Should we Legalize marijuana?

[elder999]

I'm hip. But I don't like pot and I don't want it to be legal.

And this is where Bill will always stand on this issue, in something of a departure from his usual rationality-it's an emotional one for him, for personal reasons. I can dig that-he gets to vote, and even to try to convince some of us to his way of thinking, but his "reasons" aren't convincing at all.


For instance:

You're missing the thread where the liberals are calling for the regulation of ingredients in processed food on the basis that it is 'unhealthy' and 'costs us money in terms of increased health care costs'. If that argument is legitimate, then those same people should be against the legalization of pot.

But that's not what Bill is arguing in that thread. If his arguments there:

What we're doing now - provide information and educate. That is the proper role of government with regard to public health.

The problem is always the same with liberals. They say they want to modify behavior by informing and educating, and that's great. But if it doesn't work, then they suggest incentives to do the healthy thing. And if that doesn't work, they suggest disincentives to do the unhealthy thing. And when people persist in doing something unhealthy, then they finally show their true colors - force them to do the 'healthy' thing whether they like it or not.

That's a liberal for you. Persuade, educate, cajole, and if if you still won't do what they say you should, bring out a stick and force you to do it anyway.

Not playing. Dislike liberal philosophy. I especially dislike it because liberals lie about what their ultimate motives - live the way they tell you to or else.

have any validity,then pot should be legal, though, for him, there's some sort of difference , and , in defiance of his usual rationality and equanimity, the two do not equate, and he cannot be rational or dispassionate about this issue.

 

[Ken Morgan]

in defiance of his usual rationality and equanimity, the two do not equate, and he cannot be rational or dispassionate about this issue.

or religion.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Child pornography is illegal because a minor is too young to give consent or even realize the consequences of their actions. That has nothing to do with legalizing pot, and you know it.

Nothing to do with legalizing pot? Not at all, no. I was attacking your logic, which is that since there is no way to stop it, it should be legalized. I replied that there are lots of things that can't be stopped, should they all be legalized? If not (and it appears you agree with me), then your logic is flawed. That's not a good reason to legalize it.

And yeah, I do sez so. I've smoked pot (albeit only a couple of times) and I've gotten really drunk (alot more than a couple of times). There is no reason for the former to be illegal if the latter is not.

No reason in YOUR opinion. Sorry, you don't speak for me, any more than I do you.

Both can be abused, both can be used moderately, both have risks, both can lead to personal harm or harm to others if used irresponsibly. Yet one is legal, the other is not.

Yes, one is legal and the other is not. Grenades and semi-automatic weapons. Both can be abused, both can be used moderately, both have risks, both can lead to personal harm or harm to others if used irresponsibly. Yet one is legal, the other is not.

Again, if your logic is the reason for your opinion, your logic is flawed. You might want to rethink your opinion based on that.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

And this is where Bill will always stand on this issue, in something of a departure from his usual rationality-it's an emotional one for him, for personal reasons. I can dig that-he gets to vote, and even to try to convince some of us to his way of thinking, but his "reasons" aren't convincing at all.

True. But I am not trying to convince anyone to see things my way in this case. I have stated my opinion, and I've poked holes in faulty logic.

I have pointed out the flaw in the "we can't stop it anyway, so we should legalize it" argument. It's poor logic, since there are many things we cannot stop, but do not therefore condone.

I have pointed out the flaw in the "there are other dangerous things that are allowed, so this should be allowed also" argument. Also poor logic, since there are dangerous things that we do not allow besides pot (hand grenades, for example).

I have pointed out the flaw in the "it will stop drug trafficking" argument, since it should be pretty clear to everyone that drug traffickers traffic drugs - all kinds of drugs - and are unlikely to stop just because they lose one source of income.

I will take this opportunity to point out the flaw in the "it will reduce prison population" argument, since the same would be true of releasing child molesters. Some people we want in prison.

I have pointed out the hypocrisy in advocating for government control of what goes into processed food (the other thread on MT I mentioned) on the basis that it is a) unhealthy and b) costs us money in increased health care costs and NOT taking the same stand with regard to smoking pot, which is, by all opinions, not a 'healthy' practice.

I have opined that this hypocrisy is due a cardinal attribute of liberals, and suggested the real reason for it is because they like to smoke pot, but they don't like other people eating food they deem to be unhealthy. Just an opinion.

I have argued that the true reason for pot to be legal or illegal rests at the ballot box, and that there is not a logical or scientific or medical or tax-based reason sufficient to cause the will of the people to be ignored. I have even acknowledged that public sentiment is changing towards legalization, and although I do not like it personally, that's the way it goes.

I will further add that in my opinion, the same people who are against the 'tyranny of the majority' today with regard to pot legalization will be quite silent on the matter when they are the majority and pot is legal.

I am, I believe, consistent in my statements. Personal beliefs are personal beliefs. But flaws in logic cannot be ignored. If one is basing their opinion on what amounts to faulty reasoning, they may wish to reconsider their opinions. Repeated statements that "we can't stop it anyway," and "it's not that bad for you" or "there are other things that are legal that are worse for you" and things of that nature do not get it. First, they can't prove that, and second, the logic sucks.

 

[elder999]

True. But I am not trying to convince anyone to see things my way in this case. I have stated my opinion, and I've poked holes in faulty logic. .

How about this then: the only reason pot was made illegal was to keep people from making their own cloth out of hemp, and to keep black musicians from sleeping with white women.

Really.

There is no logical reason for pot to be illegal in the first place.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Why We Should Not Legalize Marijuana
http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223/Why_We_Should_Not_Legalize_Marijuana

Why Legalizing Marijuana Makes Sense
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1889021,00.html

Should We Legalize Marijuana?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614230731506644.html

Why shouldn't marijuana be legalized?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_shouldn't_marijuana_be_legalized

As for what I think... I do not think it should be... and my reasons... I am just not that big a fan of Bob Marley Music and I don't much like Hostess Twinkies

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Nothing to do with legalizing pot? Not at all, no. I was attacking your logic, which is that since there is no way to stop it, it should be legalized. I replied that there are lots of things that can't be stopped, should they all be legalized? If not (and it appears you agree with me), then your logic is flawed. That's not a good reason to legalize it.

Non-enforceability is not one of the reasons I cited. I don't like that reason for legalizing things either, I think it's nonsensical. But that came from you, not me.

No reason in YOUR opinion. Sorry, you don't speak for me, any more than I do you.

So you think that marijuana is closer to crack cocaine or crystal meth than tobacco or alcohol? Disregard illegality for this part, as I was addressing it's mind-altering qualities and effects on the body.

Yes, one is legal and the other is not. Grenades and semi-automatic weapons. Both can be abused, both can be used moderately, both have risks, both can lead to personal harm or harm to others if used irresponsibly. Yet one is legal, the other is not.

Guess what, Bill, even if a stupid law doesn't involve a constitutional right, its still open to discussion. Things get put on the books and voted on by the public for far more reasons than whether it's a good idea. I believe Bob was addressing that point with the lobbyists post. Your repeated attempts to bludgeon this topic down with "well the majority voted it so nyuh" is kinda baffling, given your critical eye on other topics.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I will further add that in my opinion, the same people who are against the 'tyranny of the majority' today with regard to pot legalization will be quite silent on the matter when they are the majority and pot is legal.

The minor, almost academically technical difference being that in the second case, YOU ARE STILL FREE TO NOT SMOKE POT!

 

[Bill Mattocks]

How about this then: the only reason pot was made illegal was to keep people from making their own cloth out of hemp, and to keep black musicians from sleeping with white women.

Really.

There is no logical reason for pot to be illegal in the first place.

True.

I have only my emotionally-based opinions in this case. I am not arguing otherwise.

But I do not have to have a logic reason to be against it. I just can't use faulty logic to be for or against it. Emotion is not faulty logic, it's not logic at all. It's valid, for personal beliefs. It's just not a good basis for argument.

That there is no logical reason to be against something is not a logic reason to be for it. I have no logical reason to dislike broccoli. But I'll be damned if that means I like it.

 

[MA-Caver]

.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

The minor, almost academically technical difference being that in the second case, YOU ARE STILL FREE TO NOT SMOKE POT!

I am also free to not want anyone to smoke it.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Non-enforceability is not one of the reasons I cited. I don't like that reason for legalizing things either, I think it's nonsensical. But that came from you, not me.

My apologies for my lack of understanding of your statements, then.

So you think that marijuana is closer to crack cocaine or crystal meth than tobacco or alcohol? Disregard illegality for this part, as I was addressing it's mind-altering qualities and effects on the body.

Yes.

Guess what, Bill, even if a stupid law doesn't involve a constitutional right, its still open to discussion. Things get put on the books and voted on by the public for far more reasons than whether it's a good idea. I believe Bob was addressing that point with the lobbyists post. Your repeated attempts to bludgeon this topic down with "well the majority voted it so nyuh" is kinda baffling, given your critical eye on other topics.

I always support the right of the majority to order society the way they wish it to be, so long as it does not violate Constitutional rights.

I do this over loud objections from people who point out that we live in a representative republic, and not a democracy, which I actually agree with, or that our government was designed to not allow the will of the majority to trump the will of the minority, which is not the case at all. I don't even know where they get this notion.

The only time I oppose majority rule is when it infringes on constitutional rights, as I said. And that's not an easy road to walk, because it means sometimes I find myself in support of the right of people I dislike doing things that they have the right to do.

But make no mistake, I support the will of the majority with regard to pot legalization, as I see no constitutional impediment to it being legal or illegal. Let the majority rule. That does not mean I am for legalization though. I support majority rule; that does not mean I agree with the majority. At the moment, I am in the majority, if only slightly. In the future, I will probably be in the minority. I will accept the rule of the majority in this case, because I accept the rule of law. I just won't like it.

Yes, laws are made for all sorts of reasons, logical, illogical, money-based, religion-based, even hatred-based. You name it. There are really only two criteria. Was the law passed according to our rules of governance (ie, legally) and is the law Constitutional? There is nothing that says a law has to conform to any other rules at all.

My argument here is only that if one wants to use logic as their stated reason for being in favor of the legalization of marijuana, then they'd better use good logic, or I'll tear it apart. I don't have any good logic in support of it remaining illegal, just personal opinion; and I've stated that. If I try to throw up some phony logic, feel free to have at me.

 

[poollshark]

True.

I have only my emotionally-based opinions in this case. I am not arguing otherwise.

Might I respectfully suggest you educate yourself rather than be ruled by your emotions?

But I do not have to have a logic reason to be against it. I just can't use faulty logic to be for or against it. Emotion is not faulty logic, it's not logic at all. It's valid, for personal beliefs. It's just not a good basis for argument.

That there is no logical reason to be against something is not a logic reason to be for it. I have no logical reason to dislike broccoli. But I'll be damned if that means I like it.

Do you try to stop others from eating broccoli?

I understand your reasoning. Do you understand that you are trying to impose your morality on others? Do you drink alcoholic beverages? Do you smoke cigarettes? Do you drink caffeinated coffee?

For the record, I've smoked and yes, I've even inhaled:eye-popping:

I am for legalization for what I think are very good reasons. Personal freedom to make my own choices regarding what I put into my my body being at the top of the list. It's a freedom I would never try to take away from you.

Again...... education and.....uh.....education.

Start here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007#

There are examples out there that show how legalization handled properly can be good for the masses. The Netherlands instantly comes to mind.

http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/67

I won't lie, I am trying to change your mind because I can't honestly see how any educated reasonable person could be against it.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Considering I know a few people (at least 1 on this site) who use pot for pain relief (legally), I have to question Bills seeming irrational and unusual desire to see them put against a wall and executed.

As to Constitutional...well, we all know Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew hemp, and were both passionate advocates for increasing hemp production in the United States. Oh wait...that's overlooked. But what would Jefferson know about the Constitution?

Are there health risks?
Yep.
Funny thing....my blood pressure meds have a few -pages- of risks.
Ibuprophen can cause bleeding in your brain and kidney failure.
Grilled Steak increases your chances of cancer too.

List the risks, let people weigh them out, and get out of their way.

I don't smoke. Pot or anything else.
But I dislike the NannyState trying to 'save' me from myself.
Not it's job. In my, and a certain Mr. Jefferson's view.

Course I also believe every neighborhood should have a Abrams on hand, but that's another discussion.

http://www.theweedblog.com/heavy-marijuana-use-does-not-affect-intelligence-or-cognition/
http://californiapotblog.com/tag/thomas-jefferson-pot/

Now please excuse me...I suddenly have the munchies.

 

[Steve]

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92273
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=92719
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93793

Come on guys. This has been worked to death. Just read the other threads and save us all from rehashing exactly the same posts. After many posts, and a lot of hand wringing, it always boils down to some people just not liking it, and logic be damned. Nothing wrong with that, but it makes for hurt feelings, and unnecessary amounts of conflict.

PS EDIT: I am for legalizing pot, and that's how I vote when it comes up on a ballot.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Do you try to stop others from eating broccoli?

No, I do not. I also do not have any personal desire to do so. I do have a personal desire to stop people from smoking pot.

I understand your reasoning. Do you understand that you are trying to impose your morality on others?

Not my morality - my will. I see nothing inherently immoral about smoking pot. I just don't want anyone to be allowed to do it.

Do you drink alcoholic beverages?

Not anymore; diabetes.

Do you smoke cigarettes?

Not anymore, I quit some years ago.

Do you drink caffeinated coffee?

About half a pot a day.

For the record, I've smoked and yes, I've even inhaled:eye-popping:

Yay you, I guess.

I am for legalization for what I think are very good reasons. Personal freedom to make my own choices regarding what I put into my my body being at the top of the list. It's a freedom I would never try to take away from you.

I'm all for personal freedom as well. But no freedoms are absolute. While I think you should be able to eat the foods you wish, and smoke the tobacco you want, and drink the booze you desire, I do not think you should smoke the marijuana you want to. Nor shoot the heroin, nor snort the cocaine, and so on.

Again...... education and.....uh.....education.

Save your effort. I grew up a child of the 1960's. I read the articles when they were new. I subscribed to "High Times," and I read all the literature NORML ever put out. I am not swayed.

I won't lie, I am trying to change your mind because I can't honestly see how any educated reasonable person could be against it.

You will not change my mind, not ever. My opinion is the result of my personal family experiences. If you want to know what those are, PM me. I have been asked not to say them in public here on MT again and I understand the reasoning. Let's call my experiences 'intense' and leave it at that. To me, you're just a guy with a Bible tract at my front door. Not now, not ever, keep steppin', brother. Sorry, you're wasting your time trying to convince me. But thank you for the 'educated' and 'reasonable' comments; may I say likewise. But educated and reasonable people can disagree.

 

[Twin Fist]

Legalize it, tax the **** out of it, put some dealers out of business-make some others legal. Sounds good to me.

this

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Considering I know a few people (at least 1 on this site) who use pot for pain relief (legally), I have to question Bills seeming irrational and unusual desire to see them put against a wall and executed.

Only the dealers.

As to Constitutional...well, we all know Thomas Jefferson and George Washington grew hemp, and were both passionate advocates for increasing hemp production in the United States. Oh wait...that's overlooked. But what would Jefferson know about the Constitution?

I'm all for growing hemp too. It's a good product and should be legal.

First, there's no evidence that Washington or Jefferson grew it to smoke it. They grew it for what it is very good for - paper and cloth.

Second, hemp has extremely little THC in it. You could smoke it all day and not get high. I have no objection to morons giving themselves headaches by trying.

Third, pot smoked today for recreational (or 'pain') purposes is about 6 to 15 times stronger than pot smoked for recreation back in the 60's and 70's, and thousands of times more potent than the kind of ditchweed the Founders grew to make rope.

Make no mistake, I am not against hemp. I am against pot, and by that I mean the smoking kind.

Are there health risks?
Yep.
Funny thing....my blood pressure meds have a few -pages- of risks.
Ibuprophen can cause bleeding in your brain and kidney failure.
Grilled Steak increases your chances of cancer too.

Yes. they can. Again, the fact that something is more dangerous or less dangerous than some other thing is not a logical reason to be for it. I can cite many things that are less dangerous than other things and yet they still are illegal and most people agree they should be. It's just not a logical argument.

List the risks, let people weigh them out, and get out of their way.

We have, and people did. They voted. Pot remains illegal for recreational use in most of the USA.

I don't smoke. Pot or anything else.
But I dislike the NannyState trying to 'save' me from myself.

I agree. I'm not trying to save you from yourself. Have fun stormin' the castle, sez I. I just don't want anyone to be allowed to smoke pot. Nothing personal - and not because I care about your pancreas or whatever.

Not it's job. In my, and a certain Mr. Jefferson's view.

I agree that a 'nanny state' reason would be a very poor reason indeed. Fortunately, that's not my reason.

 

[elder999]

First, there's no evidence that Washington or Jefferson grew it to smoke it. They grew it for what it is very good for - paper and cloth..

In one of his meticulous agricultural journals, dated 1765, Washington regrets being late to separate his male hemp plants from his females. For a master farmer like George, there would be little reason to do this except to make the females ripe for smoking.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

In one of his meticulous agricultural journals, dated 1765, Washington regrets being late to separate his male hemp plants from his females. For a master farmer like George, there would be little reason to do this except to make the females ripe for smoking.

You mean little reason that pro-marijuana scholars can think of. Many have pointed out that hemp was being experimented with for it's medicinal value - not necessarily for getting high for recreational purposes. There's no real way to know which. There is even argument that Washington did it to produce better hemp fiber. No idea.

However, "THE BOTANIST'S and GARDENER'S NEW DICTIONARY" published in 1763, explains how male hemp is gathered at one time in the season and is most fit for one purpose, and female hemp is gathered at another time in the seasons and is most fit for a different purpose. That seems to be a quite logical reason to separate them, to me.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QS...emp&pg=PA100#v=onepage&q=growing hemp&f=false

I've been down this road before. I actually find the scholarship entertaining, and if I thought there was evidence for the Founders smoking pot, I'd certainly admit it. It would not change my opinion of whether or not pot should be legal to smoke ("Oh dear, George Washington toked a bowl now and then, it must be OK!"), nor would it change the historical reality of hemp as a cash crop for cloth and paper and rope. Hemp was a huge player in the early years of our nation, and in my opinion, should be again.