[LANMaster]

I am not opposed to strict access to medical marijuana by prescription only. But opening up this can of worms by putting it on the shelf of your local 7-11 is absolute insanity.
Just because liquor is legal does not make it a good thing for MJ to be legal.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Stoner

What's your point?
You merely listed a common medicinal drug that is abused for recreational purposes.
Many drugs do have a medicinal background.

My point is that we are already a drug culture. My main point was that there is a big difference between users and abusers. You have a couple of beers a month; I used to drink, at minimum, 12 a day, frequently more (more often than not, as a matter of fact). You are a user; I am abuser.

therein lies the difference.

Depends on what they are using and why.

No, it doesn't. An addict will get high no matter what the cost, be it friends, family, jail, health, death. Doesn't matter. We're wired differently. The only way an addict is going to get better is by themselves; not through interventions, court orders, what have you. If you force an addict into a 6 month clinic, they are going to come out the other end dry as a bone and needing a fix badly.

For alcohol, the relapse rate is something like 98% for the first year alone. That is pretty damn high; stretch those figures out over a 10 year, a 20 year period, and I doubt you'll see them drop.

And that's just alcohol. Lord only knows what it is for cigarettes, which are considered to be more addictive both physically and psychologically, than heroin.

Again, two key points; we are already a drug culture, albeit a state sponsored one, and addicts will always abuse whatever the hell they can get their hands on.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Stoner

This was addressed in the pot thread that was closed.
And this is one of the reasons this forum has become boring.........the constant referral to the same issues over and over when an appropriate response was originally given and no rebuttal returned.
Not just the pot thread, but many of the threads in civ debate...........wait 6 months and post again, wait 6 months again and post the same challenge.

Hell, I've shown one member several times that bin Laden admitted to planning the 911 attack and sure enough......with in the last week or so, the same claim was made that bin Laden was innocent..........by the same person!....true, he probably has memory problems
But it grows old.

no contest there.

But you'd have to take that up with the OP...........

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by valis

My point is that we are already a drug culture. My main point was that there is a big difference between users and abusers. You have a couple of beers a month; I used to drink, at minimum, 12 a day, frequently more (more often than not, as a matter of fact). You are a user; I am abuser.

therein lies the difference.




No, it doesn't. An addict will get high no matter what the cost, be it friends, family, jail, health, death. Doesn't matter. We're wired differently. The only way an addict is going to get better is by themselves; not through interventions, court orders, what have you. If you force an addict into a 6 month clinic, they are going to come out the other end dry as a bone and needing a fix badly.

For alcohol, the relapse rate is something like 98% for the first year alone. That is pretty damn high; stretch those figures out over a 10 year, a 20 year period, and I doubt you'll see them drop.

And that's just alcohol. Lord only knows what it is for cigarettes, which are considered to be more addictive both physically and psychologically, than heroin.

Again, two key points; we are already a drug culture, albeit a state sponsored one, and addicts will always abuse whatever the hell they can get their hands on.

My point is that we are already a drug culture.

That point was made a long time ago and I haven't seen any one disagree.

My main point was that there is a big difference between users and abusers.

Of course there is.

You have a couple of beers a month; I used to drink, at minimum, 12 a day, frequently more (more often than not, as a matter of fact). You are a user; I am abuser.

Now replace 'beer' with 'cocaine' and make the same argument.......now it's obviously a fallacy.

therein lies the difference.

The 'difference ' is you originally picked a drug used for a non medicinal purpose ...had a low impact at a low dose.
A flawed argument because it was structured for low impact.
Abuse is misuse, addiction is advanced abuse showing an influence toward repetitive usage.

An addict will get high no matter what the cost, be it friends, family, jail, health, death. Doesn't matter. We're wired differently.

You are addressing addiction. I wasn't. I addressed the act of abusing a drug. Addiction isn't necessary for abuse to occur but it is a more common relationship.

For instance, if I could drink a 12 pack of beer, that would be abuse, but I wouldn't be an addict unless I kept at it to the point I had an addiction to alcohol..

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by valis

no contest there.

But you'd have to take that up with the OP...........

He seldom remembers yesterday......what good would that accomplish

[Stoner]

I'm done with this thread........same old, same old and I don't feel like posting the same arguments over and over.

Have fun with it wacor.

[wacor]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I'm done with this thread........same old, same old and I don't feel like posting the same arguments over and over.

Have fun with it wacor.

I would never have opened this thread were it not for the other ones being closed.

So quit your whining

You are not the only poster at TSG. Some others might be surprised at the numbers indicated in my initial post.

You can ignore them but society won't. Might be the one law CA enacts that actually is progressive and good for the country.

And you will be back. You love a pissing contest

Plus you will get bored at times with Brett

[wacor]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

I am not opposed to strict access to medical marijuana by prescription only. But opening up this can of worms by putting it on the shelf of your local 7-11 is absolute insanity.
Just because liquor is legal does not make it a good thing for MJ to be legal.

Nobody said it would be on the shelf and available to everybody regardless of age. It would be behind the counter the same as booze. Hell my guess when it does become legal they have it in flippin lock boxes due to the perceived paranoia by some.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Now replace 'beer' with 'cocaine' and make the same argument.......now it's obviously a fallacy.

not necessarily a fallacy; remember, cigarettes are far more addictive than cocaine. And yes, I've known (and still do know) recreational cocaine users. Not everyday users, but special occasions users, such as new years, block parties, maybe 5 or 6 times a year.

they get pie-eyed a bit more frequently than that, but they are both upstanding members of society, they just partake in an illegal narcotic a half dozen times a year.

The 'difference ' is you originally picked a drug used for a non medicinal purpose ...had a low impact at a low dose.
A flawed argument because it was structured for low impact.
Abuse is misuse, addiction is advanced abuse showing an influence toward repetitive usage.

For the most part, agreed. I just chose robitussin because that was what popped into my mind. With my history and the scope of people I have known, I could just about toss any drug into that mix and have an accurate statement.

You are addressing addiction. I wasn't. I addressed the act of abusing a drug. Addiction isn't necessary for abuse to occur but it is a more common relationship.

For instance, if I could drink a 12 pack of beer, that would be abuse, but I wouldn't be an addict unless I kept at it to the point I had an addiction to alcohol..

spot on. The addict is merely that, an addict. They don't care where their escape comes from, be it paint fumes or sterno, just as long as they can escape. You'll remember a thread I started some time ago titled something like 'why do we do it to ourselves?' wherein I explored the very question of why we need to escape everyday reality, some to the point of losing touch with reality and dying in the gutter, a victim of their own excesses.

I don't think we ever came to a resolution on that, but I know we agreed on one thing; there is a huge difference between a user and an addict/abuser.

BTW, to me, addict and abuser are interchangeable. I know you used to think that you abused alcohol by merely consuming it, but I think you've gone away from that vein.

Regardless, all things aside, to me addict and abuser are the same thing.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I'm done with this thread........same old, same old and I don't feel like posting the same arguments over and over.

hope not. You bring a fresh view to it, one I've not seen before, and one that, IMO, brings a lot to the table wrt USA and drug culture and it's impact on society.

Lan is of the mindset that legalizing pot will destroy the country, to paraphrase. I know you go a ways down that road, but I don't think you follow it to the end. I think you stop somewhere in the middle on the subject.

Again, just my views, nothing more.

[guy2]

The Government has got to stop (pretend) playing mommy and daddy with this drug business in general ,it's not because they care anyway's seeing how i can get some good stuff ''pharmaceuticals''.

Drugs have become a commodity because they are classified as taboo ,when something become's taboo no matter what it is ,anarchy will persist in that agenda.

Haven't you noticed that everything potentially hazard is a commodity ,fast cars ,guns ,gangs and drugs. All taboo in the perception of people's eye's of exceptionable classes but always a commodity of someone in different status and standards because they choose to be vigilant of authority but why?

Same reason why some catholic schools girls become such....

By authority telling me i can't smoke dro ,it's like saying im to stupid to make my own choices ,so now im an idiot.

It wasn't authority that taught me smoking weed was useless for 6 years but if authority hadn't intervened and turned me into a vigilante maybe i would of figured this out much sooner.

[thingamajig]

I need a joint to read this thread! This discussion is ridiculous in the fact that the so-called brain damage experts base their findings on theory while the advocates of legalization base their criteria on well-known facts.

I've made my point many times: we need to be out of the business of legislating morality. A criminal act should only harm others. What we do to ourselves should be fair game. As long as we are banning stuff, let's start with trans-fat and simple carbs like white bread, sugar, and chocolate. They cause elation in the brain - presumably an increase in serotonin and they eventually kill us.

At least let us be even-handed and set some criteria. Why are alcohol and saturated fats legal but marijuana illegal? The former creates far more deaths, does far more harm, and costs far more in eventual costs.

Set rules, age limits, where and how it can be purchased, etc. And, like parenting, lets punish abuse and not the actual act. If your taking of hemp harms society, then get punished for the harm done to society. Not the harm you do to yourself - like sitting on your fat rear-end watching the tube all day.

I agree Valis that alcohol is a poison. It kills the liver and the lack of one will eventually kill you. My maternal grandfather was an alcoholic. He beat his family while drunk. He eventually died of cirrhosis. How many pot heads beat their spouses and children? Allowing one but not the other is idiotic.

Moreover, if we are to limit health care, I'm all for turning the other way to those who have killed themselves when those who dying through no fault of their own go without treatment.

[Paquadez]

This thread has developed as expected.

sigh........

The difference between proscribed drugs and alcohol is that alcohol in moderation does not induce instant mood changes to the same degree as do most drugs: including pot.

Drug abusers invariably also abuse alcohol and tobacco.

Perhaps someone can expound how proscribed drugs could be legalised?

I have already earlier expounded on the problems: and highlighted the core reality that criminal gangs will not simply pack their tents and fade into the desert: they will compete on price.

And they will also develop more potent and more dangerous designer drugs.

Whilst a number of mild users may well "Have my habit well under control" (And the number of times I've heard this from such as compulsive gamblers, a few weeks before they stepped into bankruptcy court is legion), the problem is those possessed of an addictive personality.

Alcohol is not psychotropic: neither is tobacco.

In the same way that guns are inate, proscribed drugs are the result of significant social problems.

As invariably, cause and effect are being confused.

[Paquadez]

Originally Posted by thingamajig

I need a joint to read this thread! This discussion is ridiculous in the fact that the so-called brain damage experts base their findings on theory while the advocates of legalization base their criteria on well-known facts.

Not according to the body of credible research in the UK: which mainly emanates from clinical and psychiatric treatment.

I've made my point many times: we need to be out of the business of legislating morality.

Quaint concept! And a core philosophy, or course of the Libertarian perspective.

Zero government intervention.

Factors out the realities of the human condition. And worse, fails to take into account same.

A criminal act should only harm others. What we do to ourselves should be fair game.

Until and unless the net resultant of what people do to themselves does indeed harm others and impacts, adversely, on society.

As do proscribed drugs.

Unfortunately, in this issue, one is dealing with two human realities: Addictive Personality Disorder: and impressionable and easily led psyches. Such as the young.

Allowing themselves to damage their bodies and minds for ever and handicapping their and society's future is surely not acceptable?

As long as we are banning stuff, let's start with trans-fat and simple carbs like white bread, sugar, and chocolate. They cause elation in the brain - presumably an increase in serotonin and they eventually kill us.

You are confusing control and banning.

If people want to make themselves super-fat, then that's up to them.

I have rarely read any news stories about fat blobs holding up liquor stores to get their next chochoholic fix!

At least let us be even-handed and set some criteria. Why are alcohol and saturated fats legal but marijuana illegal? The former creates far more deaths, does far more harm, and costs far more in eventual costs.

More stable and ordered societies have co-existed with alcohol for thousands of years.

It is again a social disorder, not an alcohol problem.

Set rules, age limits, where and how it can be purchased, etc. And, like parenting, lets punish abuse and not the actual act. If your taking of hemp harms society, then get punished for the harm done to society. Not the harm you do to yourself - like sitting on your fat rear-end watching the tube all day.

Refer to the counter arguments above.

I agree Valis that alcohol is a poison.

Paq actually.

It kills the liver and the lack of one will eventually kill you. My maternal grandfather was an alcoholic. He beat his family while drunk. He eventually died of cirrhosis. How many pot heads beat their spouses and children? Allowing one but not the other is idiotic.

Drinking beer often leads to drinking liquor. Same difference.

Taking pot, often leads all the way along the Primrose Path to such as crack cocaine, PCP et al.

Druggies do indeed beat up on their wives and children: for a variety of reasons, which are all dissasociative and psychopathic in origin.

Loads of primary research on this.

Moreover, if we are to limit health care, I'm all for turning the other way to those who have killed themselves when those who dying through no fault of their own go without treatment.

But if drugs were legalised, then a chain of causal liability would exist and it would prove impossible to deny healthcare!

Bear in mind "Legalise" means regulation from such as the FDA.

Instant government-centric liability.

Your concept could only hold whilst drugs were proscribed.

[valis]

Originally Posted by Paquadez

More stable and ordered societies have co-existed with alcohol for thousands of years.

It is again a social disorder, not an alcohol problem.

for the masses, it's a social disorder. For the individual, it's an alcohol/addiction problem. Societally, the care and rehabilitation of an alcoholic is a costly process, not to mention the damage an alcoholic can do when he's blitzed and on the road.

In the US, according to the CDC, alcohol wipes out around 75k-100k per year, across the board. That's drunk driving, firearm accidents, fetal alcohol syndrome, everything.

IMO, pot would not produce those types of numbers. Again, however, it must be noted that alcohol has been legal for quite some time and easily long enough to accurately study the long-term effects of abuse of it.

Drinking beer often leads to drinking liquor. Same difference.

sort of a weak argument there, Paq. I would state that adults in our society come across alcohol in all forms at so many functions that it's virtually impossible to avoid consumption of liquor at some point; the question becomes how does the individual react to it.

Taking pot, often leads all the way along the Primrose Path to such as crack cocaine, PCP et al.

This is just dead wrong. Pot is not addictive (other than psychologically), and I know literally dozens of people who smoke it on a regular basis. Dozens. Not one of them has gone down that primrose path you mentioned.

The people who are going to hit crack and PCP and meth are people who are hard-core addicts and frequently members of the lower classes of society; you'll find much higher numbers of users of heroin in people that are either homeless or just coasting through life from place to place.

Druggies do indeed beat up on their wives and children: for a variety of reasons, which are all dissasociative and psychopathic in origin.

I don't think one can honestly state that pot is disassociative in nature. And psychopathy is a personality disorder, again something that isn't going to brought on by ingesting marijuana. It's already there.


v