First  Prev  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  Next  Last
Should marijuana be legalized?
3440 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 3/14/12 , edited 3/14/12

Mangasurf wrote:


Syndicaidramon wrote:


Mangasurf
did you really just compare weed to those things you just listed...? I seriously laughed out loud.

And those "medical reasons" are complete bullshit lies. Nearly every single one of my buddies back home have medical cards that they paid 150$ dollars for and used little or fake injuries to get them. I have legitimately never met anyone who is actually suffering daily and benefits from smoking or consuming marijuana. Smoking marijuana increases appetite? Great excuse! oh lookie here!


Speaking from experience, I used to smoke marijuana and I used to have the mindset that it should be legalized. Thank God I don't anymore, because all it did for me was make me lazy as fuck and wasted my money and my time. Don't even try to argue with me that it doesn't make you unproductive, because it does.
The last thing I want to see now are more stoners running around dumb as fuck in today's society, which, keep in mind, is already fucked up. And I would not want my future kids to be able to have complete access of this drug.


And you think that your personal experience somehow makes you qualified to speak on the behalf of all people in the world?
Are you really that stupid?

I'm not gonna argue that it makes you unproductive, because it does. That's why you're not supposed to smoke it everyday. It's called moderation, something you obviously lacked.
Which is further proven by the fact that you actually think that if we legalized pot, everyone would walk around stoned all the time.

You have no one to blame but yourself for the time you've wasted getting stoned.
Alcohol is legal, but you don't go around being drunk all the time. It should be the same with weed. If you were too dumb to realize that, then that is your fault and no one else's.


Did I say I was generalizing all stoners? No. And who said I smoked every single day? I didn't. I smoked once or twice a week at the most with friends, but it did nothing good for me.

And yes, because liquor isn't a drug...

And moderation? I'm not sure I know anybody else who smoked in moderation and it's done nothing but cause problems for people i know. It's no good for society today. Just look at the person I quoted about 2 posts ago who argues my case a lot more convincing than myself.


If you smoked two times a week, that is too much. Any sensible human being should know that.
That's why you don't go out and get drunk in the middle of the week. Partying should be reserved for the weekends. And then only if you have nothing else you have ought to be doing instead.
Responisbilities before fun.
Just because you CAN get stoned at any time, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Again with the "I don't know anyone who..." argument.
Your personal experience does not equal the experience of everyone else.
Like me for instance. I know several current pot-smokers and ex-pot smokers. Some smoke in moderation, others smoke way too much. There's always gonna be people who use it differently, like with every other substance.

I tend to avoid reading the things written by DomFortress, since he's a lying, decieving hypocrite who will shamelessly twist the truth if it serves his cause.
However, I did read that post (skimmed the last part anyway), and that doesn't really tell me anything I didn't know. So it makes no difference.

And if you're trying to argue that alcohol is in any way better than marihuana, then... please. Enlighten me.
Because that sounds pretty ridiculous to me.
Also, I point you towards the comment made by BlaculaKuchuki back there. Maybe it will set you straight on your misguided opinions on Alcohol vs. Marihuana.
Posted 3/14/12

Mangasurf wrote:


JListCharlie wrote:

yo MangaSurf, which hemp shoes do you have?


sanuks



nice, how do you like em? I might get some of those. I have the nike dunk lows, apparently theres only 420 made per size, but i dont believe it
1056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/14/12
Yes.

Does marijuana have negative effects? To some extend, yes. But many things that have a lot more negative effects are legal so to use this as an argument against legalizing is uhum strange. (example: alcohol/cigarette)

Does marijuana have positive effects? Yes, in medical use, legalizing would decrease incarceration rate.

I have never smoked weed before, but I live in a country where smoking weed is legal.
Posted 3/14/12

Traiano wrote:

Yes.

Does marijuana have negative effects? To some extend, yes. But many things that have a lot more negative effects are legal so to use this as an argument against legalizing is uhum strange. (example: alcohol/cigarette)

Does marijuana have positive effects? Yes, in medical use, legalizing would decrease incarceration rate.

I have never smoked weed before, but I live in a country where smoking weed is legal.
No.

Because the "alcohol/cigarette" argument was actually established first by the pro-legalization as a justification in support for their argument. Kinda like what you're doing with your own political doublespeak.

There's legalizing medical marijuana, and then there's decriminalizing the production and possession of marijuana for legalizing recreational consumption of marijuana through moderation enforced by regulation. The former doesn't automatically justifies the latter due to the difference in purposes. And the proof is your own country's legislation on marijuana consumption, if you can just tell me where.
Posted 3/14/12

DomFortress wrote:

No.


Because the "alcohol/cigarette" argument was actually established first by the pro-legalization as a justification in support for their argument. Kinda like what you're doing with your own political doublespeak.

There's legalizing medical marijuana, and then there's decriminalizing the production and possession of marijuana for legalizing recreational consumption of marijuana through moderation enforced by regulation. The former doesn't automatically justifies the latter due to the difference in purposes. And the proof is your own country's legislation on marijuana consumption, if you can just tell me where.
Yes.

Alcohol and cigarettes being legalised demonstrates the moral standards of the laws. It makes it hypocritical for marijuana to be illegal. Hypocrisy is a detriment to a stable legal system.

1056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/14/12
Huh, sorry I don't understand your point :? To clarify my statement again: negative effects of marijuana as the argument against legalizing it is not a good one because many things are bad for us like alcohol, cigarette, chocolate, cake, coffee etc I don't see why we have to single marijuana out.

I agree they are 2 separate things and I should have been more clear. That's what I meant: legalizing medical marijuana ( as medical use). But also legalizing marijuana, where I live (The Netherlands), recreational usage of marijuana is decriminalized. Compared to the US we don't have as much problem with marijuana (like super high incarceration rate in the US, kids who have smoked weed in NL vs US etc.).

Thus from what I've seen so far I don't think legalizing marijuana will have any major negative effects, but instead it would solve problems like incarceration rate, which is a major problem in and of itself.

Hehe, my knowledge on this subject is obviously limited but I believe in speaking out my mind out there and be taught wrong than, keep my mouth shut and be ignorant. Go easy on me
Posted 3/15/12

wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

No.


Because the "alcohol/cigarette" argument was actually established first by the pro-legalization as a justification in support for their argument. Kinda like what you're doing with your own political doublespeak.

There's legalizing medical marijuana, and then there's decriminalizing the production and possession of marijuana for legalizing recreational consumption of marijuana through moderation enforced by regulation. The former doesn't automatically justifies the latter due to the difference in purposes. And the proof is your own country's legislation on marijuana consumption, if you can just tell me where.
Yes.

Alcohol and cigarettes being legalised demonstrates the moral standards of the laws. It makes it hypocritical for marijuana to be illegal. Hypocrisy is a detriment to a stable legal system.
That's only human laws, not the laws of nature. Decriminalizing recreational alcohol/cigarette consumption didn't prevent substance abuse, nor did the public's mental, emotional, and physical health made safer by those regulations. To used the same excuse arguing for the legalization of recreational marijuana consumption doesn't provide objective moral worth. An immoral human law is still an immoral human law, whenever it actually creates unnecessary harm and suffering.


Traiano wrote:

Huh, sorry I don't understand your point :? To clarify my statement again: negative effects of marijuana as the argument against legalizing it is not a good one because many things are bad for us like alcohol, cigarette, chocolate, cake, coffee etc I don't see why we have to single marijuana out.

I agree they are 2 separate things and I should have been more clear. That's what I meant: legalizing medical marijuana ( as medical use). But also legalizing marijuana, where I live (The Netherlands), recreational usage of marijuana is decriminalized. Compared to the US we don't have as much problem with marijuana (like super high incarceration rate in the US, kids who have smoked weed in NL vs US etc.).

Thus from what I've seen so far I don't think legalizing marijuana will have any major negative effects, but instead it would solve problems like incarceration rate, which is a major problem in and of itself.

Hehe, my knowledge on this subject is obviously limited but I believe in speaking out my mind out there and be taught wrong than, keep my mouth shut and be ignorant. Go easy on me
Which is why I didn't single out marijuana, when from the stance of objective morality, I personally discriminate marijuana consumption being just as harmful as consuming alcohol and smoking.

The Netherlands didn't decriminalize marijuana production and possession without limitation and regulation. According to the Netherlands' Opium Act, marijuana/cannabis is classified as "Schedule II/Soft Drug". And according to said laws:

Possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use has been decriminalized in Holland. The sale of cannabis is technically an offence under the Opium Act, but prosecutorial guidelines provide that proceedings will only be instituted in certain situations. An operator or owner of a coffee shop (which is not permitted to sell alcohol) will avoid prosecution if he/she meets the following criteria:

· no more than 5 grams per person may be sold in any one transaction;

· no hard drugs may be sold;

· drugs may not be advertised;

· the coffee shop must not cause any nuisance;

· no drugs can be sold to minors (under age 18), nor may minors enter the premises; and

· the municipality has not ordered the establishment closed.



It is common for municipalities to have a coffee shop policy to prevent or combat the nuisance sometimes associated with these establishments. For example, suspicion of selling hard drugs or locating a coffee shop near a school or in a residential district may result in closure. In April 1999, the “Damocles Bill” amended the Narcotics Act by expanding municipal powers regarding coffee shops and permitting local mayors to close such places if they contravene local coffee shop rules, even if no nuisance is being caused. As a result of strict enforcement and various administrative and judicial measures, the number of coffee shops decreased from nearly 1,200 in 1995 to 846 in November 1999.
Not only that the laws were very cleared on a minimal personal holding of marijuana at all time, the laws were strictly enforced on a city level. Thus overall marijuana consumption was actually lessen as a result. This wouldn't had fair well for the argument of decriminalizing marijuana consumption in order to boost government tax revenues, which was also the same argument for decriminalizing and regulating alcohol and cigarette in the US. But the reality is those tax revenues were later span on enforcing the said regulations, so it only broke even if not worst. Because now the government had to compete with DEA endorsed synthetic THC, which is a more profitable and addictive substance compared to natural cannabis.
1056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 3/15/12 , edited 3/15/12
To use alcohol and cigarette as examples: they are much worse than marijuana. They are on a different scale of bad. Not to mention other legal things like energy drink (Redbull etc), cake/cookies etc. are much worse for you than marijuana.

Effects of cannabis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Memory_and_learning
Long-term effects of alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol
Short-term effects of alcohol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_alcohol
Health effects of tabacco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco

Criminalizing of cannabis has much more negative effects (incarceration etc : which I see as a much more of the cause for unnecessary harm/suffering to use your words) than positive ones ( prevent short-term effects of using marijuana etc).
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

That's only human laws, not the laws of nature. Decriminalizing recreational alcohol/cigarette consumption didn't prevent substance abuse, nor did the public's mental, emotional, and physical health made safer by those regulations. To used the same excuse arguing for the legalization of recreational marijuana consumption doesn't provide objective moral worth. An immoral human law is still an immoral human law, whenever it actually creates unnecessary harm and suffering.

I'm quite aware of what you're saying. It's just that your interpretation of "objective morality" is fairly unclear. A stable legal system requires legislation that is consistent with others, and it's inconsistent to have marijuana a crime while alcohol and cigarettes remain legal. At this stage, despite the fact that I agree alcohol should not be part of our culture, it's only going to ignite a pandemonium if alcohol/cigarettes become criminalized. I forgot which state/country attempted to propose a new law against tobacco, but as far as I remember it did not work out.
Posted 3/15/12

Traiano wrote:

To use alcohol and cigarette as examples: they are much worse than marijuana. They are on a different scale of bad. Not to mention other legal things like energy drink (Redbull etc), cake/cookies etc. are much worse for you than marijuana.

Effects of cannabis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_cannabis#Memory_and_learning
Long-term effects of alcohol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_alcohol
Short-term effects of alcohol: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_alcohol
Health effects of tabacco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_tobacco

Criminalizing of cannabis has much more negative effects (incarceration etc : which I see as a much more of the cause for unnecessary harm/suffering to use your words) than positive ones ( prevent short-term effects of using marijuana etc).
Wikipedia? Is that honestly the best you can do as referencing a source?

As for arguing cannabis consumption can improve memory and learning, just how far are you willing to justify recreational usage for underage consumption? After all they are allowed to have energy drinks, cakes, and cookies.

That's the fallacy of demonizing other legal yet harmful substances while overvaluing marijuana: it works great as a marketing gimmick and white-washing propaganda, but nonetheless stupid when viewed holistically and objectively without bias.


lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

That's only human laws, not the laws of nature. Decriminalizing recreational alcohol/cigarette consumption didn't prevent substance abuse, nor did the public's mental, emotional, and physical health made safer by those regulations. To used the same excuse arguing for the legalization of recreational marijuana consumption doesn't provide objective moral worth. An immoral human law is still an immoral human law, whenever it actually creates unnecessary harm and suffering.

I'm quite aware of what you're saying. It's just that your interpretation of "objective morality" is fairly unclear. A stable legal system requires legislation that is consistent with others, and it's inconsistent to have marijuana a crime while alcohol and cigarettes remain legal. At this stage, despite the fact that I agree alcohol should not be part of our culture, it's only going to ignite a pandemonium if alcohol/cigarettes become criminalized. I forgot which state/country attempted to propose a new law against tobacco, but as far as I remember it did not work out.
I see nature itself as a system of dynamic quantum equilibrium through the mathematics mechanism of chaos theory, whereas the human legislation is anything but; it's as irrational and rigid as its conservative human counterpart. The only redeeming character is that unlike the even more ridiculously irrational and rigid monotheistic dogmas and superstitions, the secular laws are subject to amendment when they're proven to be immoral and unethical. Or in the case of big tobacco companies, new laws and deregulation can be made through lobbying when they claimed to be profitable. Whether or not there's public pandemonium is besides the point, since when did that ever made most people disobeyed the authority throughout history? Due to the evolutionary psychological discovery called confirmation bias.
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

I see nature itself as a system of dynamic quantum equilibrium through the mathematics mechanism of chaos theory, whereas the human legislation is anything but; it's as irrational and rigid as its conservative human counterpart. The only redeeming character is that unlike the even more ridiculously irrational and rigid monotheistic dogmas and superstitions, the secular laws are subject to amendment when they're proven to be immoral and unethical. Or in the case of big tobacco companies, new laws and deregulation can be made through lobbying when they claimed to be profitable. Whether or not there's public pandemonium is besides the point, since when did that ever made most people disobeyed the authority throughout history? Due to the evolutionary psychological discovery called confirmation bias.


The perspective you convey defies pragmatism. It's obligatory to view the subject of law as a pliant application of morality and aloof from your so-called objective morality. It's two separate systems. The current laws no matter how unscrupulous it may be need to warrant stability and consistency. In order to subjugate the bias you secure it is necessary for you to take a step back and look from a commodious perspective of this current topic. Law reflects current morals however is not a direct application of "objective morality". Currently laws dictate that alcohol and cigarettes are justified henceforth the urbane proximity with marijuana is demonstrating like I previously mentioned, hypocrisy. It's not something transient that alcohol and cigarettes are legalised, it is already engraved into the culture of our society. Hence your views on "objective morality" are merely an embellished corroboration to assuage your prejudice. I disagree.
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

I see nature itself as a system of dynamic quantum equilibrium through the mathematics mechanism of chaos theory, whereas the human legislation is anything but; it's as irrational and rigid as its conservative human counterpart. The only redeeming character is that unlike the even more ridiculously irrational and rigid monotheistic dogmas and superstitions, the secular laws are subject to amendment when they're proven to be immoral and unethical. Or in the case of big tobacco companies, new laws and deregulation can be made through lobbying when they claimed to be profitable. Whether or not there's public pandemonium is besides the point, since when did that ever made most people disobeyed the authority throughout history? Due to the evolutionary psychological discovery called confirmation bias.


The perspective you convey defies pragmatism. It's obligatory to view the subject of law as a pliant application of morality and aloof from your so-called objective morality. It's two separate systems. The current laws no matter how unscrupulous it may be need to warrant stability and consistency. In order to subjugate the bias you secure it is necessary for you to take a step back and look from a commodious perspective of this current topic. Law reflects current morals however is not a direct application of "objective morality". Currently laws dictate that alcohol and cigarettes are justified henceforth the urbane proximity with marijuana is demonstrating like I previously mentioned, hypocrisy. It's not something transient that alcohol and cigarettes are legalised, it is already engraved into the culture of our society. Hence your views on "objective morality" are merely an embellished corroboration to assuage your prejudice. I disagree.
Pragmatism? That irrational overconfidence in this so-called "common sense" of yours will only ensure your own downfall, when the objective truth is regardless of how righteous you feel about yourself simply following others during your own state of uncertainty. Especially when your prized pragmatism is actually just an overvalued sociological process called social conformity, not critical thinking.
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

Pragmatism? That irrational overconfidence in this so-called "common sense" of yours will only ensure your own downfall, when the objective truth is regardless of how righteous you feel about yourself simply following others during your own state of uncertainty. Especially when your prized pragmatism is actually just an overvalued sociological process called social conformity, not critical thinking.

Common sense? If there was any "common sense" brought up in this discussion, it was you, whom argues with the foundation of "objective morality". As a matter of fact, your stance is so unclear to the extent that I have no idea what your perspective essentially is. I've already stated that a legal system requires consistency, in other words I'm speaking from a pragmatic stance. You're speaking from a ridiculously unstable stance with the vanguard being your "morality". Who's being irrationally overconfident here? Certainly not me.
Posted 3/15/12

lIlIlIIlI wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

Pragmatism? That irrational overconfidence in this so-called "common sense" of yours will only ensure your own downfall, when the objective truth is regardless of how righteous you feel about yourself simply following others during your own state of uncertainty. Especially when your prized pragmatism is actually just an overvalued sociological process called social conformity, not critical thinking.

Common sense? If there was any "common sense" brought up in this discussion, it was you, whom argues with the foundation of "objective morality". As a matter of fact, your stance is so unclear to the extent that I have no idea what your perspective essentially is. I've already stated that a legal system requires consistency, in other words I'm speaking from a pragmatic stance. You're speaking from a ridiculously unstable stance with the vanguard being your "morality". Who's being irrationally overconfident here? Certainly not me.
Way to get overgeneralizing and contracted yourself with your own statement, you overconfident bigot. You just slap around your opinion as "factual", without yourself trying to understand the scientific disciplines of chaos theory and quantum mechanics. From a skeptic to a pragmatic sellout, I'm disappoint.
Posted 3/15/12

DomFortress wrote:

Way to get overgeneralizing and contracted yourself with your own statement, you overconfident bigot. You just slap around your opinion as "factual", without yourself trying to understand the scientific disciplines of chaos theory and quantum mechanics. From a skeptic to a pragmatic sellout, I'm disappoint.

I'm not slapping around my own opinion as factual, I'm merely presenting my stance as a pragmatist. I have no idea why you're calling me a sellout, but I simply thought it was strange that your stance was presented so vaguely. Also apologies about the quantum mechanics thing, I thought you were simply joking. May I remind you that the current topic is law, and that the chaos theory and quantum physics is unfortunately irrelevant to this subject. So far in this discussion, you haven't made a single credible point at all for anyone to consider. Please try again.
First  Prev  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  74  75  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.