Dope: Should it be legalised.

[Harry Tuttle]

and I wasn't saying that pot smokers are dumb. I've known a few really smart people who smoked a lot. I'm making the argument that since pot smoking is smoked in a way different than cigarettes that people who do smoke are less likely to go out and do really productive things for society. But then there I am again downing my argument - drunkeness can last longer than being high.....

[Fake Boris]

The prohibition of drugs is a criminal imposture.

Here are few reasons:

1. Most problems arising from drug consumption (please note legal propaganda only uses the term "drug abuse") are due to the prohibition, not the drug in itself. Organized crime, bad quality drugs, unregulated market.
Take alcohol, for example: you can know what's inside, it's cheap because there is no risk in selling it and the market is not based on cartels.

2. Propaganda would have you believe that drugs lead to crime. Absolutely false. Most people prefer using legal means to obtain what they need, and this is the case of drugs. If it was on free sale and thus cheaper, less people would have to engage in crime or prostitution to afford it.

3. Drugs don't make anyone a bad person. It's the lack of a decent life that make people turn to drugs, and not the opposite. In the 19th century, a huge chunk of the aristocracy was opium addicted. Bismarck was, too. In fact, the bad conditions of the poor incite them to find a "relief" in drugs. Since it is also them who don't have money, you see the REAL problem: poverty-criminality, not drugs-criminality. Those who can afford a steady supply of good quality drugs can go on with their almost normal life. Just like a smoker, or someone who drinks alcohol every evening.
They made an experience about this with rats: in the first cage, rats had nothing but heroine and crappy food. In the second, they were given space, food, and toys. Guess what? The rats in the second cage just didn't feel like taking the heroine anyway. Those in the first became addicts in a fea days.
It's so easy and convenient for the authorities to blame the drugs for all the problems of the ghettos, while in fact it is the lack of any decent social justice and poverty reduction programs that are the poor's true problems.
Hell, they even play the hypocrisy as far as to claim that the fight against drugs is COMPASSIONATE to them. Where's the compassion in sending a mother to jail because she's addict to crack? And where's the compassion in doing everything to prevent them access from clean injection material (which jsut help to spread diseases), and cheap, quality drugs?

4. The vast majority of those who consume drugs don't care about the fact it's forbidden. And only 8% of those who don't say the illegality of it is their main motivation. Prohibition is not preventing the people from doing it, it is perventing them from doing it in an enlightened and informed way. Because...

5. The police wants to keep their jobs. Supported by the government, they have been intoxicating the population with false propaganda.

6. On a larger scale, drug trade is an integral part of America's foreign policy. They let the groups they support cultivate it, and they prevent their enemies from doing it. Y'know, the militaro-industrial complex needs cash to sell their weapons. And how would the guerillas afford them without drugs?
Plus, drugs are a wonderful propaganda tool. Many times, the US has justified foreign intervention by claiming a regime was supporting drug lords.

7. Because of this, many countries are reluctant to legalize drugs- even though any moderately enlightened mind could never be against it. The reason? Reprisals from the US, the most powerful empire in the world

8. And finally, because people are smart enough to make their own choice. Did you guys know that weed consumption in the Netherlands has decreased since its legalization?

Hmmm... Oncle Boris' almost pissed off this time too...

[Harry Tuttle]

Alright, maybe I'm just against it because of the drug culture. Damn hippies....

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
I must have lived with some scummy people then...

Anyways, I see your point on the DUI comparison. But as for number one; doesn't the inhalation of smoke from pot carry with it the same sort of crap that cigarettes do? Is it that much different?

Yes. When you roll a joint or pack a bowl, you are smoking marijuana. When you have a store-bought cigarette like a Marlboro or Parliament, you are inhaling not only Tobacco and Nicotine, but tar, arsenic, and a host of other carcinagenic, poisonous things that blacken your lungs.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

That's funny. Mostly because it's completely not true. At all. I don't know the people you know who smoke, but that doesn't discribe ANYONE I know who smokes. Period.

I would have to disagree, I know quite a few who fit that description actually... but granted not from occasional pot use. There certainly are alot of self medicating potheads out there though, but same thing with alcoholics, and granted with far fewer side effects other than increased anxiety in the long run (when not stoned that is).

I think what it comes down to, and what Harry was saying, is that when people start smoking all the time (like even just a couple times per day, everyday), the high goes from being a feeling of elation to just being normal, while sobriety just gets boring, and you need the high to feel normal. This is when it gets to be destructive, and when (some) people start to develop mild symptoms of psychopathology, but granted not all. Does that make sense?

But, damn. All this talk about the gange makes me wish I had a bowl in front of me right about now. Too bad its xmas at the parents' house. Oh well...

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Well again, that's abuse. A person has to be able to control that, just like they have to control their alcohol consumption.

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous


Yes. When you roll a joint or pack a bowl, you are smoking marijuana. When you have a store-bought cigarette like a Marlboro or Parliament, you are inhaling not only Tobacco and Nicotine, but tar, arsenic, and a host of other carcinagenic, poisonous things that blacken your lungs.

True, but look at the inside of a pipe after you've smoked even just a couple of grams through it. It gets full of nasty black tar (which you can actually smoke if you collect it, it has some THC in it), but thats what your lungs look like...

[JimmyCracksCorn]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Well again, that's abuse. A person has to be able to control that, just like they have to control their alcohol consumption.

True, I'm not disagreeing with you. I love the gange, but I also realize its not the healthiest thing in the world... but what is?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
Alright, maybe I'm just against it because of the drug culture. Damn hippies....

you can be against it's use, but still for legalization... what has prohibition done to solve the problem? nothing... it's made it worse by locking users and addicts up and making them into criminals, AND it's given criminals and organized crime a business in which they can make ENORMOUS amounts of money.

Prohibition creates more problems and it solves none.

Be against drug use. I am (I don't consider marijuana a drug though). I think there are other methods that can decrease drug use. And most of them have to do with free or low cost education, a vibrant job market, building wealth for the poor... and decreasing poverty. All things the right wing policies don't do.

I'm not saying lefties are the answer (God I hate the ****ing linear political definitions)... but a lot of problems in society are interconnected. And some of the solutions to decreasing drug use have to do with many so called "liberal" policies.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
Well again, that's abuse. A person has to be able to control that, just like they have to control their alcohol consumption.

I agree. Problem is that like alcohol, pot smoking has its own little culture. Alcohol consumption in college is seen as "cool and fun" (because it is) and pot smoking is seen as "hip and cool". Unfortunately there are these "cultures" surrounding the two, namely the "drink till I puke", "beer gets chicks", "alcohol makes me think I can take that guy/drive car/jump ravine" - and then the "pot elevates consciousness", "pot makes me like Morrison", "pot solves my problems".

My question is, do we want to inadvertantly validate another detrimental "culture" by legalizing pot???

[Agathon]

Look it's quite simple.

If you smoke pot you like reggae.

If you don't like reggae, you're an uptight arsehole.

Therefore: If you don't smoke pot, you're an uptight arsehole.

[Fake Boris]

Hey Harry, you like to get it all wrong, don't you?

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle
No. Three Reasons:

1) I'll make the argument that like alcohol and cigarettes, pot is something that is detrimental to a persons development as a physical adult. All even say that pot is worse for you than tabacco.

And so is living in a large polluted city. And so is playing video games. And so is working in a chemical fab. And so is eating at Burger King. And so is...

2) Too many people who smoke pot are not productive members of society. In fact, I will make the leap and say that a higher percentage of active pot smokers are less productive than drinkers of alcohol and smokers of cigarettes. This is a bad argument, but that's my opinion from living with two drug addicts and a few regular pot smokers in college.

Ha ha ha. Who are you to say: "get productive!" Especially in the US, where the welfare is so cheap that if you're not being productive then that's your sole problem.
It's more of the opposite really: people who are not likely to be productive turn to drugs. Drugs are a SYMPTOM, not a cause. Just as in if you get the fever you stay at home, you could say: "you get the spleen and you tale drugs".

3) The THC in pot is of higher potency and has a bigger high-effect than that of the nicotine in cigarettes. Not a good thing for operating motor vehicles, etc, etc...

The law already prohibits dangerous driving. And if drugs are preventing you from doing your job properly, then that goes between you and your boss. It should only reach the law if you do something criminal. Like, running over fellow workers with your truck.
And the studies claiming the nocivity of THC are just biased propaganda. Sure, THC is not the best thing for your health but it just won't destroy you any worse than many frequent habits. And by the way, it's true that one joint is worse than one cigarette... but no one will smoke 25 in a day.

Are these great arguments? No, but I'm biased. I've seen what occasional pot use does to people. They become lazy, uninterested, more depressed, and get hooked on smoking pot all of the time. In short, life's problems get solved by packing up the bowl.

That they are not is for sure. I know many high ranking people who frequently use drugs, and they're just fine because they can pay and they've got interesting lives going on.
Equating drugs to depression is a fallacy. Such as would be forbidding janitor work because janitors have twice the depression rate of other workers. Or forbidding blue shirts because people with blue shirts are more likely to get depressed. Attack the DEPRESSION, not the mere symptom that might or not aggravate it.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Hey Harry, you like to get it all wrong, don't you?



And so is living in a large polluted city. And so is playing video games. And so is working in a chemical fab. And so is eating at Burger King. And so is...



Ha ha ha. Who are you to say: "get productive!" Especially in the US, where the welfare is so cheap that if you're not being productive then that's your sole problem.
It's more of the opposite really: people who are not likely to be productive turn to drugs. Drugs are a SYMPTOM, not a cause. Just as in if you get the fever you stay at home, you could say: "you get the spleen and you tale drugs".



The law already prohibits dangerous driving. And if drugs are preventing you from doing your job properly, then that goes between you and your boss. It should only reach the law if you do something criminal. Like, running over fellow workers with your truck.
And the studies claiming the nocivity of THC are just biased propaganda. Sure, THC is not the best thing for your health but it just won't destroy you any worse than many frequent habits. And by the way, it's true that one joint is worse than one cigarette... but no one will smoke 25 in a day.



That they are not is for sure. I know many high ranking people who frequently use drugs, and they're just fine because they can pay and they've got interesting lives going on.
Equating drugs to depression is a fallacy. Such as would be forbidding janitor work because janitors have twice the depression rate of other workers. Or forbidding blue shirts because people with blue shirts are more likely to get depressed. Attack the DEPRESSION, not the mere symptom that might or not aggravate it.

Boris, keep up with the conversation. You don't like me, I don't like you, but try not to pollute a non-flame conversation. These are my opinions, based on my past experiences. I didn't say they were right and I wasn't trying to make others think the way I do. So get off the tyraid you've been on for the past week.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

"Alcohol has its own culture"

Does it? I was under the impression that it was a world-wide thing. Irish and their Whiskey, Italians and French and their wines, Japanese with their saki, Americans with our piss.

College is one, small part of the entire alcohol-consuming society, of which you find after college. College is an abnormality, because in college its as if you're out of the control of police, parents, etc.

As far as validating a culture...sure, why not? So what if someone is of the opinion that pot elevates consciousness? Its an opinion, which even non-pot smokers can have.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle



Boris, keep up with the conversation. You don't like me, I don't like you, but try not to pollute a non-flame conversation. These are my opinions, based on my past experiences. I didn't say they were right and I wasn't trying to make others think the way I do. So get off the tyraid you've been on for the past week.

Sorry. I swear, when I started writing my post, I hadn't seen your other replies. Looks like I've been rude without reason.

Accept my apologies and know that I'll never flame you just because your are well... you.

And oh, feel free to end the discussion stopped by Ming with a PM. I may not have been a gentleman, but you must understand that your constant denial of what was an obvious police abuse just irated me.

EDIT: i love your new sig!