been psychologically addicted.

And yeah DE moral tyranny has nothing to do with this. You sound like some sort of weird tin hat conspiracy prognosticator. Your views on personal responsibility and the law are absurd to say the least, flawed at best. Sometimes im shocked at the rhetoric you try to use, most of the time you just look self-contradictory and confused, desperate to be right by any means. Relax, take one (1) point of view and stick with it. Saying that fast food is bad so why doesn't the government make it illegal as a retort is just stupid sounding. I think you know that.

I also wouldn't say most of society is complicit to drugs. The last i heard, 15% of Canadians regularly smoke pot. The other 85% either doesn't care or is against it.

Quote:
1) How effective do you think another prohibition would be? In terms of improving life in this country the 2nd prohibition (war on drugs) has been a tremendous failure, and has consumed an ever-increasing amount of our tax dollars, while at the same time increasing both the price and availability of cocaine, in turn creating warzones (Colombia, Mexico, American cities) and druglords. More people use drugs now than when drugs first became illegal. In other words, the exact same thing that happened during the 1st prohibition on alcohol.
It's not a prohibition if it's already illegal. That should be fairly obvious to you DE. GA isn't calling for a 2nd prohibition. Nobody is. Calling the war on drugs (which in itself is a vague, non-descript phrase) a 2nd prohibition is silly. When pot was made illegal, it wasn't very popular with the mainstream yet anyway, which is kind of the basis for a prohibition. More people use drugs now because there's more people now, period. As for the other questions, im going to go ahead and agree with GA and say that they have nothing to do with the original topic. I dont want to turn this into a flamefest as i think it's a productive thread, but please stop being a retard. Im no master of debate, but i don't have to be one to see your weasel tactics are dumber than a brick. Seriously though if you want to talk about prohibition and other stuff like that, just make a new thread.

But GA i think i need to put it out there that marijuana isn't meant for treating pain. Most of the time it's prescribed for cases where eating is difficult, ie a cancer patient having no appetite due to the chemotherapy.
 
Ace has 14,405 Posts

 

Ace is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via MSN to Ace  
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#29
United States Golgo 13
ಠ_ಠ
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 10,559
 Golgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too muchGolgo 13 might just love this place a little bit too much
Default Re: Mary Jane

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenocideAlive View Post
The active ingredients of marijuana have been removed and sold in pill form, but for some wild reason they still aren't used by the same advocates that claim that it's the only thing that kills their pain without side effects. Why is that? Could it be because medicinal marijuana is just yet another facade by pro-activists that want to see it legalized at the cost of intellectual honesty?
I'm sure it is for some of them, but others have legitimate reasons like not wanting to pay ridiculous prices for an FDA-approved chemical synthesis from some big pharmaecuetical company based off of something that is so simple to grow it happens on accident and often times despite efforts to eliminate it. They don't call it "weed" for nothing.

Quote:
As for the limbic reward pathway, video games doesn't give you lung cancer.
Neither does the myriad of other ways to ingest marijuana (vaporizer, ingestion, sublingual tincture, et al.).

Ingestion of sodium nitrate/nitrite has been scientifically proven to significantly increase incidences of colorectal cancer, yet it's still approved for use in food and is in nearly all if not all meat you can find at your local grocery store.
 

Last edited by Golgo 13; 02-10-2009 at 12:52 AM.
Golgo 13 has 10,559 Posts

"The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight-of-hand that was ever invented. Banking was conceived in inequity and born in sin. But if you want to continue to be slaves of the bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit."

- Josiah Charles, President of the Bank of England & 2nd richest man in Great Britain (1880-1941)
 

Golgo 13 is offline


pm.gif   
Reply With Quote


Old 02-09-2009
 
#30
Antarctica Zura
世界の王
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,971
 Zura is made of winZura is made of winZura is made of winZura is made of winZura is made of winZura is made of winZura is made of winZura is made of winZura is made of winZura is made of winZura is made of win
Default Re: Mary Jane

GA is looking at the past too much. Only the present exists in reality sir. Just because a handful (exaggeration) of people act a certain way when they smoke weed that doesn't mean everyone does the same thing.
 
Zura has 3,971 Posts

 

Zura is offline


pm.gif  Send a message via AIM to Zura Send a message via MSN to Zura  
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:57 PM.
Designed by XG3