|
|
lIlIlIIlI wrote:
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. I disagree. When it's quite obvious to me that your bias for consistency within the human laws as a pragmatic sellout, intentionally ignored how human technology can change objective reality and often produced unintentional consequences as a result. Therefore the human laws need to be constantly updated, in order for human legislation to catch up with an ever changing reality. But as a skeptic I hold no such unrealistic ideology, while your irrational demand for consistency is preventing democratic progress and social change, by yourself dictating democratic debate.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote:
I disagree. When it's quite obvious to me that your bias for consistency within the human laws as a pragmatic sellout, intentionally ignored how human technology can change objective reality and often produced unintentional consequences as a result. Therefore the human laws need to be constantly updated, in order for human legislation to catch up with an ever changing reality. But as a skeptic I hold no such unrealistic ideology, while your irrational demand for consistency is preventing democratic progress and social change, by yourself dictating democratic debate.
I know you disagree. When it's quite obvious that your bias against marijuana is preventing critical reasoning, it's redundant to point it out. I'm being respectful here, presenting my stance as a pragmatist. You finally stated your stance as a skeptic, so thank you. However that makes your foundations even more unclear and unstable, as you were the one preaching objective morality in the first place. The fact that you insult pragmatism with connotative terms such as "sellout", implies that you don't agree with pragmatic thinking. Which makes no sense at all. In fact, this new post you've made is contradicting the other posts you've made. "Human laws need to be constantly updated" (which is my stance), and you imply that it is an unrealistic ideology. How is it unrealistic? It's simply the nature of the legal system. You're making no sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
lIlIlIIlI wrote:
DomFortress wrote:
I disagree. When it's quite obvious to me that your bias for consistency within the human laws as a pragmatic sellout, intentionally ignored how human technology can change objective reality and often produced unintentional consequences as a result. Therefore the human laws need to be constantly updated, in order for human legislation to catch up with an ever changing reality. But as a skeptic I hold no such unrealistic ideology, while your irrational demand for consistency is preventing democratic progress and social change, by yourself dictating democratic debate.
I know you disagree. When it's quite obvious that your bias against marijuana is preventing critical reasoning, it's redundant to point it out. I'm being respectful here, presenting my stance as a pragmatist. You finally stated your stance as a skeptic, so thank you. However that makes your foundations even more unclear and unstable, as you were the one preaching objective morality in the first place. The fact that you insult pragmatism with connotative terms such as "sellout", implies that you don't agree with pragmatic thinking. Which makes no sense at all. In fact, this new post you've made is contradicting the other posts you've made. "Human laws need to be constantly updated" (which is my stance), and you imply that it is an unrealistic ideology. How is it unrealistic? It's simply the nature of the legal system. You're making no sense whatsoever. I call you a sellout to pragmatism, because you would rather back off from your stance on your ideology due to your fear of "ignite a pandemonium". Don't flatter yourself do even consider that you can possibly be a pragmatist.
And just what exactly is my own bias as a skeptic regarding marijuana here? Now stop being a pragmatic sellout and study, you're making pragmatism look bad with your baseless entitlement claims.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote:
I call you a sellout to pragmatism, because you would rather back off from your stance on your ideology due to your fear of "ignite a pandemonium". Don't flatter yourself do even consider that you can possibly be a pragmatist.
And just what exactly is my own bias as a skeptic regarding marijuana here? Now stop being a pragmatic sellout and study, you're making pragmatism look bad with your baseless entitlement claims.
You can phrase it however you want. "Fear of pandemonium". It's essentially impractical to cause pandemonium by putting a law against an already engraved cultural practice. This also highlights the standards of our current culture, which makes it inconsistent to have marijuana a crime. Which in essence, is only part of my premise. I've noticed that you've been focusing on attacking my stance as a pragmatist, but do you realise you don't even have a stance yourself? Your arguments are inconsistent, which makes me believe that you are a sellout to irrationality.
I never claimed any "entitlements". You're fabricating random ideas off the top of your head in your posts. It makes your argument look weak. In fact it's obvious that you're trying to digress this discussion from the current point that your stance makes no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to achieve, essentially? A conclusion? A "win"? Do you consider it embarrassing to admit that your stance is irrational? I honestly have no idea what your intentions are if you can't even hold a discussion without straying from the main point.
|
|
|
lIlIlIIlI wrote:
DomFortress wrote:
I call you a sellout to pragmatism, because you would rather back off from your stance on your ideology due to your fear of "ignite a pandemonium". Don't flatter yourself do even consider that you can possibly be a pragmatist.
And just what exactly is my own bias as a skeptic regarding marijuana here? Now stop being a pragmatic sellout and study, you're making pragmatism look bad with your baseless entitlement claims.
You can phrase it however you want. "Fear of pandemonium". It's essentially impractical to cause pandemonium by putting a law against an already engraved cultural practice. This also highlights the standards of our current culture, which makes it inconsistent to have marijuana a crime. Which in essence, is only part of my premise. I've noticed that you've been focusing on attacking my stance as a pragmatist, but do you realise you don't even have a stance yourself? Your arguments are inconsistent, which makes me believe that you are a sellout to irrationality.
I never claimed any "entitlements". You're fabricating random ideas off the top of your head in your posts. It makes your argument look weak. In fact it's obvious that you're trying to digress this discussion from the current point that your stance makes no sense whatsoever. What are you trying to achieve, essentially? A conclusion? A "win"? Do you consider it embarrassing to admit that your stance is irrational? I honestly have no idea what your intentions are if you can't even hold a discussion without straying from the main point.
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide You didn't even bother to read through my latest stance on marijuana through the hyperlink I provided in my last post, and here you once again making baseless entitlement claims without yourself referring to the information I gave you. All the while you're basing your "pragmatic" stance on the historically inconsistent and geologically diverse human culture? You're not even acknowledging the objective reality as a pragmatist ought to be.
Finally, if you're just too lazy to click on the hyperlink, here's my stance. LemonyPanda wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
LemonyPanda wrote:
this is my opinion on marijuana. Honestly, I think in small doses, marijuana is fine, just like alcohol. Take everything in moderation, and don't abuse it, just like how you shouldn't abuse other LEGAL substances like alcohol, fast food, or even gaming/internet addictions. There are MANY people who have been smoking marijuana for YEARS and there has been little to no damage done to their body whatsoever.
But even if it did do damage to your body, who are we to tell full grown adults what they can or can't do? In the end its all free choice and whatever you has its own consequences, you should research on it and make your own choices to decide whether or not to take up on marijuana smoking. Your contradicting moral claim in the form of "shouldn't" statement, and an amoral stance on free choice, doesn't make your opinion convincing at all.
Moreover, when the sociological process for addictive behavior in humans only requires an "if, then maybe" situation of uncertainty in reward, in order to frame an abusive and manipulative pattern within the human brain due to the result of dopamine level going over the roof. The moment when someone believes that he might feel better if he consumes marijuana, that mindset would triggered his addictive behavior, because now he's perceiving the situation in the "if, then maybe" framework. No free-choice required.
Also, "free-choice" is really an illusion. Especially when considering the reality of how "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" can be done through the process of " framing", while OTOH humans aren't really in control of their own decision-making process. Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the drivers seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.
Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
---- from "Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? "  I disagree, when you didn't identify just exactly what and how I've gone "complete tangent". Therefore you're making a baseless claim without factual evidence to prove it.
z3i2o_d3p7h wrote:
Well anything these days can be considered an addiction whether its marijuana, heroin, food, alcohol, or shopping. But when i say physically addictive..withdrawal and tolerance. Yah there is a physical tolerance with marijuana, but you dont see a consistent marijuana smoker shaking in his bed and sweating from withdrawal when they don't have their fix. While xanax is a legal prescription that is probably a lot stronger than alcohol and its withdrawal effects can cause death. All im trying to say is theres no logic in making marijuana illegal, when there are other legal substances that are a lot more dangerous that should be illegal. I just dont think anyone should get in trouble for possessing marijuana. Like why should someone not be able to get a job just because they smoke marijuana? I'd say, let the smokers smoke. When you address my reply to your comment, learn to use the quote function in order to establish coherence, if you're not stone enough to care less. That being said:
1)Behavior addiction can be more dangerous to individuals over the long run, because it prevents them from making sound decisions. How do drugs work in the brain to produce pleasure?
Most drugs of abuse directly or indirectly target the brain's reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter present in regions of the brain that regulate movement, emotion, cognition, motivation, and feelings of pleasure. The overstimulation of this system, which rewards our natural behaviors, produces the euphoric effects sought by people who abuse drugs and teaches them to repeat the behavior.( citation)Marijuana is the odd drug out. To the early researchers, it did not look like it should be addictive. Nevertheless, for some people, it is. Recently, a group of Italian researchers succeeded in demonstrating that THC releases dopamine along the reward pathway, like all other drugs of abuse. Some of the mystery of cannabis had been resolved by the end of the 1990s, after researchers had demonstrated that marijuana definitely increased dopamine activity in the ventral tegmental area. Some of the effects of pot are produced the old-fashioned way after all--through alterations along the limbic reward pathway.( citation) I saw Robin Williams recently talk about how he thought he was much funnier when he was doing cocaine, when he had that issue, than now. So perhaps more dopamine is related to more creativity. Dopamine, I think, changes our signal-to-noise ratio. That is, how accurate we are in finding patterns. If it's too low, you're more likely to make too many Type II errors. You miss the real patterns. You don't want to be too skeptical. If you're too skeptical, you'll miss the really interesting good ideas. Just right, you're creative, and yet you don't fall for too much baloney. Too high and maybe you see patterns everywhere. Every time somebody looks at you, you think people are staring at you. You think people are talking about you. And if you go too far on that, that's just simply labeled as madness. It's a distinction perhaps we might make between two Nobel laureates, Richard Feynman and John Nash. One sees maybe just the right number of patterns to win a Nobel Prize. The other one also, but maybe too many patterns. And we then call that schizophrenia.
---- from " Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception"
2)Just because there are legalized dangerous substances, that's no excuse for legalizing other less dangerous substances. Two wrongs don't make a right, to believe otherwise is a logic fallacy.
3)This is about legalizing marijuana consumption for recreation purpose, not private possession.You'll need a separate business license to grow and possess large amount of marijuana other than individuals consumption. Get with the program.
4)THC can remain within an individual's body for a long time. Since all businesses won't risk the consequence of hiring workers who can't make sound decision, They'll fire them in order to protect their own bottom-line. In the world of amoral business ethic, people are expendable, when the corporations are arbitrary " legal persons". That means they have every rights to reject workers that will cause them to loose profits. How Long Can Marijuana Be Detected?
Some THC metabolites have an elimination half-life of 20 hours. However, some are stored in body fat and have a elimination half-life of 10 to 13 days. Most researchers agree that urine tests for marijuana can detect the presence of the drug in the body for up to 13 days.
However, there is anecdotal evidence that the length of time that marijuana remains in the body is affected by how often the person smokes, how much he smokes and how long he has been smoking. Regular smokers have reported positive drug test results after 45 days since last use and heavy smokers have reported positive tests 90 days after quitting.( citation) Syndicaidramon wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
Syndicaidramon wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide squirrel3d wrote:
(Since I posted it in a thread that is closed, I'll post it here )
squirrel3d wrote:
It should not be legalized and I don't wanna hear it from you stoners or you supporters who are thinking of smoking the shit.
Don't give me the excuse that it's natural. Well Tobacco is natural. Poison is natural.
And I can go down the list of all the natural things on this earth that is dangerious and poisonus for the human body.
While I'm at it, may as well link this from my YouTube page. A little video I did last week....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRCdahppuG4
Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.
What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.
Drug related crimes would drop significantly
What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.
And before you assume anything, no I don't smoke. 1)That's legalization for medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana. There's a difference.
2)It's historically proven that legalization of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol didn't eliminate said substance abuses, but neither did it stop the trades of black market bootlegged goods of said substances. Furthermore, organized criminal drug trade can still out compete government regulated program through exploitation and cost-cutting within the supply chain.
3)When money is in fact made of debt, the government and the public as a whole have no money to begin with.
1) Of course.
2) Legalization does not eliminate substance abuse, that is true. Nor does it remove the black market entirely.
However, when you look at countries like Netherlands, where all substance is legal, drug related crimes are far lower than in countries where most of these substances are illegal. Like in the US. Which is the same case as was with the mafia and the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's US. Though surely you already know that.
And while the black market is not gone, even for the things that are legal, it's still dramaticly reduced.
Because as far as I know, the vast majority of people buy their booze and cigarettes in the stores, not in the back alleys.
3) True. But that is a thing that varies from country to country. 1)That makes all the difference, when you didn't provide sufficient justification with categorical reasoning, on why marijuana as a medicine should be used for recreational purpose. As in to "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also : a means of refreshment or diversion : hobby"( citation). Unless these recreational drug users aren't healthy, when the fact is they are mentally sick, because they can't refresh themselves without their dependence on psychoactive drug.
2)Crime rate on illegal drug use dropped because the human laws normalized drug dependency. Just like how Japanese rape crime is low because its business laws normalizes rape, so could legalization of psychoactive drug dependency normalize the surrendering of human dignity for profit. Just ask Islam with the legalization of slavery, and the Western colonists with the " Opium War".
Also, there's an overlap of reduced crime rate in the Netherlands due to legalized free abortion.
3)Doesn't matter, considering how the Norges Bank being Norway's central bank is a privatized for-profit organization, just like the US Federal Reserves. The fact that it serves to adjust the interest rate just like how the US central bank does, means that it operates on the same exponential growth function just like every other banks does. Which means all fiat currencies throughout the world will suffer from hyperinflation due to compounding.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote:
You didn't even bother to read through my latest stance on marijuana through the hyperlink I provided in my last post, and here you once again making baseless entitlement claims without yourself referring to the information I gave you. All the while you're basing your "pragmatic" stance on the historically inconsistent and geologically diverse human culture? You're not even acknowledging the objective reality as a pragmatist ought to be.
Finally, if you're just too lazy to click on the hyperlink, here's my stance. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide LemonyPanda wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
LemonyPanda wrote:
this is my opinion on marijuana. Honestly, I think in small doses, marijuana is fine, just like alcohol. Take everything in moderation, and don't abuse it, just like how you shouldn't abuse other LEGAL substances like alcohol, fast food, or even gaming/internet addictions. There are MANY people who have been smoking marijuana for YEARS and there has been little to no damage done to their body whatsoever.
But even if it did do damage to your body, who are we to tell full grown adults what they can or can't do? In the end its all free choice and whatever you has its own consequences, you should research on it and make your own choices to decide whether or not to take up on marijuana smoking. Your contradicting moral claim in the form of "shouldn't" statement, and an amoral stance on free choice, doesn't make your opinion convincing at all.
Moreover, when the sociological process for addictive behavior in humans only requires an "if, then maybe" situation of uncertainty in reward, in order to frame an abusive and manipulative pattern within the human brain due to the result of dopamine level going over the roof. The moment when someone believes that he might feel better if he consumes marijuana, that mindset would triggered his addictive behavior, because now he's perceiving the situation in the "if, then maybe" framework. No free-choice required.
Also, "free-choice" is really an illusion. Especially when considering the reality of how "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" can be done through the process of " framing", while OTOH humans aren't really in control of their own decision-making process. Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the drivers seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.
Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
---- from "Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? " I disagree, when you didn't identify just exactly what and how I've gone "complete tangent". Therefore you're making a baseless claim without factual evidence to prove it.
z3i2o_d3p7h wrote:
Well anything these days can be considered an addiction whether its marijuana, heroin, food, alcohol, or shopping. But when i say physically addictive..withdrawal and tolerance. Yah there is a physical tolerance with marijuana, but you dont see a consistent marijuana smoker shaking in his bed and sweating from withdrawal when they don't have their fix. While xanax is a legal prescription that is probably a lot stronger than alcohol and its withdrawal effects can cause death. All im trying to say is theres no logic in making marijuana illegal, when there are other legal substances that are a lot more dangerous that should be illegal. I just dont think anyone should get in trouble for possessing marijuana. Like why should someone not be able to get a job just because they smoke marijuana? I'd say, let the smokers smoke. When you address my reply to your comment, learn to use the quote function in order to establish coherence, if you're not stone enough to care less. That being said:
1)Behavior addiction can be more dangerous to individuals over the long run, because it prevents them from making sound decisions. How do drugs work in the brain to produce pleasure?
Most drugs of abuse directly or indirectly target the brain's reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter present in regions of the brain that regulate movement, emotion, cognition, motivation, and feelings of pleasure. The overstimulation of this system, which rewards our natural behaviors, produces the euphoric effects sought by people who abuse drugs and teaches them to repeat the behavior.( citation)Marijuana is the odd drug out. To the early researchers, it did not look like it should be addictive. Nevertheless, for some people, it is. Recently, a group of Italian researchers succeeded in demonstrating that THC releases dopamine along the reward pathway, like all other drugs of abuse. Some of the mystery of cannabis had been resolved by the end of the 1990s, after researchers had demonstrated that marijuana definitely increased dopamine activity in the ventral tegmental area. Some of the effects of pot are produced the old-fashioned way after all--through alterations along the limbic reward pathway.( citation) I saw Robin Williams recently talk about how he thought he was much funnier when he was doing cocaine, when he had that issue, than now. So perhaps more dopamine is related to more creativity. Dopamine, I think, changes our signal-to-noise ratio. That is, how accurate we are in finding patterns. If it's too low, you're more likely to make too many Type II errors. You miss the real patterns. You don't want to be too skeptical. If you're too skeptical, you'll miss the really interesting good ideas. Just right, you're creative, and yet you don't fall for too much baloney. Too high and maybe you see patterns everywhere. Every time somebody looks at you, you think people are staring at you. You think people are talking about you. And if you go too far on that, that's just simply labeled as madness. It's a distinction perhaps we might make between two Nobel laureates, Richard Feynman and John Nash. One sees maybe just the right number of patterns to win a Nobel Prize. The other one also, but maybe too many patterns. And we then call that schizophrenia.
---- from " Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception"
2)Just because there are legalized dangerous substances, that's no excuse for legalizing other less dangerous substances. Two wrongs don't make a right, to believe otherwise is a logic fallacy.
3)This is about legalizing marijuana consumption for recreation purpose, not private possession.You'll need a separate business license to grow and possess large amount of marijuana other than individuals consumption. Get with the program.
4)THC can remain within an individual's body for a long time. Since all businesses won't risk the consequence of hiring workers who can't make sound decision, They'll fire them in order to protect their own bottom-line. In the world of amoral business ethic, people are expendable, when the corporations are arbitrary " legal persons". That means they have every rights to reject workers that will cause them to loose profits. How Long Can Marijuana Be Detected?
Some THC metabolites have an elimination half-life of 20 hours. However, some are stored in body fat and have a elimination half-life of 10 to 13 days. Most researchers agree that urine tests for marijuana can detect the presence of the drug in the body for up to 13 days.
However, there is anecdotal evidence that the length of time that marijuana remains in the body is affected by how often the person smokes, how much he smokes and how long he has been smoking. Regular smokers have reported positive drug test results after 45 days since last use and heavy smokers have reported positive tests 90 days after quitting.( citation) Syndicaidramon wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
Syndicaidramon wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide squirrel3d wrote:
(Since I posted it in a thread that is closed, I'll post it here )
squirrel3d wrote:
It should not be legalized and I don't wanna hear it from you stoners or you supporters who are thinking of smoking the shit.
Don't give me the excuse that it's natural. Well Tobacco is natural. Poison is natural.
And I can go down the list of all the natural things on this earth that is dangerious and poisonus for the human body.
While I'm at it, may as well link this from my YouTube page. A little video I did last week....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRCdahppuG4
Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.
What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.
Drug related crimes would drop significantly
What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.
And before you assume anything, no I don't smoke. 1)That's legalization for medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana. There's a difference.
2)It's historically proven that legalization of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol didn't eliminate said substance abuses, but neither did it stop the trades of black market bootlegged goods of said substances. Furthermore, organized criminal drug trade can still out compete government regulated program through exploitation and cost-cutting within the supply chain.
3)When money is in fact made of debt, the government and the public as a whole have no money to begin with.
1) Of course.
2) Legalization does not eliminate substance abuse, that is true. Nor does it remove the black market entirely.
However, when you look at countries like Netherlands, where all substance is legal, drug related crimes are far lower than in countries where most of these substances are illegal. Like in the US. Which is the same case as was with the mafia and the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's US. Though surely you already know that.
And while the black market is not gone, even for the things that are legal, it's still dramaticly reduced.
Because as far as I know, the vast majority of people buy their booze and cigarettes in the stores, not in the back alleys.
3) True. But that is a thing that varies from country to country. 1)That makes all the difference, when you didn't provide sufficient justification with categorical reasoning, on why marijuana as a medicine should be used for recreational purpose. As in to "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also : a means of refreshment or diversion : hobby"( citation). Unless these recreational drug users aren't healthy, when the fact is they are mentally sick, because they can't refresh themselves without their dependence on psychoactive drug.
2)Crime rate on illegal drug use dropped because the human laws normalized drug dependency. Just like how Japanese rape crime is low because its business laws normalizes rape, so could legalization of psychoactive drug dependency normalize the surrendering of human dignity for profit. Just ask Islam with the legalization of slavery, and the Western colonists with the " Opium War".
Also, there's an overlap of reduced crime rate in the Netherlands due to legalized free abortion.
3)Doesn't matter, considering how the Norges Bank being Norway's central bank is a privatized for-profit organization, just like the US Federal Reserves. The fact that it serves to adjust the interest rate just like how the US central bank does, means that it operates on the same exponential growth function just like every other banks does. Which means all fiat currencies throughout the world will suffer from hyperinflation due to compounding.
I read it. It conveyed your views that marijuana is counterproductive. I perfectly understand that it's counterproductive. Where I'm getting at is that you're not making your stance clear, as in the apparent "moral objectivity" you base your foundations on. You state that marijuana is counterproductive hence should remain illegal, and you imply that alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal also. Still it doesn't make anything clear. Why? Because we have no idea what your beliefs are. Are you against anything that is counterproductive or unhealthy to be legalised? Including gambling, gaming, or junk food? What are your standards? Previously you implied that you were a skeptic against "unrealistic" thinking, but being a skeptic is contradictory to supporting the idea of an "objective morality". That's why I've been asking you to make it clear of what exactly this "objective morality" you speak of is, rather than posing circumlocutory tactics to divert from this puzzle (that you can only answer).
The stance you insult, pragmatism, is simply a stance based on practicality. You stated that pragmatic thinking is "unrealistic", when it's in fact the most realistic thinking there is. (look below for your statement)
When it's quite obvious to me that your bias for consistency within the human laws as a pragmatic sellout, intentionally ignored how human technology can change objective reality and often produced unintentional consequences as a result. Therefore the human laws need to be constantly updated, in order for human legislation to catch up with an ever changing reality. But as a skeptic I hold no such unrealistic ideology, while your irrational demand for consistency is preventing democratic progress and social change, by yourself dictating democratic debate. 
|
|
|
lIlIlIIlI wrote:
DomFortress wrote:
You didn't even bother to read through my latest stance on marijuana through the hyperlink I provided in my last post, and here you once again making baseless entitlement claims without yourself referring to the information I gave you. All the while you're basing your "pragmatic" stance on the historically inconsistent and geologically diverse human culture? You're not even acknowledging the objective reality as a pragmatist ought to be.
Finally, if you're just too lazy to click on the hyperlink, here's my stance. Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide LemonyPanda wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
LemonyPanda wrote:
this is my opinion on marijuana. Honestly, I think in small doses, marijuana is fine, just like alcohol. Take everything in moderation, and don't abuse it, just like how you shouldn't abuse other LEGAL substances like alcohol, fast food, or even gaming/internet addictions. There are MANY people who have been smoking marijuana for YEARS and there has been little to no damage done to their body whatsoever.
But even if it did do damage to your body, who are we to tell full grown adults what they can or can't do? In the end its all free choice and whatever you has its own consequences, you should research on it and make your own choices to decide whether or not to take up on marijuana smoking. Your contradicting moral claim in the form of "shouldn't" statement, and an amoral stance on free choice, doesn't make your opinion convincing at all.
Moreover, when the sociological process for addictive behavior in humans only requires an "if, then maybe" situation of uncertainty in reward, in order to frame an abusive and manipulative pattern within the human brain due to the result of dopamine level going over the roof. The moment when someone believes that he might feel better if he consumes marijuana, that mindset would triggered his addictive behavior, because now he's perceiving the situation in the "if, then maybe" framework. No free-choice required.
Also, "free-choice" is really an illusion. Especially when considering the reality of how "choice architecture" and "manufactured consent" can be done through the process of " framing", while OTOH humans aren't really in control of their own decision-making process. Now think about what this means. We wake up in the morning and we feel we make decisions. We wake up in the morning and we open the closet and we feel that we decide what to wear. And we open the refrigerator and we feel that we decide what to eat. What this is actually saying is that much of these decisions are not residing within us. They are residing in the person who is designing that form. When you walk into the DMV, the person who designed the form will have a huge influence on what you'll end up doing. Now it's also very hard to intuit these results. Think about it for yourself. How many of you believe that if you went to renew your license tomorrow, and you went to the DMV, and you would encounter one of these forms, that it would actually change your own behavior? Very, very hard to think that you will influence us. We can say, "Oh, these funny Europeans, of course it would influence them." But when it comes to us, we have such a feeling that we are at the drivers seat, we have such a feeling that we are in control, and we are making the decision, that it's very hard to even accept the idea that we actually have an illusion of making a decision, rather than an actual decision.
Now, you might say, "These are decisions we don't care about." In fact, by definition, these are decisions about something that will happen to us after we die. How could we care about something less than something that happens after we die? So a standard economist, someone who believes in rationality, would say, "You know what? The cost of lifting the pencil and marking a V is higher than the possible benefit of the decision, so that's why we get this effect." But, in fact, it's not because it's easy. It's not because it's trivial. It's not because we don't care. It's the opposite. It's because we care. It's difficult and it's complex. And it's so complex that we don't know what to do. And because we have no idea what to do we just pick whatever it was that was chosen for us.
---- from "Dan Ariely asks, Are we in control of our own decisions? " I disagree, when you didn't identify just exactly what and how I've gone "complete tangent". Therefore you're making a baseless claim without factual evidence to prove it.
z3i2o_d3p7h wrote:
Well anything these days can be considered an addiction whether its marijuana, heroin, food, alcohol, or shopping. But when i say physically addictive..withdrawal and tolerance. Yah there is a physical tolerance with marijuana, but you dont see a consistent marijuana smoker shaking in his bed and sweating from withdrawal when they don't have their fix. While xanax is a legal prescription that is probably a lot stronger than alcohol and its withdrawal effects can cause death. All im trying to say is theres no logic in making marijuana illegal, when there are other legal substances that are a lot more dangerous that should be illegal. I just dont think anyone should get in trouble for possessing marijuana. Like why should someone not be able to get a job just because they smoke marijuana? I'd say, let the smokers smoke. When you address my reply to your comment, learn to use the quote function in order to establish coherence, if you're not stone enough to care less. That being said:
1)Behavior addiction can be more dangerous to individuals over the long run, because it prevents them from making sound decisions. How do drugs work in the brain to produce pleasure?
Most drugs of abuse directly or indirectly target the brain's reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter present in regions of the brain that regulate movement, emotion, cognition, motivation, and feelings of pleasure. The overstimulation of this system, which rewards our natural behaviors, produces the euphoric effects sought by people who abuse drugs and teaches them to repeat the behavior.( citation)Marijuana is the odd drug out. To the early researchers, it did not look like it should be addictive. Nevertheless, for some people, it is. Recently, a group of Italian researchers succeeded in demonstrating that THC releases dopamine along the reward pathway, like all other drugs of abuse. Some of the mystery of cannabis had been resolved by the end of the 1990s, after researchers had demonstrated that marijuana definitely increased dopamine activity in the ventral tegmental area. Some of the effects of pot are produced the old-fashioned way after all--through alterations along the limbic reward pathway.( citation) I saw Robin Williams recently talk about how he thought he was much funnier when he was doing cocaine, when he had that issue, than now. So perhaps more dopamine is related to more creativity. Dopamine, I think, changes our signal-to-noise ratio. That is, how accurate we are in finding patterns. If it's too low, you're more likely to make too many Type II errors. You miss the real patterns. You don't want to be too skeptical. If you're too skeptical, you'll miss the really interesting good ideas. Just right, you're creative, and yet you don't fall for too much baloney. Too high and maybe you see patterns everywhere. Every time somebody looks at you, you think people are staring at you. You think people are talking about you. And if you go too far on that, that's just simply labeled as madness. It's a distinction perhaps we might make between two Nobel laureates, Richard Feynman and John Nash. One sees maybe just the right number of patterns to win a Nobel Prize. The other one also, but maybe too many patterns. And we then call that schizophrenia.
---- from " Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception"
2)Just because there are legalized dangerous substances, that's no excuse for legalizing other less dangerous substances. Two wrongs don't make a right, to believe otherwise is a logic fallacy.
3)This is about legalizing marijuana consumption for recreation purpose, not private possession.You'll need a separate business license to grow and possess large amount of marijuana other than individuals consumption. Get with the program.
4)THC can remain within an individual's body for a long time. Since all businesses won't risk the consequence of hiring workers who can't make sound decision, They'll fire them in order to protect their own bottom-line. In the world of amoral business ethic, people are expendable, when the corporations are arbitrary " legal persons". That means they have every rights to reject workers that will cause them to loose profits. How Long Can Marijuana Be Detected?
Some THC metabolites have an elimination half-life of 20 hours. However, some are stored in body fat and have a elimination half-life of 10 to 13 days. Most researchers agree that urine tests for marijuana can detect the presence of the drug in the body for up to 13 days.
However, there is anecdotal evidence that the length of time that marijuana remains in the body is affected by how often the person smokes, how much he smokes and how long he has been smoking. Regular smokers have reported positive drug test results after 45 days since last use and heavy smokers have reported positive tests 90 days after quitting.( citation) Syndicaidramon wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide DomFortress wrote:
Syndicaidramon wrote:
Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide squirrel3d wrote:
(Since I posted it in a thread that is closed, I'll post it here )
squirrel3d wrote:
It should not be legalized and I don't wanna hear it from you stoners or you supporters who are thinking of smoking the shit.
Don't give me the excuse that it's natural. Well Tobacco is natural. Poison is natural.
And I can go down the list of all the natural things on this earth that is dangerious and poisonus for the human body.
While I'm at it, may as well link this from my YouTube page. A little video I did last week....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRCdahppuG4
Okay, and what about the fact that it's a medical substance as well?
Much in the same way as Ritalin.
What about the fact that it would take the market away from the drug dealers?
The fact that thousands of people in the US alone would not get jailtime and criminal records because of the use/selling of a substance that is less dangerous than what is already legal, and is smoked in FAR lesser amount than tobacco.
Drug related crimes would drop significantly
What about the financial gains it would bring? Not only would there be no more of the millions spent on combating the drug (which is a hopeless battle anyway), but it would also mean that the money used to buy it would go to the goverment and not the drug-lords.
And before you assume anything, no I don't smoke. 1)That's legalization for medical marijuana, not recreational marijuana. There's a difference.
2)It's historically proven that legalization of dangerous substances like tobacco and alcohol didn't eliminate said substance abuses, but neither did it stop the trades of black market bootlegged goods of said substances. Furthermore, organized criminal drug trade can still out compete government regulated program through exploitation and cost-cutting within the supply chain.
3)When money is in fact made of debt, the government and the public as a whole have no money to begin with.
1) Of course.
2) Legalization does not eliminate substance abuse, that is true. Nor does it remove the black market entirely.
However, when you look at countries like Netherlands, where all substance is legal, drug related crimes are far lower than in countries where most of these substances are illegal. Like in the US. Which is the same case as was with the mafia and the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's US. Though surely you already know that.
And while the black market is not gone, even for the things that are legal, it's still dramaticly reduced.
Because as far as I know, the vast majority of people buy their booze and cigarettes in the stores, not in the back alleys.
3) True. But that is a thing that varies from country to country. 1)That makes all the difference, when you didn't provide sufficient justification with categorical reasoning, on why marijuana as a medicine should be used for recreational purpose. As in to "refreshment of strength and spirits after work; also : a means of refreshment or diversion : hobby"( citation). Unless these recreational drug users aren't healthy, when the fact is they are mentally sick, because they can't refresh themselves without their dependence on psychoactive drug.
2)Crime rate on illegal drug use dropped because the human laws normalized drug dependency. Just like how Japanese rape crime is low because its business laws normalizes rape, so could legalization of psychoactive drug dependency normalize the surrendering of human dignity for profit. Just ask Islam with the legalization of slavery, and the Western colonists with the " Opium War".
Also, there's an overlap of reduced crime rate in the Netherlands due to legalized free abortion.
3)Doesn't matter, considering how the Norges Bank being Norway's central bank is a privatized for-profit organization, just like the US Federal Reserves. The fact that it serves to adjust the interest rate just like how the US central bank does, means that it operates on the same exponential growth function just like every other banks does. Which means all fiat currencies throughout the world will suffer from hyperinflation due to compounding.
I read it. It conveyed your views that marijuana is counterproductive. I perfectly understand that it's counterproductive. Where I'm getting at is that you're not making your stance clear, as in the apparent "moral objectivity" you base your foundations on. You state that marijuana is counterproductive hence should remain illegal, and you imply that alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal also. Still it doesn't make anything clear. Why? Because we have no idea what your beliefs are. Are you against anything that is counterproductive or unhealthy to be legalised? Including gambling, gaming, or junk food? What are your standards? Previously you implied that you were a skeptic against "unrealistic" thinking, but being a skeptic is contradictory to supporting the idea of an "objective morality". That's why I've been asking you to make it clear of what exactly this "objective morality" you speak of is, rather than posing circumlocutory tactics to divert from this puzzle (that you can only answer).
The stance you insult, pragmatism, is simply a stance based on practicality. You stated that pragmatic thinking is "unrealistic", when it's in fact the most realistic thinking there is. (look below for your statement)
When it's quite obvious to me that your bias for consistency within the human laws as a pragmatic sellout, intentionally ignored how human technology can change objective reality and often produced unintentional consequences as a result. Therefore the human laws need to be constantly updated, in order for human legislation to catch up with an ever changing reality. But as a skeptic I hold no such unrealistic ideology, while your irrational demand for consistency is preventing democratic progress and social change, by yourself dictating democratic debate.Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide I don't share "your bias for consistency within the human laws", when I see it as an unrealistic ideology. You idiot.
Also, my own standards as a recreational fitness trainer isn't for everyone. My own scientific understanding as a skeptic is beyond the realm of commonsense. Nonetheless they are irrelevant when it comes to legalization of recreational marijuana consumption, other than what I've already submitted for reference regarding marijuana consumption only. So you can stop derailing the topic with your red herrings fallacy.
Furthermore, I was criticizing you not sticking with your gun as a self-proclaimed pragmatist. That's why I called you a sellout on pragmatic practicality towards empirical knowledge.
Finally, skepticism is rather simple: "don't believe in anything, question everything". Because correlation isn't necessary causation.
|
|
|
DomFortress wrote:
I don't share "your bias for consistency within the human laws", when I see it as an unrealistic ideology. You idiot.
Also, my own standards as a recreational fitness trainer isn't for everyone. My own scientific understanding as a skeptic is beyond the realm of commonsense. Nonetheless they are irrelevant when it comes to legalization of recreational marijuana consumption, other than what I've already submitted for reference regarding marijuana consumption only. So you can stop derailing the topic with your red herrings fallacy.
Furthermore, I was criticizing you not sticking with your gun as a self-proclaimed pragmatist. That's why I called you a sellout on pragmatic practicality towards empirical knowledge.
Finally, skepticism is rather simple: "don't believe in anything, question everything". Because correlation isn't necessary causation.
I'm not being "biased". Consistency is a necessity in the legal system. It's in fact you, who is being biased, for putting a blind-eye to this fact. If you want to portray your post with valuable meaning, you should at least explain "why" consistency is not required in the legal system instead of blurting out conjectures. In fact it's demonstrating your ambivalence to simply throw such irrational statements without any reasoning. Who on earth would want a legal system without inconsistency, aside from yourself? I think it's you who's narcissistic.
As for telling me to "stop derailing the topic", thank you for your concern. However if you weren't aware, I was the one encouraging you to stay on topic. Because you still haven't answered the mystery that will solve all confusion. Let me copy-and-paste it again:
I read it. It conveyed your views that marijuana is counterproductive. I perfectly understand that it's counterproductive. Where I'm getting at is that you're not making your stance clear, as in the apparent "moral objectivity" you base your foundations on. You state that marijuana is counterproductive hence should remain illegal, and you imply that alcohol and cigarettes should be illegal also. Still it doesn't make anything clear. Why? Because we have no idea what your beliefs are. Are you against anything that is counterproductive or unhealthy to be legalised? Including gambling, gaming, or junk food? What are your standards?
By the way, simply saying that "it's out of the realm of commonsense" is equivalent to implying that your opinion is useless. If you encourage posts of epistemic value, you should avoid the hypocrisy and present your views properly yourself.
|
|
|
--Anyway, I'm dropping this topic. You win, Dommy.
|
4370 cr points
Send Message:  
 Offline
|
In my mind If alcohol is legal pot should be legal.
If alcohol is illegal then pot should be illegal.
Why have one drug that impairs judgement be legal and one be illegal. ??????
they both do the same thing.
Except pot doesn't cause people to kill each other . |
136 cr points
Send Message: 18 / M / Antigua
Offline
|
Other than being limited to medical purpose, I will say no and will always say never. As a student and living in a Caribbean country were Rastafarian beliefs are strong, I have seen how marijuana promote laziness, failure in school and how it has ruin life of persons(but friends and other).
|
13321 cr points
Send Message: 29 / M / Silent Hill
Offline
|
Add me if you openly use medicinal marijuana :-) I sure do (legally by state laws of course) and can thank it for introducing me to so many interesting people from all walks of life including industry reps in the anime world to entertainment celebs, convention attendees, old teachers, neighbors, health care professionals, long time friends who always did it but never mentioned it, etc.
Why not legalize it to see how it goes, it would easily help any state's negative financial situation. Plus the government can do anything they want and put an end to it if it fails. Can't knock until you rock it!
|
2016 cr points
Send Message: 22 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
|
crazycrazysasuke
Why have one drug that impairs judgement be legal and one be illegal. ??????
they both do the same thing.
Except for the fact that pot DOESN'T impair judgement, and gives a completely different buzz than alcohol.
They are not the same even the slightest.
|
4370 cr points
Send Message:
Offline
|
Syndicaidramon wrote:
crazycrazysasuke
Why have one drug that impairs judgement be legal and one be illegal. ??????
they both do the same thing.
Except for the fact that pot DOESN'T impair judgement, and gives a completely different buzz than alcohol.
They are not the same even the slightest.
Dude pot impairs judgement. I would know. It just makes you want to go get a pizza are something fun when normally you wouldn't want one. while alcohol make you violent.
|
2016 cr points
Send Message: 22 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
|
crazycrazysasuke wrote:
Syndicaidramon wrote:
crazycrazysasuke
Why have one drug that impairs judgement be legal and one be illegal. ??????
they both do the same thing.
Except for the fact that pot DOESN'T impair judgement, and gives a completely different buzz than alcohol.
They are not the same even the slightest.
Dude pot impairs judgement. I would know. It just makes you want to go get a pizza are something fun when normally you wouldn't want one. while alcohol make you violent.
What you're describing is the munchies. It is not the same as impaired judgement.
|
Follow us on Google+ 
