This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Legalizing marijuana?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Ok, just curious. Thanks for that.
Post by
donnymurph
Personally, during my own experiences with smoking pot, I found that my personality became more pessimistic. Everything everyone did made me mad. Everything that happened in my life was an obstacle. I was living a soap opera. It was high drama, all the time.
I was depressed when I first smoked pot. Although I put that down to many aspects of my upbringing finally getting the better of me. Particularly the social isolation that I felt that I was being forced into. During the time that I did smoke regularly, I came out of my depression hole, although I am 100% certain the pot had nothing to do with it.
One of the main reasons pot is illegal is because it is seen as a "gateway drug", i.e. a drug with (usually) minor effects on one's cognitive ability and mental/emotional stability, and a low chance of physical addiction; but also one that is often used as a catalyst for the use of other, more potent drugs - an ice-breaker if you like. I can safely say that this is true for myself. After experienceing pot, I went on to take ecstasy and speed regularly (i.e I would be wasted all weekend, most weekends), and also tried LSD, cocaine, and used prescription drugs (mainly Ritalin) with the specific intention of getting high.
The ironic thing is, I don't feel that any of those drugs ever had any noticeable, lasting effects on my intelligence or personality. To this day, I still take speed and ecstasy occasionally, and if you put other things such as cocaine, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms ("magic mushrooms"), ice, mescaline, ketamine, etc in front of me; I would take them. The only reason I am less regular on the speed and ecstasy is simply because there isn't as much going on in my life anymore (drugs have always been a social thing to me); and also because they aren't as readily available anymore (a lot of dealer crackdowns on the Central Coast in recent years).
Writing that last paragraph reminded me of a couple of things about weed. I think one of the things that makes me hate it so much is because I've only ever taken illicit drugs socially. When I've been smoking pot, I find it difficult to hold a train of thought, or contribute to a conversation. I sort of withdraw from the room, and feel alone. Which a) defeats the whole idea of being in a social group and b) rehashes the major cause of the depression I was suffering during my teenage years. There's about 100 other negative effects I got from pot. I could never be able to remember them all and commit them all to paper.
Post by
421339
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
donnymurph
but if we are more people that I find it very overwhelming and depressing even
This, but any more than 2 people there (myself and 1 other) is when it starts getting bad.
Post by
Squishalot
The problem is that the "gateway drug" theory has been disproved time and time again.
Source?
The most basic counter argument is that most users of "harder" drugs have started with alcohol (yes, it is a drug, shocker isn't it) and that their first ILLICIT drug is weed.
I'll accept that, if only because I believe you're correct, not because I have any other source to back that up.
So if the "gateway" theory holds true then it's only because it's an illicit drug, thus making it legal would be better.
False conclusion. There's no reason why people who are willing to take illicit drugs other than marijuana wouldn't still want to take illicit drugs other than marijuana, if marijuana was legal.
Otherwise, you could argue that alcohol is a gateway 'drug' into marijuana, and justify banning alcohol.
Post by
donnymurph
Otherwise, you could argue that alcohol is a gateway 'drug' into marijuana, and justify banning alcohol.
Don't trivialise the fact that alcohol is a drug by putting it in inverted commas. Just saying
If you want to take the argument further, we could blame it on nicotine, caffeine or even paracetomol if we want to. At the end of the day, the person decides what they put into their body. I know for sure however that smoking and drinking did definitely lower my barrier towards weed and, subsequently, harder drugs. Not that this is a problem, because I am not an addict, nor am I unhappy with anything I've ever done to myself.
Post by
Squishalot
Not trivialising, just emphasising that most people won't see it as a drug because it's somehow normalised and not taboo, as with other mind-altering drugs.
Post by
mindthegap5
They should legalize crack while they are at it, i mean it's totally harmless right, all those people looked like they'd just been dug out of a grave already right?
Post by
Ksero
So if the "gateway" theory holds true then it's only because it's an illicit drug, thus making it legal would be better.
False conclusion. There's no reason why people who are willing to take illicit drugs other than marijuana wouldn't still want to take illicit drugs other than marijuana, if marijuana was legal.
Otherwise, you could argue that alcohol is a gateway 'drug' into marijuana, and justify banning alcohol.
i think the point was that there would be less exposure to illegal drugs if marijuana was legal, since you wouldn't be going to a dealer, you'd be going to a corner store (or pharmacy, depending on the regulations).
They should legalize crack while they are at it, i mean it's totally harmless right, all those people looked like they'd just been dug out of a grave already right?
it's just not the same, you can OD on crack and die, and it's extremely addictive. weed on the other hand, is not addictive (anecdotal evidence, i know people who do crack, and people who do weed, some of the people who smoke quit without problem ie. didnt go through withdrawl. however the people who do crack still do, because thier bodies can't go without it.) and can not be OD on.
Post by
Skreeran
Just thought I might post this here.
Source is in the text at the bottom.
And there's no way you could ban alcohol or tobacco at this point. Last time we banned alcohol we had
this guy
(in fact, I still think drug-related crime in America is one of the biggest reasons for legalization, at least for the less harmful ones like cannibis), and tobacco has so many users in the country a paper ban would simultaneously crash the tobacco industry and cause millions of Americans to either go into withdrawal, or more likely go to underground sources for their cigs.
TL;DR
Alcohol and Tobacco are both more harmful and more addictive than cannibis. If those are legal, why can't a man have his weed.
I can't tell you how ridiculous it is when a person goes to jail for multiple years (costing thousands of tax-payer dollars to feed and house, not to mention the detrimental effects to the individual, thanks to how %$#@ed up our prison system is; I know a guy who was forced to join a gang and ended up getting stabbed multiple times in JUVENILE HALL, but I suppose that's another topic)
for growing a plant
.
Edit: Me and my dad were just discussing this. How about, to qualify for welfare, you have to pass a periodic urinalysis? Sound fair?
And again, I'm wondering about the cost of welfare against the cost of supporting them in prison. It can't be that much of a difference.
Post by
Squishalot
Alcohol and Tobacco are both more harmful and more addictive than cannibis. If those are legal, why can't a man have his weed.
It's illegal to use asbestos materials in construction in Australia now. Given the crackdown on their advertising and sale, it's not going to be too long before cigarettes are going to be illegal too. There's no reason why substances damaging to one's health can't be made illegal.
I can't tell you how ridiculous it is when a person goes to jail for multiple years for growing a plant.
You can get arrested for growing banned weeds and importing fruit flies into certain countries. Getting jailed for 'growing a plant' isn't the '
reducio
' argument you think it is.
costing thousands of tax-payer dollars to feed and house, not to mention the detrimental effects to the individual, thanks to how %$#@ed up our prison system is
Maybe we should just shoot law breakers instead. Shoot murderers and rapists, chop hands off shop lifters, lobotomise drug users, etc. At least it's cheaper?
You know, another valid alternative is simply following the law? I fail to understand the desire to drug yourself up when there are other cheaper, legal ways of enjoying yourself.
Edit: You do realise your link to the picture suggests that marijuana is more addictive than Ecstacy, LSD and GBH, right?
Post by
pezz
I can't tell you how ridiculous it is when a person goes to jail for multiple years for growing a plant.
You can get arrested for growing banned weeds and importing fruit flies into certain countries. Getting jailed for 'growing a plant' isn't the '
reducio
' argument you think it is.
You can't compare marijuana to those situations. Getting arrested for growing a plant
that has no risk of becoming a hazardous invasive species
IS somewhat silly. Trying to bring the plant kingdom version of the cane toad into a country is a very serious thing.
costing thousands of tax-payer dollars to feed and house, not to mention the detrimental effects to the individual, thanks to how %$#@ed up our prison system is
Maybe we should just shoot law breakers instead. Shoot murderers and rapists, chop hands off shop lifters, lobotomise drug users, etc. At least it's cheaper?
You know, another valid alternative is simply following the law? I fail to understand the desire to drug yourself up when there are other cheaper, legal ways of enjoying yourself.
It's ubiquitous whether it's idiotic to break the law to get high or not. I don't really understand why you'd run the risk personally, but a lot of people clearly do, and saying 'well maybe they should just be more law abiding sometimes' probably isn't going to be terribly effective.
Post by
Squishalot
You can't compare marijuana to those situations. Getting arrested for growing a plant that has no risk of becoming a hazardous invasive species IS somewhat silly. Trying to bring the plant kingdom version of the cane toad into a country is a very serious thing.
Growing plants encourages drug crime, no? And it encourages drug usage. And it smells. My point is simply that it's not just 'growing a plant', there are other social and environmental issues associated with it.
It's ubiquitous whether it's idiotic to break the law to get high or not. I don't really understand why you'd run the risk personally, but a lot of people clearly do, and saying 'well maybe they should just be more law abiding sometimes' probably isn't going to be terribly effective.
A lot of people shoplift. By that argument, should we be making petty theft legal as well?
Post by
pezz
It's ubiquitous whether it's idiotic to break the law to get high or not. I don't really understand why you'd run the risk personally, but a lot of people clearly do, and saying 'well maybe they should just be more law abiding sometimes' probably isn't going to be terribly effective.
A lot of people shoplift. By that argument, should we be making petty theft legal as well?
Not at all. I'm just saying when the costs of enforcing a law outweigh the benefits of enforcing it, the easy solution of 'let's ask everyone nicely to stop breaking this law' isn't really possible. When there isn't an easy solution to reduce the costs (as may be the case with marijuana) and when the benefits of enforcement are somewhat dubious (as is, at the very least, more true of marijuana than of shoplifting), sometimes ending the enforcement becomes an option.
I don't want to commit to that point in this post, I'm just saying that you can say 'well if you can't beat 'em, join 'em' in some places in law enforcement but not others without having a self-contradictory policy.
Growing plants encourages drug crime, no? And it encourages drug usage. And it smells. My point is simply that it's not just 'growing a plant', there are other social and environmental issues associated with it.
True, but I think there was more language and argument in that statement. I don't think there was a serious attempt at a gardening-based reductio.
Post by
Skreeran
Edit: You do realise your link to the picture suggests that marijuana is more addictive than Ecstacy, LSD and GBH, right?Because it is.
I don't suppose you have any experience in those substances?
LSD, Ecstacy, and Marijuana can have a psychologically addicting effect, just like sex, adrenaline, or fatty foods.
But the physically addicting aspect of those drugs is minimal. (Amendment: This is assuming none of those are laced with a drug that
is
physically addicting.)
Post by
Squishalot
...
I disagree that it's that costly to enforce it. The act of actually enforcing maximum penalties on users, rather than simple fines for growers and slaps on the wrists for others, would be sufficient to discourage such behaviour. The problem with enforcement is that there's too much tolerance for it at the moment.
Consider the act of petty shoplifting - stealing a couple of candy bars from the counter of a servo or something. Police don't really care at all about such things, therefore, all they can do is ask nicely "please don't do this", and it doesn't work. If they actually cracked down HARD on a few cases, it makes the media when the police get attacked for being heavy handed, and all the other would-be thieves start thinking twice about whether it's worth getting caught in this new blitz.
I firmly disagree with the attitude of 'if you can't beat'em, join'em', anywhere. I'm not sure why you think it creates a self-contradictory problem.
LSD, Ecstacy, and Marijuana can have a psychologically addicting effect, just like sex, adrenaline, or fatty foods.
But the physically addicting aspect of those drugs is minimal.
Actually, the table would suggest that for whatever reason, Marijuana is either more physically addictive, or that the psychology of usage makes it more addictive. My point was, you've been arguing that it's not as addictive as other illegal drugs out there. By comparison, what makes it any better than Ecstacy or LSD?
Post by
pezz
...
I disagree that it's that costly to enforce it. The act of actually enforcing maximum penalties on users, rather than simple fines for growers and slaps on the wrists for others, would be sufficient to discourage such behaviour. The problem with enforcement is that there's too much tolerance for it at the moment.
It costs a hell of a lot to go through the rigamarole of enforcing maximum penalties. Of course, if you REALLY want to crack down, you need enough beat cops to keep an eye on every likely nook and cranny in an area to smoke, so there's a lot more expenditure on police basically wandering around looking for teenagers. Then there's the amount of trouble the courts go through (with appeals and such, naturally), and finally you actually have to put someone in jail, and for quite a long time if you want them to serve the maximum sentence. And sure, you'd discourage it to some extent, but you'll never stomp it out. There was significantly less alcohol in the US under prohibition, but it was definitely still there.
I firmly disagree with the attitude of 'if you can't beat'em, join'em', anywhere. I'm not sure why you think it creates a self-contradictory problem.
But, from an economics perspective, it's the way you should look at it.
Let me be more clear about what I meant, first. The debate about legalizing marijuana usually, in the end, comes down to whether it's harmful or not. Frankly, that's not an argument pro-legalization folks are likely to win. Marijuana DOES have negative consequences.
But that's not how I think the argument should be framed. We should be looking at the relative costs and benefits of legalizing versus not legalizing. Certainly, legalizing marijuana comes with some costs. There are also benefits. A large market stops being illicit and contributes to the economy. Government expenditure on police and jail capacity is reduced. There are monetary gains that might offset the negative externalities of legalized marijuana.
Look at it this way. The US government (as an example, but I do know you're an Aussie), COULD if it really wanted to, bring prohibition back. It could go completely over the top in trying to stomp out liquor consumption. Three or four more customs checks, random import searches, double the beat police force, expensive federal investigations any time someone has more than three bottles of (now heavily monitored by federal agencies) rubbing alcohol. Ridiculous jail sentences. Like, 20 years for having a BAC of .01.
If that happened, I couldn't really argue that NOTHING good came of if. I mean for Christ's sake I live in New Orleans. I am acutely aware of some of the negative externalities associated with alcohol consumption. However, I don't think YOU could really argue that it was an economically and socially sensible trade off. There's no way the amount of money the government would have to throw at the problem to be truly effective would be less than the amount the economy loses through negative externalities brought about by liquor consumption.
That's what I mean by 'if you can't beat them, join them.' Perhaps what I should have said was 'If it's a better use of resources to join them than it is to beat them, even if you technically could beat them, it probably makes more sense to join them.'
Post by
Squishalot
See, I'm not sure about that. It's one thing to have beat cops running around looking for teenagers everywhere, which I agree is excessive expenditure. My point is that those who are caught are generally given slaps on the wrist and moved on. There is an attitude of tolerance at the moment.
The point isn't to stamp out illegal behaviour - there's no practical way you can ever do that. The point is to discourage it by disincentivising people. If a few guys are very publicly jailed with maximum penalties for smoking weed, you can bet that there are going to be a number of rational people out there who will think "jeez, this is getting way too serious, I'm going to stop". There are still going to be the guys who don't care, who would break the law regardless. But you're going to be helping minimise the amount of law breaking generally, at the cost of a few extended jail sentences.
Think about speeding. It's an illegal behaviour that's primarily self-destructive rather than externally destructive, provided it's still within the user's control (as in, 5-10kph/mph over the limit). An announcement that there's going to be a speeding blitz with maximum enforcement will, generally speaking, reduce average speeds on the road. There doesn't actually need to be more cops out there policing it, there just needs to be the
perception
of enforcement. I'm sure that it's possible to measure and determine what your return on investment is of all this.
1984-style measures aren't cost effective. Propaganda generally is.
Post by
Skreeran
LSD, Ecstacy, and Marijuana can have a psychologically addicting effect, just like sex, adrenaline, or fatty foods.
But the physically addicting aspect of those drugs is minimal.
Actually, the table would suggest that for whatever reason, Marijuana is either more physically addictive, or that the psychology of usage makes it more addictive. My point was, you've been arguing that it's not as addictive as other illegal drugs out there. By comparison, what makes it any better than Ecstacy or LSD?What makes LSD and Ecstacy worse than alcohol or tobacco? They have such a bad reputation, but they're really not all that bad, when you compare them to nicotine, alcohol, and the harder drugs.
The the with Marijuana is that A) it's more popular, so it has a greater impact on people's lives, and B) people are usually a lot more open to accepting the legalization of marijuana than ecstacy or LSD (presumably because it's natural, rather than synthesized), so rather than arguing a harder point that people aren't as open to shifting position on, I argue for the one with a better chance of actually influencing people's opinions of.
Post by
Squishalot
Again, that's an issue of tolerance within the community, which is what I'm addressing with pezz.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.