Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

OK

1. alchohol is no where near as dangerous
2.weed cause massive long term effects and also is the cause of many of lifes problems
3. people would still use dealers as le4gally produced and properly controlled substencies could nevert match the prices of illegal substencies

ShumaGorath wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:I am pro outright banning.

Would that be banning Marijauna or tabacco smoking?

Both, alcohol as well.

Ahhh,I see..well then I suppose I should thank my heidonistic "gods' that you've yet to begin any serious political asperations,and that I will long since have shuffled off this mortal coil,thanks to drink and tabacco,by the time president Shuma is elected.

I'm unelectable in a democracy. My platform would involve changing too many thing. I'll certainly be there to take advantage during the collapse though.

Well,if I'm still alive and kicking...or not to drunk when that collapse comes I suppose I'll be thankful I'm heavily armed,The Peoples Army of the First Shuma Republic has to have some sort of enemies.

croggy wrote:OK

1. alchohol is no where near as dangerous
2.weed cause massive long term effects and also is the cause of many of lifes problems
3. people would still use dealers as le4gally produced and properly controlled substencies could nevert match the prices of illegal substencies

Alcohol is no where near as dangerous?!?!?! reallly? Whats your source on that? I know it's not personal experiance. What are these massive long term affects?

I've seen lots of fights start because people were too drunk, I've seen lots of furniture get destroyed because someone was too drunk. I've seen a drunk driver plow into a tree. The only thing I ever see destroyed by someone under the influence of marijuana, is a bag of doritos.

If you look on the link that I posted earlier, on page 1. You can compare for yourself how many people die from marijuana and how many die from alcohol.

I've seen marijuana slow peoples reaction times just like alcohol does.

I've seen hardcore stoners that smoked daily for over a decade become blithering idiots that speak like they are stoned constantly and have the intelligence of a 5yo (and they were normal before they decided weed was more important than life) not to mention there are over 400 toxic chemicals in your typical joint. A glass of wine daily or a couple of martinis is a HELL of a lot healthier in the long run than smoking even a single joint is.

I've also been at parties where guns were pulled because someone buying weed felt they were getting ripped off. I've never seen guns pulled because someone felt that they were being ripped off over a keg of beer.

Alcohol when drank responsibly is not harmful. There is no "safe" amount of weed that can be smoked.

Not to mention, excluding banned establishments I can sit in a room full of smokers and the only thing that will happen is I'll get a sore throat from it. If I sat in a room full of people smoking weed I'll get contact buzz from it and get as fethed up as they are.

Weed should not be made legal because if I go to a bar that hasn't banned smoking yet I don't want to walk out stoned off my ass. I don't even get intoxicated if I go out anymore. I'd rather not have a DUI on my record.

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm unelectable in a democracy.

I dunno, Americans seem to elect a lot of hypocrites.

Yes weed will slow your reaction times, (i don't suggest trying to box someone while stoned). I'd like to see some definitive proof that there are 400 toxic chemicals in your typical joint, maybe from the paper perhaps? As for someone pulling out a gun over a weed deal, then wouldn't legalizing solve that problem? Instead of street dealers, you would be buying your ganja from a pharmacy or smoke shop hopefully. There is indeed a "safe" amount of weed that can be smoked, no one has ever been recorded dying as a result of smoking marijuana in 5000 years. As for the contact high thing, my mom smoked weed around me up until I tryed it myself and I never recall getting a contact high, I imagine it takes quite a bit. Now pot is deffinitly not for kids, and all things should be taken in moderation. As long as people apply common sense and don't get stoned before work or before driving I don't see how it could affect society negatively. You know either way, legal or not there are stoners among you, they cook your food when you go out to eat, they make the music you listen to, they draw the art you enjoy and they teach in schools. They're doctors, and lawyers and garbage men, and plumbers and even cops.


(man it's wierd arguing with fateweaver. That doesn't happen much to me)

croggy wrote:OK

1. alchohol is no where near as dangerous
2.weed cause massive long term effects and also is the cause of many of lifes problems
3. people would still use dealers as le4gally produced and properly controlled substencies could nevert match the prices of illegal substencies

What? You have no idea what you're talking about. Biologically alcohol is far more destructive to the human body and brain that cannabis.

Alcohol when drank responsibly is not harmful. There is no "safe" amount of weed that can be smoked.

You as well don't seem to understand the biology that backs both drugs. Neither is inconsequential, but alcohol does far more damage psychologically and physically in a much shorter amount of time.

Well,if I'm still alive and kicking...or not to drunk when that collapse comes I suppose I'll be thankful I'm heavily armed,The Peoples Army of the First Shuma Republic has to have some sort of enemies.

Maybe. When I come around to rescue this world you'll have that choice.

I dunno, Americans seem to elect a lot of hypocrites.

It also has a lot of people in it that don't know what the word hypocrite means. You for instance.

I wonder if robberies of pharmacies and gas stations would rise?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:It also has a lot of people in it that don't know what the word hypocrite means.

Yet another reason you might do better than you thought.

Yet another reason you might do better than you thought.

You probably didn't catch my edit before posting that. You don't know what the word means, I'm not being hypocritical in my stance.

http://www.drugscience.org/

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002

There is an enourmous amount of information out there on this subject. So far, the main portion of this thread has been about ignoring all of it.

Have fun y'all, pot will turn you into a gay...

ShumaGorath wrote:You probably didn't catch my edit before posting that. You don't know what the word means, I'm not being hypocritical in my stance.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's a theoretical world where people don't drink two boxes of natty ice then think turning the light switch on and off is the most brilliant thing ever. It's also never going to happen because people are no good at finding happiness in any fashion beyond burning or drinking something that gives it to them free of effort. On a related note I'm probably going to be dead drunk by midnight tonight.

Hypocritical . . . check, given over to unfounded mudslinging . . . check, bad memory . . . check; yep, you have American politician written all over you.

http://ccguide.org/dd_chart.php

Although I can't find an up to date list from a more reputable site (mostly because I can't be bothered), this gives the relative toxicity and addictiveness of some drugs.

Let's try something out. How is espousing an ideal upon which something is banned while at the same time not refusing to partake in that item hypocritical?

Lets see how I could make it so.

I could A: Campaign for it's removal (doesn't look like thats happening)
I could B: Judge others for it's use (nope, no disparaging remarks about the state of others concerning alcohol or cannabis (other than the light switch joke, but that happened a bit back and it was annoying at the time))
I could C: State that there is a moral indecency inherent in drinking or smoking (nope, none of that either).

So I'm not making a moral stand, I'm not being judgmental, and I'm not actively attempting to curb the use of such substances. What am I doing then? Well the answer to that may be hard for you to understand. I'm professing an ideal, one by which people can exist free of the influence of unnatural substances with addictive qualities. This is similar to the stance of believing that violence is bad while still enjoying an action movie. It's a stance predicated on realism, and not hyperbolic whining.

given over to unfounded mudslinging

Only where deserved.

you have American politician written all over you.

Except the part where I'm a transhumanist that would ideally want to impose a benign dictatorship.

This is what I was talking about just a minute ago:

"Cannabinoids have a remarkable safety record, particularly when compared to other therapeutically active substances. Most significantly, the consumption of marijuana – regardless of quantity or potency -- cannot induce a fatal overdose. According to a 1995 review prepared for the World Health Organization, “There are no recorded cases of overdose fatalities attributed to cannabis, and the estimated lethal dose for humans extrapolated from animal studies is so high that it cannot be achieved by … users.”

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7002 wrex just posted the link that this is said in. Thanks Wrex!

ShumaGorath wrote:I'm professing an ideal, one by which people can exist free of the influence of unnatural substances with addictive qualities.

Ladies and gentlemen, raise your glasses (send the Jack around again, can't get dead drunk off water) to professing an ideal.

Why would the government of a place where no one chooses to smoke or drink prohibit smoking and drinking? With the ideal in place the law doesn't need to be.

A glass of whine a day is good for circulatory system.

I have gotten contact buzz being around tokers.

You honestly think people will stop buying from drug dealers if Phillip Morris put joints into a fancy box like Marlboros, advertised on TV and charged $100 for 10 joints (I know street value is different all over but not sure exactly what it's worth here per joint so I'm just pulling that number out my ass). If it's way OTT I'll adjust it down some.

I mean, most of the soldiers I know will buy cigs on base because it is so much cheaper than buying them from a convenience store down the road.

Legalizng it won't deter crime. Alcohol is legal and like so many pro-pot smokers out there say fights and DUI's occur because of that.

@Fateweaver: I think the assumption, and I don't know if it is correct, is that legalization would dramatically drop the price. The main problem would be offering a better product than what could be home grown. As far as I know, there is no extensive knowledge base for efficiently growing tobacco in your closet. But the knowledge is certainly there when it comes to pot. So would a corp like Philip Morris be able to compete with your own stuff. Probably. But what about current pot-guru aficianados who grow "the best stuff"? My guess is that they might get bought out. But not being a smoker (of weed), I admit to having no first-hand knowledge of these things.

Eh.... why the hell not.

Legalise it, put a slight tax on it, generate revenue (California has done this to help with budgets iirc) everybodies happy.

Except for the fun killers. Stupid fun killers.

However, there obviously need to be laws in place if it is legalised.

1. If you smoke weed while operating a vehicle, you will be arrested.
2. You cannot just light up whenever or wherever the hell you feel like it. Ie, a school or nursery etc.
3. You may grow your own, however, a permit must be obtained for how much you plain on growing.

Manchu wrote:@Fateweaver: I think the assumption, and I don't know if it is correct, is that legalization would dramatically drop the price. The main problem would be offering a better product than what could be home grown. As far as I know, there is no extensive knowledge base for efficiently growing tobacco in your closet. But the knowledge is certainly there when it comes to pot. So would a corp like Philip Morris be able to compete with your own stuff. Probably. But what about current pot-guru aficianados who grow "the best stuff"? My guess is that they might get bought out. But not being a smoker (of weed), I admit to having no first-hand knowledge of these things.

Or they'd get shut right down for producing a product without proper safety and health standards/testing in place.

@KillaKan(luwen): Dunno. Wouldn't the response be something like "so I can't grow tomatoes in my garden, either?" As for current grower-dealers continuing to sell to others, I reckon they could either sell out to tobacco corps -OR- easily find private backing to set up their own businesses if they are producing a(n) (in)famous enough product.

Fateweaver wrote:A glass of whine a day is good for circulatory system.

I have gotten contact buzz being around tokers.

Placebo effect, or you were in a hotbox, one of the two. If you were in a hotbox, while your buddies were toking up, it is your fault that you got stoned.

You honestly think people will stop buying from drug dealers if Phillip Morris put joints into a fancy box like Marlboros, advertised on TV and charged $100 for 10 joints (I know street value is different all over but not sure exactly what it's worth here per joint so I'm just pulling that number out my ass).

No offense, but your anecdotal circumstances, fail to bring anything that everyone here has not already heard. And to the point, they will buy from stores, there is no doubt about that. There is also no doubt that there are black market substances, being sold cheaper than their legal counterparts.

I mean, most of the soldiers I know will buy cigs on base because it is so much cheaper than buying them from a convenience store down the road.

Legalizng it won't deter crime. Alcohol is legal and like so many pro-pot smokers out there say fights and DUI's occur because of that.

Legalizing it will deter crime, do some freaking research. The amount of people jailed for petty possession is absolutely ridiculous. It is a burden on the system, that ruins many peoples lives. Not all crimes work like murder, or theft, these are crimes of ideology, they are crimes because someone tells me so. Not because they are actually criminal. Someone smoking a joint, has not committed any crime in my eyes. If that joint were to be regulated, you could effectively cut down on the amount of crime associated with it.

This is one topic I can speak to from experience: the volume of possession charges is burdensome on the legal system.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Why would the government of a place where no one chooses to smoke or drink prohibit smoking and drinking? With the ideal in place the law doesn't need to be.

The substances are addictive. The ideal can not exist before the law, or some other form of method prohibiting it (such as the cocaine vaccine being tested now).

Ladies and gentlemen, raise your glasses (send the Jack around again, can't get dead drunk off water) to professing an ideal.

It's not my fault I had to break down simple english for you to understand it.

Legalizing it will deter crime, do some freaking research. The amount of people jailed for petty possession is absolutely ridiculous. It is a burden on the system, that ruins many peoples lives. Not all crimes work like murder, or theft, these are crimes of ideology, they are crimes because someone tells me so. Not because they are actually criminal. Someone smoking a joint, has not committed any crime in my eyes. If that joint were to be regulated, you could effectively cut down on the amount of crime associated with it.

You would also greatly increase safety, while helping to better stabilize south america. All at the cost of a dramatic uptick in usage statistics across all all demographics.

Manchu wrote:@KillaKan(luwen): Dunno. Wouldn't the response be something like "so I can't grow tomatoes in my garden, either?" As for current grower-dealers continuing to sell to others, I reckon they could either sell out to tobacco corps -OR- easily find private backing to set up their own businesses if they are producing a(n) (in)famous enough product.

You don't grow tomatoes in your garden and sell them in back alleys, do you?

Fateweaver wrote:A glass of whine a day is good for circulatory system.

I have gotten contact buzz being around tokers.

You honestly think people will stop buying from drug dealers if Phillip Morris put joints into a fancy box like Marlboros, advertised on TV and charged $100 for 10 joints (I know street value is different all over but not sure exactly what it's worth here per joint so I'm just pulling that number out my ass). If it's way OTT I'll adjust it down some.

I mean, most of the soldiers I know will buy cigs on base because it is so much cheaper than buying them from a convenience store down the road.

Legalizng it won't deter crime. Alcohol is legal and like so many pro-pot smokers out there say fights and DUI's occur because of that.

Your partially right, legalizing it won't completely deter crime. Some folks will buy from dealers even if weed gets legalized. I imagine even more people will grow it themselves, (it's not all that hard). I myself will buy legitimately just so I can support it. Even if I had to cut down drastically it would be no problem if it meant I could buy my smoke at wal-mart instead of a back alley. I think they outta just treat it like alcohol, give people a dui if the're driving stoned, and make it so you gotta be X years old to buy it. Your wine is good for your circulatory system, that's good. My weed is good for my bipolar disorder, its good for cancer, it's good for glaucoma, medical marijuana has lots of unexplored and under-explored uses. Everyone reading this thread should look at the links Wrex posted. And since people have been using it casually for thousands of years, why not allow them to? Do we really need more people in prison? Should we not use hemp for paper, soap, rope, fabric, plastic, biofuel, etc. because you can get high of certain types of the plant? Do we really need more laws and rules to restrict us? More government and beuracracy and overcrowded prisons?

Even if I never get to see ganja legalized for my own casual uses, there are a lot of things this modest little plant can offer us. At the very least it makes no sense why it isn't being prescribed more, or why we aren't using hemp paper.

ShumaGorath wrote:It's not my fault I had to break down simple english for you to understand it.

Fortunately for me and my sanity, I've seen you act this way enough times to dismiss it.

I imagine even more people will grow it themselves, (it's not all that hard).

I don't see why. Unless the cost is prohibitive I doubt you would see much of a home grown market. It's not the most easy plant to grow.

Kanluwen wrote:

Manchu wrote:@KillaKan(luwen): Dunno. Wouldn't the response be something like "so I can't grow tomatoes in my garden, either?" As for current grower-dealers continuing to sell to others, I reckon they could either sell out to tobacco corps -OR- easily find private backing to set up their own businesses if they are producing a(n) (in)famous enough product.

You don't grow tomatoes in your garden and sell them in back alleys, do you?

You got the money?

Kanluwen wrote:

Manchu wrote:@KillaKan(luwen): Dunno. Wouldn't the response be something like "so I can't grow tomatoes in my garden, either?" As for current grower-dealers continuing to sell to others, I reckon they could either sell out to tobacco corps -OR- easily find private backing to set up their own businesses if they are producing a(n) (in)famous enough product.

You don't grow tomatoes in your garden and sell them in back alleys, do you?

Ive seen both at barter fair!