any reasons why marijuana should still be illegal?

Page 10 of 16 [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 ... 16  Next

Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

08 May 2012, 7:55 pm

abacacus wrote:
Tax evasion tends to be somewhat more peaceful than drug running, and easier to catch. Aside from that, I don't doubt that a fair few people would rather not risk buying weed illegally assuming the legal product was of comparable price and quality.


I would prefer to buy it legally. Seems so silly having to hide it. And then liquor ads are plastered everywhere. Like an alcohol high is okay, but a marijuana high isn't.

MCBO here I come :cheers:



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 May 2012, 12:49 am

visagrunt wrote:
As is often the case, the wrong question is being asked.

There are plenty of reasons why marijuana should still be illegal--some of those reasons are even good reasons, with rational foundations. The question is whether those rational, good reasons are also sufficient reasons to merit its prohibition.

And if the good reasons for its control are not sufficient to merit its prohibition, are they nonetheless sufficient to merit some limits on its production, sale and use? And if so, what are those limits?

I certainly don't need to repeat the discussions about the controls that exist over alcohol and tobacco. Those controls exist for rational purposes. Are those purposes sufficient to justify those controls? But I think we are woefully misguided if we believe that legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana will provide the windfall that its proponents imagine.

When prohibition ended, there was an viable industry ready to resume operations delivering alcohol to the marketplace. Organized crime involvement was primarily engaged in illegal importation, and some small scale production. But marijuana is a different matter. Organized crime involvement is significantly embedded in large scale production--and it is doing so with significant cost savings over what legitimate producers would face in an regulated environment. Let's not be under any illusions that the Hell's Angels will be in any hurry to start paying taxes on their revenues, or running their grow-ops in compliance with prevailing health and safety standards.


What are these good and valid reasons we are referring to exactly? because I can point to plenty of irrational reasons, and plenty of reasons that might make sense but are screwed up nonetheless. But I cannot think of any real reasons why it should still be illegal or why it was outlawed in the first place.

Also I don't know that the Hells Angels are in charge of the majority of marijuana...and in my state I am quite sure of it, a lot of 'dealers' get it from local growers or they are growing it themselves without anything to do with that. Though obviously with it being illegal sometimes rather harsh people have to be dealt with I imagine so it is good to be careful. But yeah there would be some issues with legalization such as what you describe, however those do not really indicate cannabis should have ever been made illegal.


_________________
We won't go back.


Oodain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Jan 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,022
Location: in my own little tamarillo jungle,

09 May 2012, 3:20 am

also any argument that criminals would control it is fundementally flawed beyond belief simply because of the nature of that argument.

of course they would when society has pushed drugs into their hands for the last hundred years, that is, because it is illegal criminals control it, making it legal would allow that to change.


_________________
//through chaos comes complexity//

the scent of the tamarillo is pungent and powerfull,
woe be to the nose who nears it.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

09 May 2012, 12:21 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
What are these good and valid reasons we are referring to exactly? because I can point to plenty of irrational reasons, and plenty of reasons that might make sense but are screwed up nonetheless. But I cannot think of any real reasons why it should still be illegal or why it was outlawed in the first place.


First, let me go on record as saying that, absent any other circumstances, I see no basis for marijuana prohibition. But mine is not a universal opinion, and the opinion of those who disagree should not be uncritically dismissed. You already know what many of the reasons are--but you are likely ingrained in your prejudice in favour of legal marijuana that you choose to categorize them as "screwed up," in order to discount their rational basis. That's an intellectual error.

First, marijuana is a psychotrope. A relatively benign one--but a psychotrope, nonetheless. We have a significant gradation of psychotropes. Some are banned, outright (e.g. LSD). Others, with medical value, are closely regulated (e.g. various classes of antidepressants). Still others, with little medical value, but potential for risk, are loosely regulated (e.g. ethanol and nicotine). Still others are subject only to control as food additives (e.g. caffeine). To my way of thinking, marijuana belongs in the third category--psychotropes with little medical value, but potential for risk. Certainly not banned outright, but subject to some level of regulatory control.

Second, the primary method of consumption is inhalation. While I certainly don't see comparable risks between marijuana and tobacco, inhalants do present risks of respiratory disease. I certainly have patients with respiratory disorders who are marijuana smokers but not tobacco smokers. Whether marijuana use has been a cofactor in their disorders is not something that I can claim--but neither can I rule it out. I certainly tell respiratory patients who intend to continue use to switch to other delivery methods, and I make different decisions about drug therapies based on the potential for interactions.

Third, smoking--whether tobacco or marijuana--has the potential to be a common nuisance (in the legal sense). We have certainly acted to restrict the use of tobacco in public places, though we are not always clear on the reasons for that. If that is a matter of comfort and quiet enjoyment of bystanders, then marijuana is certainly more intrusive than tobacco. If it is a matter of public health, though, then tobacco is the greater offender.

Quote:
Also I don't know that the Hells Angels are in charge of the majority of marijuana...and in my state I am quite sure of it, a lot of 'dealers' get it from local growers or they are growing it themselves without anything to do with that. Though obviously with it being illegal sometimes rather harsh people have to be dealt with I imagine so it is good to be careful. But yeah there would be some issues with legalization such as what you describe, however those do not really indicate cannabis should have ever been made illegal.


The small scale growers are a drop in the bucket. The large scale farms, and the industrialized "greenhouse" operations are the source of the majority of marijuana on the market (in North America, at any rate--and we are the three largest producing countries), and the control of this by organized crime (particularly the Hell's Angels) is significant.

Now there's a bit of a "chicked and the egg" argument here. If cannabis wasn't illegal, then organized crime wouldn't have gotten involved in it, and organized crime's involvement in it isn't necessarily a reason to continue its prohibition. But, by the same token, eliminating organized crime involvement is a spurious reason to legalize it. I suspect a lot of legal growers might find themselves intimidated out of production if that is seen interfering with established producers. If there is one thing that the Hell's Angels have proved themselves capable of doing is pushing out the competition.


_________________
--James


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

09 May 2012, 1:04 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
What are these good and valid reasons we are referring to exactly? because I can point to plenty of irrational reasons, and plenty of reasons that might make sense but are screwed up nonetheless. But I cannot think of any real reasons why it should still be illegal or why it was outlawed in the first place.


First, let me go on record as saying that, absent any other circumstances, I see no basis for marijuana prohibition. But mine is not a universal opinion, and the opinion of those who disagree should not be uncritically dismissed. You already know what many of the reasons are--but you are likely ingrained in your prejudice in favour of legal marijuana that you choose to categorize them as "screwed up," in order to discount their rational basis. That's an intellectual error.

Well thanks for assuming I don't actually look into the opposing arguments to try and make sense of them. But I kind of have to disagree..with you there. Thing is I have looked into arguments as to why it should be illegal, and I just have not been able to find anything very convincing at all. I mean a recent study that came out in the last year even indicates cannabis does not cause lung cancer like was previously thought. It's been proven its not as dangerous as alcohol so there is the argument....two legal drugs that are worse for you are legal so why should cannabis be a crime?

Then you can look into the reasons it was outlawed in the first place.......and if you can find in validity in the more or less racist reasons that were used let me know, but I found those to be pretty embarrassing to have as part of my history. But anyways I don't just dismiss opposing arguments I actually have looked into them and that is why I am of the opinion there really aren't a lot of valid reasons for it to be illegal.


First, marijuana is a psychotrope. A relatively benign one--but a psychotrope, nonetheless. We have a significant gradation of psychotropes. Some are banned, outright (e.g. LSD). Others, with medical value, are closely regulated (e.g. various classes of antidepressants). Still others, with little medical value, but potential for risk, are loosely regulated (e.g. ethanol and nicotine). Still others are subject only to control as food additives (e.g. caffeine). To my way of thinking, marijuana belongs in the third category--psychotropes with little medical value, but potential for risk. Certainly not banned outright, but subject to some level of regulatory control.

What about all the studies that prove that cannabis has many medicinal uses? and all the states that have legalized marijuana? don't worry though according to the government it already is in the category that indicates little medicinal use. As inaccurate as that is. Also I cannot find a definition to the word psychotrope anywhere so I am not sure what that even means. I am aware cannabis is a minor psychedelic and LSD is obviously a stronger one. Also how do they figure LSD, cannabis and anti-depressants would be in the same category one of those certainly does not fit.

Second, the primary method of consumption is inhalation. While I certainly don't see comparable risks between marijuana and tobacco, inhalants do present risks of respiratory disease. I certainly have patients with respiratory disorders who are marijuana smokers but not tobacco smokers. Whether marijuana use has been a cofactor in their disorders is not something that I can claim--but neither can I rule it out. I certainly tell respiratory patients who intend to continue use to switch to other delivery methods, and I make different decisions about drug therapies based on the potential for interactions.

Yes smoking cannabis can contribute to some respiratory problems.....but that is a risk some are willing to take, there are certainly safer methods though if one wants to totally avoid all respiratory risks.

Third, smoking--whether tobacco or marijuana--has the potential to be a common nuisance (in the legal sense). We have certainly acted to restrict the use of tobacco in public places, though we are not always clear on the reasons for that. If that is a matter of comfort and quiet enjoyment of bystanders, then marijuana is certainly more intrusive than tobacco. If it is a matter of public health, though, then tobacco is the greater offender.

Ok so why can't use of cannabis be restricted in public? alcohol use is even restricted in public.........most people like to smoke somewhere out of the way anyways, at least that I've seen. I mean there are solutions to this that do not involve cannabis being illegal.

Quote:
Also I don't know that the Hells Angels are in charge of the majority of marijuana...and in my state I am quite sure of it, a lot of 'dealers' get it from local growers or they are growing it themselves without anything to do with that. Though obviously with it being illegal sometimes rather harsh people have to be dealt with I imagine so it is good to be careful. But yeah there would be some issues with legalization such as what you describe, however those do not really indicate cannabis should have ever been made illegal.


The small scale growers are a drop in the bucket. The large scale farms, and the industrialized "greenhouse" operations are the source of the majority of marijuana on the market (in North America, at any rate--and we are the three largest producing countries), and the control of this by organized crime (particularly the Hell's Angels) is significant.

Alright well you could be right on that.......that is still not the same thing as The Hells Angels being in charge of all the marijuana, and small scale growers might be a drop in the bucket compared to some huge industrialized greenhouse provided the cannabis produced is good quality. But there are quite a few small scale growers and certainly plenty of people to buy from them.

Now there's a bit of a "chicked and the egg" argument here. If cannabis wasn't illegal, then organized crime wouldn't have gotten involved in it, and organized crime's involvement in it isn't necessarily a reason to continue its prohibition. But, by the same token, eliminating organized crime involvement is a spurious reason to legalize it. I suspect a lot of legal growers might find themselves intimidated out of production if that is seen interfering with established producers. If there is one thing that the Hell's Angels have proved themselves capable of doing is pushing out the competition.


I would argue the Hells Angels might not be very interested in marijuana if it became legal......but that is just based on when I was taking sociology and the topic of biker gangs came up. and the impression I get is they don't really want to be legitimately making a living so if marijuana was made legal they probably would end up with less influence over it. But I think it would just be better had it never been made illegal.


_________________
We won't go back.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

09 May 2012, 3:30 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
Well thanks for assuming I don't actually look into the opposing arguments to try and make sense of them. But I kind of have to disagree..with you there. Thing is I have looked into arguments as to why it should be illegal, and I just have not been able to find anything very convincing at all. I mean a recent study that came out in the last year even indicates cannabis does not cause lung cancer like was previously thought. It's been proven its not as dangerous as alcohol so there is the argument....two legal drugs that are worse for you are legal so why should cannabis be a crime?


If you're going to call things, "screwed up," (your words, not mine) you're going to invite speculation on the objectivity of your analysis.

And, of course, your analysis could equally suggest that rather than liberalizing marijuana, we should be looking at further restricting access to alcohol and tobacco!

Quote:
Then you can look into the reasons it was outlawed in the first place.......and if you can find in validity in the more or less racist reasons that were used let me know, but I found those to be pretty embarrassing to have as part of my history. But anyways I don't just dismiss opposing arguments I actually have looked into them and that is why I am of the opinion there really aren't a lot of valid reasons for it to be illegal.


There is value in the "mischief rule," to be sure. But the regulatory control of marijuana should be based on the merits of regulation today--not the lack of merits of prohibition yesterday. That fact that a law was based on a bad idea does not mean that the implementation of the law today is bad. (But I will certainly grant you that a bad idea certainly raises a presumption of bad law).

Quote:
What about all the studies that prove that cannabis has many medicinal uses? and all the states that have legalized marijuana? don't worry though according to the government it already is in the category that indicates little medicinal use. As inaccurate as that is. Also I cannot find a definition to the word psychotrope anywhere so I am not sure what that even means. I am aware cannabis is a minor psychedelic and LSD is obviously a stronger one. Also how do they figure LSD, cannabis and anti-depressants would be in the same category one of those certainly does not fit.


I'm a little torn about how to respond here.

In my medical opinion there are superior prescription and non-prescription drugs available for every symptom for which marijuana is claimed to be beneficial. But that being said, there are a lot of circumstances in which I seem marijuana presenting valuable combined effects. For example appetite stimulus and anti-anxiety effects are useful for patients undergoing chemotherapy. That's not to say that marijuana is the best choice, but I won't uncritically dismiss it as ineffective, either.

As for classification, pscyhotrope is another term for "psychoactive drug" which is any medicinal or non-medicinal agent that crosses the blood-brain barrier in order to act on the central nervous system. These drugs are then subclassified depending upon how they act upon the neurochemistry of the brain. LSD, different classes of anti-depressant and THC might work differently, on different neurotransmitters, but they all share the common property of interfering with existing neurochemistry.

Quote:
Yes smoking cannabis can contribute to some respiratory problems.....but that is a risk some are willing to take, there are certainly safer methods though if one wants to totally avoid all respiratory risks.


I agree with you.

But that does not mean that we are correct in the conclusion that this does not provide a rational basis on which to control marijuana cultivation, distribution and consumption.

Quote:
Ok so why can't use of cannabis be restricted in public? alcohol use is even restricted in public.........most people like to smoke somewhere out of the way anyways, at least that I've seen. I mean there are solutions to this that do not involve cannabis being illegal.


Again, we are dealing with a question of degree. Most legalization proponents that I know favour a loosely regulated environment--as I do. But there are certainly some who advocate a total elimination of controls of any kind. This is the trouble with the call to end prohibition--ending prohibition is all well and good, but with what do you propose to replace it?

Quote:
Alright well you could be right on that.......that is still not the same thing as The Hells Angels being in charge of all the marijuana, and small scale growers might be a drop in the bucket compared to some huge industrialized greenhouse provided the cannabis produced is good quality. But there are quite a few small scale growers and certainly plenty of people to buy from them.

I would argue the Hells Angels might not be very interested in marijuana if it became legal......but that is just based on when I was taking sociology and the topic of biker gangs came up. and the impression I get is they don't really want to be legitimately making a living so if marijuana was made legal they probably would end up with less influence over it. But I think it would just be better had it never been made illegal.


An interesting angle that I hadn't thought to consider. I don't really think of Hell's Angels as having romantic notions about the illegal nature of their businesses, but that might well be the case.


_________________
--James


slave
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Feb 2012
Age: 111
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: Dystopia Planetia

19 Jun 2012, 7:33 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Well thanks for assuming I don't actually look into the opposing arguments to try and make sense of them. But I kind of have to disagree..with you there. Thing is I have looked into arguments as to why it should be illegal, and I just have not been able to find anything very convincing at all. I mean a recent study that came out in the last year even indicates cannabis does not cause lung cancer like was previously thought. It's been proven its not as dangerous as alcohol so there is the argument....two legal drugs that are worse for you are legal so why should cannabis be a crime?


If you're going to call things, "screwed up," (your words, not mine) you're going to invite speculation on the objectivity of your analysis.

And, of course, your analysis could equally suggest that rather than liberalizing marijuana, we should be looking at further restricting access to alcohol and tobacco!

Quote:
Then you can look into the reasons it was outlawed in the first place.......and if you can find in validity in the more or less racist reasons that were used let me know, but I found those to be pretty embarrassing to have as part of my history. But anyways I don't just dismiss opposing arguments I actually have looked into them and that is why I am of the opinion there really aren't a lot of valid reasons for it to be illegal.


There is value in the "mischief rule," to be sure. But the regulatory control of marijuana should be based on the merits of regulation today--not the lack of merits of prohibition yesterday. That fact that a law was based on a bad idea does not mean that the implementation of the law today is bad. (But I will certainly grant you that a bad idea certainly raises a presumption of bad law).

Quote:
What about all the studies that prove that cannabis has many medicinal uses? and all the states that have legalized marijuana? don't worry though according to the government it already is in the category that indicates little medicinal use. As inaccurate as that is. Also I cannot find a definition to the word psychotrope anywhere so I am not sure what that even means. I am aware cannabis is a minor psychedelic and LSD is obviously a stronger one. Also how do they figure LSD, cannabis and anti-depressants would be in the same category one of those certainly does not fit.


I'm a little torn about how to respond here.

In my medical opinion there are superior prescription and non-prescription drugs available for every symptom for which marijuana is claimed to be beneficial. But that being said, there are a lot of circumstances in which I seem marijuana presenting valuable combined effects. For example appetite stimulus and anti-anxiety effects are useful for patients undergoing chemotherapy. That's not to say that marijuana is the best choice, but I won't uncritically dismiss it as ineffective, either.

As for classification, pscyhotrope is another term for "psychoactive drug" which is any medicinal or non-medicinal agent that crosses the blood-brain barrier in order to act on the central nervous system. These drugs are then subclassified depending upon how they act upon the neurochemistry of the brain. LSD, different classes of anti-depressant and THC might work differently, on different neurotransmitters, but they all share the common property of interfering with existing neurochemistry.

Quote:
Yes smoking cannabis can contribute to some respiratory problems.....but that is a risk some are willing to take, there are certainly safer methods though if one wants to totally avoid all respiratory risks.


I agree with you.

But that does not mean that we are correct in the conclusion that this does not provide a rational basis on which to control marijuana cultivation, distribution and consumption.

Quote:
Ok so why can't use of cannabis be restricted in public? alcohol use is even restricted in public.........most people like to smoke somewhere out of the way anyways, at least that I've seen. I mean there are solutions to this that do not involve cannabis being illegal.


Again, we are dealing with a question of degree. Most legalization proponents that I know favour a loosely regulated environment--as I do. But there are certainly some who advocate a total elimination of controls of any kind. This is the trouble with the call to end prohibition--ending prohibition is all well and good, but with what do you propose to replace it?

Quote:
Alright well you could be right on that.......that is still not the same thing as The Hells Angels being in charge of all the marijuana, and small scale growers might be a drop in the bucket compared to some huge industrialized greenhouse provided the cannabis produced is good quality. But there are quite a few small scale growers and certainly plenty of people to buy from them.

I would argue the Hells Angels might not be very interested in marijuana if it became legal......but that is just based on when I was taking sociology and the topic of biker gangs came up. and the impression I get is they don't really want to be legitimately making a living so if marijuana was made legal they probably would end up with less influence over it. But I think it would just be better had it never been made illegal.


An interesting angle that I hadn't thought to consider. I don't really think of Hell's Angels as having romantic notions about the illegal nature of their businesses, but that might well be the case.




A lawyer who says "in my medical opinion".....wtf?!?!?

Pls explain.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

19 Jun 2012, 9:22 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
Well thanks for assuming I don't actually look into the opposing arguments to try and make sense of them. But I kind of have to disagree..with you there. Thing is I have looked into arguments as to why it should be illegal, and I just have not been able to find anything very convincing at all. I mean a recent study that came out in the last year even indicates cannabis does not cause lung cancer like was previously thought. It's been proven its not as dangerous as alcohol so there is the argument....two legal drugs that are worse for you are legal so why should cannabis be a crime?


If you're going to call things, "screwed up," (your words, not mine) you're going to invite speculation on the objectivity of your analysis.

I didn't say it was a fact that it was screwed up, I was more indicating it was my opinion that some of the reasons are screwed up. I mean racism played a role in marijuana being made illegal, and well I find racism to be screwed up...and I don't see how saying so really dismisses 'rational' basis for opposing arguments.

And, of course, your analysis could equally suggest that rather than liberalizing marijuana, we should be looking at further restricting access to alcohol and tobacco!

I suppose, however I don't see why it should be illegal to use mind altering substances, just my personal opinion though...there is some logic in reasons people may be opposed to that, but I still tend to disagree.

Quote:
Then you can look into the reasons it was outlawed in the first place.......and if you can find in validity in the more or less racist reasons that were used let me know, but I found those to be pretty embarrassing to have as part of my history. But anyways I don't just dismiss opposing arguments I actually have looked into them and that is why I am of the opinion there really aren't a lot of valid reasons for it to be illegal.


There is value in the "mischief rule," to be sure. But the regulatory control of marijuana should be based on the merits of regulation today--not the lack of merits of prohibition yesterday. That fact that a law was based on a bad idea does not mean that the implementation of the law today is bad. (But I will certainly grant you that a bad idea certainly raises a presumption of bad law).

Well to me the fact the law was based on some bad ideas, and that there is not really any more valid reasons to continue the prohibition...says implementation of that law is bad.


Quote:
What about all the studies that prove that cannabis has many medicinal uses? and all the states that have legalized marijuana? don't worry though according to the government it already is in the category that indicates little medicinal use. As inaccurate as that is. Also I cannot find a definition to the word psychotrope anywhere so I am not sure what that even means. I am aware cannabis is a minor psychedelic and LSD is obviously a stronger one. Also how do they figure LSD, cannabis and anti-depressants would be in the same category one of those certainly does not fit.


I'm a little torn about how to respond here.

In my medical opinion there are superior prescription and non-prescription drugs available for every symptom for which marijuana is claimed to be beneficial. But that being said, there are a lot of circumstances in which I seem marijuana presenting valuable combined effects. For example appetite stimulus and anti-anxiety effects are useful for patients undergoing chemotherapy. That's not to say that marijuana is the best choice, but I won't uncritically dismiss it as ineffective, either.

like what? Also thus far cannabis seems to be the safest thing that helps with my anxiety, I could try and get a prescription for Xanax but I hear that's pretty addictive and likely to be more harmful than marijuana. So I think which drug works the best for someone depends on that individual and their particular symptoms...I don't think there is a one size fits all approach or that there is always a 'better' drug than cannabis for that individual.

As for classification, pscyhotrope is another term for "psychoactive drug" which is any medicinal or non-medicinal agent that crosses the blood-brain barrier in order to act on the central nervous system. These drugs are then subclassified depending upon how they act upon the neurochemistry of the brain. LSD, different classes of anti-depressant and THC might work differently, on different neurotransmitters, but they all share the common property of interfering with existing neurochemistry.

Yeah I suppose, though THC and LSD are both psychedelics while anti-depressants are not.

Quote:
Yes smoking cannabis can contribute to some respiratory problems.....but that is a risk some are willing to take, there are certainly safer methods though if one wants to totally avoid all respiratory risks.


I agree with you.

But that does not mean that we are correct in the conclusion that this does not provide a rational basis on which to control marijuana cultivation, distribution and consumption.

Quote:
Ok so why can't use of cannabis be restricted in public? alcohol use is even restricted in public.........most people like to smoke somewhere out of the way anyways, at least that I've seen. I mean there are solutions to this that do not involve cannabis being illegal.


Again, we are dealing with a question of degree. Most legalization proponents that I know favour a loosely regulated environment--as I do. But there are certainly some who advocate a total elimination of controls of any kind. This is the trouble with the call to end prohibition--ending prohibition is all well and good, but with what do you propose to replace it?

Quote:
Alright well you could be right on that.......that is still not the same thing as The Hells Angels being in charge of all the marijuana, and small scale growers might be a drop in the bucket compared to some huge industrialized greenhouse provided the cannabis produced is good quality. But there are quite a few small scale growers and certainly plenty of people to buy from them.

I would argue the Hells Angels might not be very interested in marijuana if it became legal......but that is just based on when I was taking sociology and the topic of biker gangs came up. and the impression I get is they don't really want to be legitimately making a living so if marijuana was made legal they probably would end up with less influence over it. But I think it would just be better had it never been made illegal.


An interesting angle that I hadn't thought to consider. I don't really think of Hell's Angels as having romantic notions about the illegal nature of their businesses, but that might well be the case.


Can't say I totally disagree with anymore, most of the rest makes sense...though Its possible I might prefer less control of marijuana production and distribution than you would, but I can see why people think it should be more regulated. Also, I certainly don't know quite how people in biker gangs think...but the impression I got learning about it in sociology was they have their brutal, illegal way of life and anything else goes against their way of life but that was just one...can't remember which one it was we discussed in that class nor am I sure that's something most have in common. But basically they were not joining it out of desperation but more for the brutal lifestyle...my assumption before was most would enter into things like that due to more desperate circumstances and not having much other choice.


_________________
We won't go back.


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Jun 2012, 9:32 pm

1. Marajuana is widely used and its use cannot be stopped.

2. It is not all that harmful. We allow cigarette smoking which is more harmful.

So why bother making it illegal?

Prohibition never works.

ruveyn



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

19 Jun 2012, 11:33 pm

Pot is illegal because if you can't pass the drug test you don't get the job.



Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 181
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

19 Jun 2012, 11:36 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Pot is illegal because if you can't pass the drug test you don't get the job.
That does not make any sense. Unless you are saying how marijuana still tests positive even if you have not smoked it for a while.


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


snapcap
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2011
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,328

20 Jun 2012, 12:25 am

Why do you need pot anyways? There are other things, like compressed air, cold medicine, your grandma's meds, banana peels, bath salts, fake pot.

WOW, people that want MJ legalized must REALLY be druggies. :wink:

If Acapulco red and purple haze and everything in between was legalized, how would we keep the jails so full, man?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCYquu5tqIU[/youtube]

Not enough.

I have a cousin who is a border patrol agent. He said that marijuana is like crack. True story.


_________________
*some atheist walks outside and picks up stick*

some atheist to stick: "You're like me!"


Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,577
Location: Seattle-ish

20 Jun 2012, 12:28 am

slave wrote:
A lawyer who says "in my medical opinion".....wtf?!?!?

Pls explain.


IIRC, Visa holds both a JD and an MD.


_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson


20 Jun 2012, 2:30 am

mcg wrote:
If weed were legal, corporations would put middle-class drug dealers out of business with their mass produced, logistically optimal weed.



Ummmm, (professional)drug dealers are NOT middle class! They are poor and desperate and looking to make easy money. Drug dealing is profitable; so much so that going from rags to riches is just too easy for society to allow.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

20 Jun 2012, 12:34 pm

Dox47 wrote:
slave wrote:
A lawyer who says "in my medical opinion".....wtf?!?!?

Pls explain.


IIRC, Visa holds both a JD and an MD.


Technically an LL.B. and an M.B., but otherwise, your recollection is correct.


_________________
--James


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

20 Jun 2012, 12:37 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Pot is illegal because if you can't pass the drug test you don't get the job.


If pot wasn't illegal it would not prevent people from getting jobs...because it would be legal.


_________________
We won't go back.