Leaglize drugs - say what u want

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-06 16:10:31

To the extent that people can be uneducated about important issues and still be able, in fact be encouraged, to participate in the process of government, is a problem with democracy.

More so a problem with the uneducated within democracy. You should be arguing about the ?impossiblity? of having an educated society. Obviously direct democracy requires that all are educated quite well, at least on the issues they have to deal with.

If we really want to have a just form of representative democracy (assuming that you have to be educated to know how to vote- which is basically what you're saying), then all elected officals must be able to pass certain tests about the people they represent, and law in general.

Besides, a constitution can be changed if the majority wishes it. Law guarantees nothing.

Enforcablity is everything, it honestly doesn't matter if you're a majority or not. This is why I made the comment about society. The society ought to be able to respect their laws. I bet you don't know that the Cuban revolution was over some corrupt asshole changing their constitution, eh? And he was a minority.

Direct democracy, because it is raw majority rule, inherently lacks them. In the former, it is a flaw of execution; the latter, in design.

This is again, based on the assumption that people can't be educated about their own matters, and has hardly anything to do with the inherent design of direct democracy...

...in the former, however, raw propaganda is much more likely to have an effect, because since there are representatives, these representatives are the main source of information and action (though the media does play a role in information exchange, the politicans still decide, and will do what's in their political interests, even if it's bad for their constituents). In international matters (within direct democracy) this not the case, and people would share information accordingly, so bias becomes diluted. But since international issues within a direct democracy are highly rare (being that direct democracies are decentralized, and so on), I don't see such a problem.

The locals certainly know their local issues best. Still, direct democracy is if nothing else horribly inefficient. It could work locally, but even then it is not ideal.

I hate efficient governments. When you have an efficient government, it becomes difficult to predict what's going to happen next, and you can't counter act. Just wait until Jan. when the Bush admin has full control over the house and you'll see what I mean.

But since you want to bring this back to drugs, let's do it without losing the current discussion (ie, propaganda is easily spread within a republic / representative democracy).

The cannibas ban was due to a lot of propaganda (ie, the Reefer Madness Movement), and corporate entities who realized that there was direct competition in the growth of industrial cannibas. The people in power within a republic, are usually rich plutocrats, indeed, practically every US president was a millionare (if you take into account inflation, etc).

It would have never been banned had the majority of the population been allowed to decide what was best for themselves and our country, with actual facts. Rather than let a few people whose interests met with such a ban (ie, the textile, plastic and energy industries- all of which had direct connections with the politicans involved with the ban).

The only good thing about a republic, I'd say, is that you can brainwash the people so easily, that they eridicate any mention of a certain things in their history, such as the cannabis plant (despite the fact that this plant was such a pivotal product- being so valuable as to have mandated growth at certain times).

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-06 22:29:02

The fact still remains that Cannabis is still a mind-altering substance, and when you're high you make poor decisions, which endangers the safety of those around you.

As for growing hemp, I'm for legalizing it (and getting rid of that stupid post office and making those 1 million workers grow hemp for textiles). But you, Josh, want to be on both sides of the fence by claiming that hemp is harmless and everyone should grow it, but at the same time if it is grown improperly it will become pot (higher than hemp THC content).

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-06 23:27:59

The fact still remains that alcohol is a mind-altering substance, and when you're intoxicated you make poor decisions, which endangers the safety of those around you.

Now do you see how silly that is?

I honestly don't care about people toking up on it, but I do care about unnecessary regulations with regard to the growth of it. And I know that if the hemp variety was grown, it would have to be very highly regulated to prevent people from using it as a drug (more so than alcohol is since growing cannibas is so easy).

There are hemp proponents which wouldn't care about that, but I think this is very stupid. No compromises.

clark · 2003-01-07 10:46:42

Why do you need recreational drugs?
Why do you more types of recreational drugs?
What is the benefit to individuals and society by allowing greater use and/or access to more recreational drugs?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-07 14:42:50

I don't.

Many.

clark · 2003-01-07 14:47:42

Cute.

AltToWar · 2003-01-07 23:57:10

The fact still remains that Cannabis is still a mind-altering substance, and when you're high you make poor decisions, which endangers the safety of those around you.

Please back up this statement.

I've never seen anyone die because somecareless pot smoker had 3 bowls of cheerios.

THC users do not lose reaction time. When you drink alchohol, the more you drink, the longer it takes your brain to react and the longer it takes signals from the brain to reach muscles. This simply is not the case with THC.

AltToWar · 2003-01-08 00:02:48

What is the benefit to individuals and society by allowing greater use and/or access to more recreational drugs?

Are you sure that legalization will lead to greater use? The history of prohibition would lead us to belive otherwise. Drugs today are readily available. Those that desire them can and will find them.

The question is, should recreational drug use be a crime?

What is the cost to society for criminalization of recreational drug use. Do those costs warrent any damage caused by them?

clark · 2003-01-08 09:50:26

THC users do not lose reaction time.

Now back up your statement. The simple verifiable truth is that you do lose reation time when using marijuana- the only means to get THC. Science is not on your side on this one Alt.

THC affects spatial abilities and time sensing abilities- which directly relate to reaction speed and ability. How well do you think a pot head is going to drive when they have couch lock?

Are you sure that legalization will lead to greater use?

No, I am not sure. Hwever, I think legalization of drugs within the American culture would simply be devastating. Our culture is that of consuming- of advertising brainwashing. Now you want to throw psycho-active drugs into the mix? I'm sure the quality would be supreme, as competing business strive to make their customers higher and higer- to build brand loyalty.

Look at the culture of death that developed around cigareetes- marketing to children as a business plan- now you suggest that we would somehow know better this time around by legalizing drugs?

Alcohol- how many lioves does that destroy every year? How many billions do we spend on just trying to stop drunk driving? Now we have to consider how we will manage drug use by the public at large- the cost, not only in dollars, but in lives.

Yes, I will agree that marijuana is probably the least harmful- but it is still harmful. Use of psycho-active substances can lead to stunted coping techniques or more insedious methods to escape reality- "ah, life sucks, so lets get high". You may say that this wouldn't be the case for most users- well you are guessing. No one knows what the overall effect of legalization versus keeping it criminalized would be- no numbers exsist to adquetly assess addiction rates- but addiction does occur, even with marijuana.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-08 15:22:41

Yes, alcohol poses a threat, but because society has had 4000 years to adjust to it, most people are responsible with their drinking. It is the handful of irresponsible individuals that abuse it that give the bad name.

The same DOESN'T go for marijuana use. I agree with clark; the point of drugs is to get f___ed-up, whereas most drinkers' sole intent isn't to get swanked.

AltToWar · 2003-01-08 16:46:35

In a NHTSA study, the only statistically significant outcome associated with marijuana was that drivers drove more slowly.

A Simulator Study of the Combined Effects of Alcohol and Marijuana on Driving Behavior-Phase II, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation (1983).

A number of driving simulator studies have shown that marijuana does not produce the kind of psycho-motor impairment evident with modest doses of alcohol.

Kv'alseth, T.O., "Effects of Marijuana on Human Reaction Time and Motor Control," Perceptual and Motor Skills 45:935-39 (1977); Hansteen, R.W. et al, "Effects of Cannabis and Alcohol on Automobile Driving and Psychomotor Tracking," Annals of New York Academy of Sciences 282:240-56 (1976); Moskowitz, H. et al, "Marijuana: Effects on Simulated Driving Performance," Accident Analysis and Prevention 8:45-50 (1976); Moskowitz, H. et al, "Visual Search Behavior While Viewing Driving Scenes Under the Influence of Alcohol and Marijuana," Human Factors 18:417-31 (1976).

Dose-related impairment was observed in drivers' ability to maintain steady lateral position. However, even with the highest dose of THC, impairment was relatively minor - comparable to that with blood-alcohol concentrations of between .03 and .07 % and many legal medications. Drivers under the influence of marijuana also tended to decrease their speed and approach other cars more cautiously.

Robbe, H. and O'Hanlon, J., Marijuana and Actual Driving Performance, Washington, DC: Department of Transportation (1993).

When you come across statistical studies that imply that THC does increase traffic accident rates, if you read them you will see that they do not have control groups or placebo. In other words they involve bad science.

clark · 2003-01-08 16:52:43

Kudos to you Alt, but my point was that THC DOES affect reaction time. So the driver drives slower- how do they react to sudden changes or a child darting out in front of the car? It also affects people differently, so further tests would have to be done to establish what a "safe" amount would be, if there is such a thing.

Reaction time is impaired, and that is what needs to be honestly addressed.

George H · 2003-01-08 17:06:33

Yes, alcohol poses a threat, but because society has had 4000 years to adjust to it, most people are responsible with their drinking. It is the handful of irresponsible individuals that abuse it that give the bad name.
The same DOESN'T go for marijuana use. I agree with clark; the point of drugs is to get f___ed-up, whereas most drinkers' sole intent isn't to get swanked.

Lol! Cal sure is good for comedy relief. Hey Cal: Ever heard of ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS? Or MOTHER'S AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING? Or DESIGNATED DRIVERS? You know, for all those people who get swanked on BOOZE? Booze as in ALCOHOL?You're full of baloney kiddo. Why don't you THINK before you TYPE. You might not look so f___ing stupid that way. But I suppose you're just parroting your daddy or preacher, or both.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 17:22:55

Now George, try to be civil a bit. You don't want yer posts being deleted by Adrian do ya? It's embarrassing. I've had my posts on other boards be deleted. Not good at all.

clark, reaction time may be impared, but I think the point AltToWar was making was that cannibas drivers wouldn't be as bad as alcoholics. So where's the harm in alcoholic-type regulation for cannibas? Make it legal, but regulate it, and perhaps have fines for people who do risky activities while high (cannibas isn't as bad as alcohol for driving, so to be fair, you shouldn't get mandatory jail time, etc). It's only logical.

clark · 2003-01-08 17:28:57

So cannibas isn't as bad as other legal narcotics so we might as well add canabis to the list of acceptable narcotics that we accept that others use.

Why allow for the extra risk? So someone can get high? Why create more work for overworked cops? So someone can get high? What have we gained?

Would you support a $1000 dollar fine for every 1/8th of cannibas if you are caught in possesion? What if that is the only penalty? Would that be fair?

Is outright legalization the best solution, or is simple decrimilization with economic fines a better option?

Everyone speeds, but all ya get is a ticket when caught....

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-08 17:53:32

Why allow for the extra risk?

Estimates suggest that 20 million Americans all smoke pot. Ever been to Canada? Most of Canada's population has smoked pot at one time or another, and many smoke it currently.

Check out www.pot-tv.com, lots of info about how utterly popular the drug is.

So someone can get high?

Sure, so people can enjoy themselves without having to deal with economic hardships brought on by the so called War on Drugs. Alcohol is legal, and is undoubtedly more dangerous.

Why create more work for overworked cops?

More work? Where's the logic? Cops are overworked as it is due to the whole, you know, fact that they spend more of their effort trying to get rid of cannibas than anything. They would have less work to do.

So someone can get high?

I really wonder if pro-prohibitionists used the same freaking argument when they banned alcohol, ?So that people can get drunk??

What have we gained?

1) We have freed up the police force.
2) We have given people more freedom to do things which they enjoy but don't harm others.
3) We have freed many people who are in jail for non-violent drug related crimes (ie, people who got arrested for having a couple of joints and got mandatory 15 year sentences).
4) We have opened up opportunities for the agriculture commmunity to grow hemp.

Would you support a $1000 dollar fine for every 1/8th of cannibas if you are caught in possesion?

That's one hell of a fine for something so simple. Getting pulled over with cannibas should be no more than a speeding ticket, up to a certain ammount. Over that ammount, you must prove that you have a license to sell, and so on. If you can't prove that, you obviously get in trouble, just like alcohol or any other regulated thing.

But even then, it's not mandatory jail time. The time must fit the crime, damnit.

Is outright legalization the best solution, or is simple decrimilization with economic fines a better option?

Both, to an extent regulation would be necessary. As for all things. It's legal up to a certain point, maybe a half a pound or whatever. After that you need a license to grow.

You know what's funny? The DEA uses the argument that, ?more and more people go to marijuana rehabilitation facilities than ever before,? to justify getting more funding and so on to ban marijuana. The funny part is that they neglect to mention that people who are confronted with jail time or rehabilitation are obviously going to chose the latter!!

Even funnier is that marijuana is less addictive than cigarettes (which are as addictive as heroine). So these rehabilitation facilities are farces.

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-10 14:40:58

Quote
What have we gained?

1) We have freed up the police force.
2) We have given people more freedom to do things which they enjoy but don't harm others.
3) We have freed many people who are in jail for non-violent drug related crimes (ie, people who got arrested for having a couple of joints and got mandatory 15 year sentences).
4) We have opened up opportunities for the agriculture commmunity to grow hemp.

Damn right. And now for some disagreement...

But since you want to bring this back to drugs, let's do it without losing the current discussion (ie, propaganda is easily spread within a republic / representative democracy).
The cannibas ban was due to a lot of propaganda (ie, the Reefer Madness Movement), and corporate entities who realized that there was direct competition in the growth of industrial cannibas. The people in power within a republic, are usually rich plutocrats, indeed, practically every US president was a millionare (if you take into account inflation, etc).

Drug prohibition, like alcohol prohibition before it, was the result of propaganda. Now, let's assume we have direct democracy and therefore no rich plutocrats. How is the general population less susceptible to propaganda than these "plutocrats?" I know alot of people who vote based solely on campaign ads, it's really a sad state of affairs. The less informed someone is, the more susceptible they are to propaganda. There are a hell of a lot of ignorant people out there.

It would have never been banned had the majority of the population been allowed to decide what was best for themselves and our country, with actual facts.

If they actually examined those facts. Most people don't. They decide what they think is right, remember only the facts that support it, and proceed from there. People that vote straight party tickets are particularly prone to this, I've found.

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-10 14:55:14

If they actually examined those facts. Most people don't. They decide what they think is right, remember only the facts that support it, and proceed from there.

Indeed. Everything is fed to Americans, like the next reality TV show. The more ?black and white? an issue is, the easier it is for us to consume (this isn't necessarily true to just Americans, it's just true from an advertizing / propaganda point of view).

They don't have the opportunity to be fed the facts, because blatant whoreism is allowed within the news media. First, if voting was mandatory, they would at least have more incentive to know about issues. And second, if the FCC equal time clause was reinacted (which it isn't- in fact, they're trying to pass a law that will allow huge corporate media entities to buy each other out, effectively creating only one news media source), we wouldn't have half the problems we do, because the people would be informed whether they like it or not.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-10 15:11:45

Yes, alcohol poses a threat, but because society has had 4000 years to adjust to it, most people are responsible with their drinking. It is the handful of irresponsible individuals that abuse it that give the bad name.
The same DOESN'T go for marijuana use. I agree with clark; the point of drugs is to get f_ing stupid that way. But I suppose you're just parroting your daddy or preacher, or both.

Full of Baloney... kiddo? Sure, everyone gets drunk at some point in their life (just like many people will get high), but only a small part of the population does their drinking to get swanked. MADD and AA are there to support and deter that minority. And what's wrong with listening to what you parents say? My dad's a former drug addict and alcoholic, thank you, and all he has to say is that it's some pretty bad stuff. I would look even more "f___ing stupid" if I didn't trust the advice of someone who's been there before.

Note:
bologna- n. a large, lightly smoked sausage, usually made of beef, veal, and pork

Have a great weekend, George!

Cobra Commander · 2003-01-10 15:12:16

If they actually examined those facts. Most people don't. They decide what they think is right, remember only the facts that support it, and proceed from there.
Indeed. Everything is fed to Americans, like the next reality TV show. The more ?black and white? an issue is, the easier it is for us to consume (this isn't necessarily true to just Americans, it's just true from an advertizing / propaganda point of view).
...if the FCC equal time clause was reinacted (which it isn't- in fact, they're trying to pass a law that will allow huge corporate media entities to buy each other out, effectively creating only one news media source), we wouldn't have half the problems we do, because the people would be informed whether they like it or not.

It seems we're finding a surprisingly large expanse of common ground here.

Of course, even if the public was well informed and actually gave that information an objective evaluation I'd be opposed to mandatory voting. Unless a "none of the above" option was available, a majority for which would result in a requirement for new elections with new candidates.

Nah, not even then. If someone doesn't want their voice to be heard, who are we to make them speak up for themselves.

soph · 2003-01-10 15:28:36

Caltech, the average american drinks. you think people who drink, including me (im no alcoholic, but i drink occasionally), drink because we like how beer tastes?

the simpsons is actually a brilliant plot. its the average american family (2 1/2 kids: 2 kids+baby, average worker, alcoholic, springfield, there are like 15 springfields in the US). Its no coincidence that homer is an alcoholic.

CalTech2010 · 2003-01-10 16:06:06

you think people who drink, including me (im no alcoholic, but i drink occasionally), drink because we like how beer tastes?

Perhaps you drink Mad Dog 20-20 just for the buzz, but a Heineken is NOT chuggable.

soph · 2003-01-10 16:27:11

Actually, i prefer bud and corona.

both are plenty chuggable. like i said, people dont like beer for the taste. you could get that taste without the alcohol (i.e. by cooking the alcohol out), but people LIKE the buzz. are you that naive?

Josh Cryer · 2003-01-10 16:53:45

soph, heh, you're underage. I wouldn't approve of you drinking regardless.When I drink (I haven't drank in awhile, though) taste does play a role. If it's not sweet and cold, I won't drink it. Alcohol or no.

soph · 2003-01-10 16:58:29

I was talking about the average person. And i wasnt saying that taste doesnt play a role, but youre going to tell me you drink alcohol for the taste?

If i wanted, i could drink as much as i want, i only drink when im at parties. even then, im pretty well controlled.

did you know a kid can smoke a cigarette, but he cant buy one? i find it rather ironic. Smoking is disgusting, though.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2003-01-06 16:10:31

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#127 2003-01-06 22:29:02

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#128 2003-01-06 23:27:59

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#129 2003-01-07 10:46:42

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#130 2003-01-07 14:42:50

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#131 2003-01-07 14:47:42

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#132 2003-01-07 23:57:10

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#133 2003-01-08 00:02:48

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#134 2003-01-08 09:50:26

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#135 2003-01-08 15:22:41

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#136 2003-01-08 16:46:35

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#137 2003-01-08 16:52:43

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#138 2003-01-08 17:06:33

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#139 2003-01-08 17:22:55

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#140 2003-01-08 17:28:57

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#141 2003-01-08 17:53:32

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#142 2003-01-10 14:40:58

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#143 2003-01-10 14:55:14

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#144 2003-01-10 15:11:45

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#145 2003-01-10 15:12:16

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#146 2003-01-10 15:28:36

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#147 2003-01-10 16:06:06

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#148 2003-01-10 16:27:11

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#149 2003-01-10 16:53:45

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

#150 2003-01-10 16:58:29

Re: Leaglize drugs - say what u want

Board footer