New and Noteworthy
Recent Videos News


Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Last Dance with Mary Jane
03-12-2013, 08:03 PM
Post: #21
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
http://www.livescience.com/24554-medical-marijuana.html
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/n...th-effects

Just did some research, what do you guys think of this? Does the introduction of this material alter this discussion or was all of that well known already?

Thanks to this powerful flash, the Hi 8 can now capture a shadow in the distance. The stills, however, are even more clear, revealing that the shadow is really the blur of a man.
-Mark Z. Danielewski - House of Leaves
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 08:58 PM
Post: #22
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 06:53 PM)Airrest Wrote:  
(03-11-2013 09:23 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  I'm against recreational alcohol use as well

disapproval

Also, in Mike's spiel I saw basically no good reasons to even fine marijuana users. Simply asserting that if Joe-schmoe smokes a joint it might be harmful to others is nonsense and I'm surprised that a reasonable guy like Mike could take such an unreasonable position.

Will stop people from ingesting harmful substances (marijuana not being one) even if it has the potential to harm someone else? Let's look at speeding. Pretty good fines for speeding. People still do it. And reckless speeds are known to cause many accidents and deaths each year. The only way to know if these fines actually stop people from speeding is to look at data. And same would be true with marijuana. And I don't have data on either of those, so I simply don't know.

I feel like we'd all (including you, Mike) be making one big argument from ignorance without the proper data to substantiate any claims.

Regardless, I suppose you could say "even if it causes harm to one other person, it should be fined", in which case it is my opinion that we should fine things that cause equivalent harm. But the thing is, I don't think the level of harm I believe marijuana to cause warrants a fine being levied. And ultimately, the thing is: there's a level of subjectivity to the idea behind issuing fines and no amount of data can decide the consequences for us.

Forget what I said earlier, Airrest for President.

YOUR ALL DICKS
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 09:05 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 09:06 PM by 1KidsEntertainment.)
Post: #23
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 06:53 PM)Airrest Wrote:  Also, in Mike's spiel I saw basically no good reasons to even fine marijuana users. Simply asserting that if Joe-schmoe smokes a joint it might be harmful to others is nonsense and I'm surprised that a reasonable guy like Mike could take such an unreasonable position.

Will stop people from ingesting harmful substances (marijuana not being one) even if it has the potential to harm someone else? Let's look at speeding. Pretty good fines for speeding. People still do it. And reckless speeds are known to cause many accidents and deaths each year. The only way to know if these fines actually stop people from speeding is to look at data. And same would be true with marijuana. And I don't have data on either of those, so I simply don't know.

I feel like we'd all (including you, Mike) be making one big argument from ignorance without the proper data to substantiate any claims.

Regardless, I suppose you could say "even if it causes harm to one other person, it should be fined", in which case it is my opinion that we should fine things that cause equivalent harm. But the thing is, I don't think the level of harm I believe marijuana to cause warrants a fine being levied. And ultimately, the thing is: there's a level of subjectivity to the idea behind issuing fines and no amount of data can decide the consequences for us.

Wow, Eric. There's a lot of bad logic here. I'm surprised.

(03-12-2013 06:53 PM)Airrest Wrote:  Also, in Mike's spiel I saw basically no good reasons to even fine marijuana users. Simply asserting that if Joe-schmoe smokes a joint it might be harmful to others is nonsense and I'm surprised that a reasonable guy like Mike could take such an unreasonable position.

What? It absolutely is a reasonable position. If your "freedom" infringes on my freedom, then you have no right to that freedom. My right to go in public without some high or drunk dude assaulting me or stealing my shit or me having to pick up after drunk/high coworkers trumps your right to use chemicals to feel good.

(03-12-2013 06:53 PM)Airrest Wrote:  Will stop people from ingesting harmful substances (marijuana not being one) even if it has the potential to harm someone else? Let's look at speeding. Pretty good fines for speeding. People still do it. And reckless speeds are known to cause many accidents and deaths each year. The only way to know if these fines actually stop people from speeding is to look at data. And same would be true with marijuana. And I don't have data on either of those, so I simply don't know.

Okay, several bad points here.
1. NO ONE IS EVER SUGGESTING EVER THAT A BAN WILL COMPLETELY STOP THINGS JESUS FUCKING CHRIST READ MY WORDS BEFORE SPEAKING. That does not mean that it can't significantly reduce usage. Sure, people still speed. Does that mean the law is ineffective and should be thrown out? Fucking of course not. It's a deterrent. If we legalized speeding, OF COURSE SPEEDING WILL BE MORE COMMON. The law DOES reduce speeding. It IS effective. It is NOT 100% effective. No law is. That is NOT a reason to throw out a law, because by taking that logic to its reasonable extreme, we should throw out all laws.
2. People who tell you that marijuana prohibition is causing usage to go up are selling you a pile of horseshit. Look, the drug war right now has lots of failures and consequences, some of them really bad. But to say that it doesn't reduce usage at all is nonsense. One of the main reasons people want it legalized is so that they can have better access to it, the prices can go down, and, because of that, be able to smoke more. The reason that alcohol prohibition did not work is because alcohol had been legal for so long, not just in our country, but in human culture in general, that taking it away created a significant, defiant backlash specifically to fight the law. This is not the case with marijuana. Alcohol prohibition is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. In general, enforced bans do work.

(03-12-2013 06:53 PM)Airrest Wrote:  I feel like we'd all (including you, Mike) be making one big argument from ignorance without the proper data to substantiate any claims.

There are arguments of logic and there are arguments of evidence and there are hybrid arguments. Right now, we're talking about the logic of it AND the evidence of it.

Also, keep in mind, the lobbies on both sides of this debate are currently very powerful. There is a lot of bad data on both sides, which is why it's so hard to discern the truth sometimes. So I like to stick to logic, personal verifiable experience, and I am open to evidence with heavy skepticism to weed out propaganda (no pun intended).

(03-12-2013 06:53 PM)Airrest Wrote:  Regardless, I suppose you could say "even if it causes harm to one other person, it should be fined", in which case it is my opinion that we should fine things that cause equivalent harm. But the thing is, I don't think the level of harm I believe marijuana to cause warrants a fine being levied. And ultimately, the thing is: there's a level of subjectivity to the idea behind issuing fines and no amount of data can decide the consequences for us.

Here's the debate we SHOULD be having, thank you for saying it. What are the honest consequences of marijuana? And are they negative enough to warrant severe regulation or even a ban? If so, what regulations or bans and their enforcement would work? I have laid out reasons for why it should be banned recreationally. I have laid out reasons for why the current ban does not work. I have laid out propositions to allow an effective ban.

However, both sides like to fuck with the data, so reasonable debate is damn near impossible, because you're absolutely right to say that data is essential here.

I've almost never been able to find some data on the matter that didn't come from the government, the legalization lobby, or the anti-legalization lobby.

And just to clarify, the reason I'm for medical marijuana is because the benefits of it outweigh the potential negative consequences. The same cannot be said of recreational usage, because, as I've stated, it is possible to negate most of the negatives of the drug war without legalization.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like 1KidsEntertainment's post
03-12-2013, 09:48 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 09:49 PM by Uraby210.)
Post: #24
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  My right to go in public without some high or drunk dude assaulting me or stealing my shit or me having to pick up after drunk/high coworkers trumps your right to use chemicals to feel good.

You know, I don't think there's EVER been a case where somebody's assaulted or mugged someone else ONLY because they'd been smoking a few marry-jew-wannas. Harder drugs, maybe.

Look at it this way, do people that smoke cigarettes "infringe on your freedoms" just by doing so? Or if they were to smoke a whole pack and then rob a store, could you honestly blame that on them being high on nicotine? Of course not. Because there are some drugs that increase one's propensity towards acts of violence and some that don't.

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it, that's what I say.

YOUR ALL DICKS
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 09:50 PM
Post: #25
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 09:48 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  My right to go in public without some high or drunk dude assaulting me or stealing my shit or me having to pick up after drunk/high coworkers trumps your right to use chemicals to feel good.

You know, I don't think there's EVER been a case where somebody's assaulted or mugged someone else ONLY because they'd been smoking a few marry-jew-wannas. Harder drugs, maybe.

Look at it this way, do people that smoke cigarettes "infringe on your freedoms" just by doing so? Or if they were to smoke a whole pack and then rob a store, could you honestly blame that on the cigarettes? Of course not. Because there are some drugs that increase one's propensity towards acts of violence and some that don't.

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it, that's what I say.

False equivalency, because cigarettes do not produce a high.

Though it is worth noting that cigarettes (and pot too!) can infringe on my right to clean air, which is why I'm totally for smoke-free areas and banning indoor smoking in non-private residential places.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes 1KidsEntertainment's post
03-12-2013, 09:53 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 09:55 PM by Uraby210.)
Post: #26
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 09:50 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  False equivalency, because cigarettes do not produce a high.

Yes they do. It just doesn't last very long and doesn't manifest itself as hallucinations. If they didn't produce any sort of high, it'd be hella easier to give them up.

Quote:Though it is worth noting that cigarettes (and pot too!) can infringe on my right to clean air, which is why I'm totally for smoke-free areas and banning indoor smoking in non-private residential places.

Sounds fair enough to me.

But that doesn't justify advocating a total ban on it.

YOUR ALL DICKS
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 09:58 PM
Post: #27
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 09:53 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 09:50 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  False equivalency, because cigarettes do not produce a high.

Yes they do. It just doesn't last very long and doesn't manifest itself as hallucinations.

It produces a brief high. Given the short duration of that, it is not an equivalent of pot, and your logic does not work.

Additionally, cigarettes DO produce a chemical addiction that marijuana does not. If anything, cigarettes should be punished more than marijuana. But the tobacco lobby wouldn't like that, so the best we can do really is what we do now. Limit where it can be smoked. Ban any propaganda that shows smoking in a positive light. Make health studies frequent and available detailing the dangers of cigarettes. Tax the shit out of them and control their sales.

(03-12-2013 09:53 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  
Quote:Though it is worth noting that cigarettes (and pot too!) can infringe on my right to clean air, which is why I'm totally for smoke-free areas and banning indoor smoking in non-private residential places.

Sounds fair enough to me.

But that doesn't justify advocating a total ban on it.

I never said it justified a total ban. I said it justified regulations such as public indoor bans. There are plenty of other reasons we can debate a full ban, however, but as cigarettes and marijuana are different substances, their discussions would be almost completely separate.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes 1KidsEntertainment's post
03-12-2013, 10:01 PM
Post: #28
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
So are you saying you don't mind if people smoke up within the privacy of their own homes?

YOUR ALL DICKS
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:06 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 10:06 PM by 1KidsEntertainment.)
Post: #29
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
Cigarettes? Nope, I don't mind. I would never do it, but if you want to harm yourself without harming others, you go right ahead.

Pot I do mind, because the high lasts much longer, is much more intense (even on the least potent joint, you'll get much more than a cigarette), and therefore you have a much higher chance of human interaction, and consequently harming others.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:14 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 10:15 PM by Uraby210.)
Post: #30
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
I'll say it again, shall I? Pot does not make you violent. There are other drugs that do, but pot is not one of them.

Having said that, if you're a person with violent tendencies when sober, there's a chance (a slim one, mind) that marijuana (or alcohol, or pretty much anything) could exacerbate those tendencies. Does that put the drug itself at fault? Or is it due to a deeper psychological issue?

To put it another way, [insert thing you don't like here] doesn't kill people - PEOPLE kill people.

YOUR ALL DICKS
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:22 PM
Post: #31
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 10:14 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  I'll say it again, shall I? Pot does not make you violent. There are other drugs that do, but pot is not one of them.

(03-12-2013 08:03 PM)DelfTheFish Wrote:  http://www.livescience.com/24554-medical-marijuana.html
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/n...th-effects

Just did some research, what do you guys think of this? Does the introduction of this material alter this discussion or was all of that well known already?

Read up on these, Uraby. Several of these side effects could absolutely lead to violence and the harming of others.

(03-12-2013 10:14 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  Having said that, if you're a person with violent tendencies when sober, there's a chance (a slim one, mind) that marijuana (or alcohol, or pretty much anything) could exacerbate those tendencies. Does that put the drug itself at fault? Or is it due to a deeper psychological issue?

Both. Duh. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. But one thing we can change, the other we can't.

(03-12-2013 10:14 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  To put it another way, [insert thing you don't like here] doesn't kill people - PEOPLE kill people.

Oh yes, appeal to an easily defeated fallacy often used as a talking point. Color me convinced, now! POT IS GOOD, EVERYONE! LEGALIZE NOW!

No. People do kill people... But people also are more likely to kill people under certain conditions, like when given a potent weapon or under an altered state of mind or when suffering from many disorders. There are certain things we can change and there are certain things we cannot. Let's focus on the things we can change rather than the ones we can't.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes 1KidsEntertainment's post
03-12-2013, 10:23 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 10:25 PM by Airrest.)
Post: #32
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  What? It absolutely is a reasonable position. If your "freedom" infringes on my freedom, then you have no right to that freedom. My right to go in public without some high or drunk dude assaulting me or stealing my shit or me having to pick up after drunk/high coworkers trumps your right to use chemicals to feel good.

Watch this. I'll just demonstrate why this argument is flawed by using it with a different drug (a little reductio ad absurdum, if you will).

My right to go in public without some depressed guy on Paxil or Effexor assaulting me or stealing my shit or having to pick up after naturally lazy coworkers trumps your right to use chemicals to feel good.

And these prescription drugs (Paxil and Effexor) are KNOWN to cause hostility/agitation/mania in some of its users. I can provide evidence if you want it, but I don't know if its really necessary here. There are a multitude of ways to rephrase your argument and point out its absurdity.

Regardless, the link between drinking and violence is complicated and usually depends on other factors beyond alcohol.
You have not demonstrated the direct causal links you suggest between alcohol and violence, but from the little research I'm done, you might have a better chance arguing about fines on alcohol usage. Problem is, we already have laws regarding public intoxication and driving while intoxicated. If you're not against prohibition, I'm not exactly sure what more you want to do about it.

But more on point, you also haven't demonstrated that marijuana use makes you... lazy and... untidy?

Ultimately, correlation is not causation. That and we can't verify or study any of your personal experiences. They don't count as evidence.

(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  That does not mean that it can't significantly reduce usage.
Prove it.

I mean, seriously dude. Provide some evidence that fines on recreational drug use reduce its usage. I don't have to counter any other point in your paragraph until we reach this point. But I will.

That said, I'm actually all for laws against driving under the influence of marijuana, just like driving under the influence of alcohol. I believe there are studies on driving and marijuana usage (one that I found), but I don't think enough studies have been done yet, all in all. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23220273

But I'm NOT for the banning of or fines for marijuana usage.

(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  NO ONE IS EVER SUGGESTING EVER THAT A BAN WILL COMPLETELY STOP THINGS JESUS FUCKING CHRIST READ MY WORDS BEFORE SPEAKING. Fucking of course not. It's a deterrent.

I suggested that fines may not be enough of a deterrent to make a difference worth fining.

Besides, what good is a deterrent unless it works and some people actually stop doing what you're trying to deter?

(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  People who tell you that marijuana prohibition is causing usage to go up are selling you a pile of horseshit.

I'm not sure that's the case. We can study data from other countries where drugs are decriminalized or legalized. But largely, even that's a debate right now and that data isn't exactly clear. For example, the observations in Portugal after their decriminalization are not clear.

THAT SAID, I never mentioned this at all. I'm not interested in talking about it, really. It's not really relevant to me since I don't care whether people use drugs or not.


(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  What are the honest consequences of marijuana? And are they negative enough to warrant severe regulation or even a ban? If so, what regulations or bans and their enforcement would work? I have laid out reasons for why it should be banned recreationally. I have laid out reasons for why the current ban does not work. I have laid out propositions to allow an effective ban.

You've offered reasoning without evidence, which essentially makes it useless. Show me the evidence that marijuana usage is so harmful that it should be regulated any more than alcohol and I'll agree with you.


(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  And just to clarify, the reason I'm for medical marijuana is because the benefits of it outweigh the potential negative consequences. The same cannot be said of recreational usage, because, as I've stated, it is possible to negate most of the negatives of the drug war without legalization.

I don't see how this meshes with your other views. How can the benefits outweigh the consequences? Are you suggesting that someone who has cancer or depression has more right to feel good than someone without? Maybe I'm way off the mark here, but how exactly do the benefits of marijuana for a medical patient outweigh the benefits to the average Joe?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:27 PM
Post: #33
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
Quote:Oh yes, appeal to an easily defeated fallacy often used as a talking point. Color me convinced, now! POT IS GOOD, EVERYONE! LEGALIZE NOW!

Well, my work here is done.

Oh wait, hang on, you don't mean that. Damn.

(03-12-2013 10:22 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  Both. Duh. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. But one thing we can change, the other we can't.

What, we can't resolve psychological issues? I'd better tell my therapist to pack it all in and become a full-time internet celebrity then.

Quote:There are certain things we can change and there are certain things we cannot. Let's focus on the things we can change rather than the ones we can't.

I just did, didn't you read what I just wrote?

Oh wait, I'm still writing this. This whole "forum" lark's confusing as all hell.

YOUR ALL DICKS
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:32 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 10:38 PM by Airrest.)
Post: #34
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 10:22 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 10:14 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  I'll say it again, shall I? Pot does not make you violent. There are other drugs that do, but pot is not one of them.

(03-12-2013 08:03 PM)DelfTheFish Wrote:  http://www.livescience.com/24554-medical-marijuana.html
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/n...th-effects

Just did some research, what do you guys think of this? Does the introduction of this material alter this discussion or was all of that well known already?

Read up on these, Uraby. Several of these side effects could absolutely lead to violence and the harming of others.

Did YOU read them? They mention nothing of violence or harming others. I'm calling bullshit til I see the evidence. The closest you get is anxiety or effects on judgment. Pretty big leap there.

(03-12-2013 10:14 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  To put it another way, [insert thing you don't like here] doesn't kill people - PEOPLE kill people.

Mike is right there. That is a pretty terrible argument.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:39 PM
Post: #35
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
Well I'm a pretty terrible person.

YOUR ALL DICKS
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:40 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 10:40 PM by Airrest.)
Post: #36
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 10:27 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 10:22 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  Both. Duh. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. But one thing we can change, the other we can't.

What, we can't resolve psychological issues? I'd better tell my therapist to pack it all in and become a full-time internet celebrity then.

Though Uraby is right here.

(03-12-2013 10:39 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  Well I'm a pretty terrible person.

That's also true.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 10:41 PM
Post: #37
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
I am unashamed.

YOUR ALL DICKS
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-12-2013, 11:08 PM (This post was last modified: 03-12-2013 11:10 PM by 1KidsEntertainment.)
Post: #38
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
(03-12-2013 10:23 PM)Airrest Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  What? It absolutely is a reasonable position. If your "freedom" infringes on my freedom, then you have no right to that freedom. My right to go in public without some high or drunk dude assaulting me or stealing my shit or me having to pick up after drunk/high coworkers trumps your right to use chemicals to feel good.

Watch this. I'll just demonstrate why this argument is flawed by using it with a different drug (a little reductio ad absurdum, if you will).

My right to go in public without some depressed guy on Paxil or Effexor assaulting me or stealing my shit or having to pick up after naturally lazy coworkers trumps your right to use chemicals to feel good.

And these prescription drugs (Paxil and Effexor) are KNOWN to cause hostility/agitation/mania in some of its users. I can provide evidence if you want it, but I don't know if its really necessary here. There are a multitude of ways to rephrase your argument and point out its absurdity.

For the same reasons I am not against medical marijuana, I am not against other medical drugs unless their negative effects outweigh the positives. If you're talking about the recreational usage of Paxil and Effexor, then yes, I am against that as well.

But as long as there is a significant proven positive reason to use them in medical usage, the chance of increased hostility/agitation/mania may be worth it. At this point, it's a matter of examining the statistics. What percentage of users experience the negative side effects, and what percentage of users experience the positive effects (the ones that cannot be achieved with a placebo, of course). Here is where the true debate can begin.


(03-12-2013 10:23 PM)Airrest Wrote:  Regardless, the link between drinking and violence is complicated and usually depends on other factors beyond alcohol.
You have not demonstrated the direct causal links you suggest between alcohol and violence, but from the little research I'm done, you might have a better chance arguing about fines on alcohol usage. Problem is, we already have laws regarding public intoxication and driving while intoxicated. If you're not against prohibition, I'm not exactly sure what more you want to do about it.

But more on point, you also haven't demonstrated that marijuana use makes you... lazy and... untidy?

Ultimately, correlation is not causation. That and we can't verify or study any of your personal experiences. They don't count as evidence.

I have already explained why I am tackling the logical side of things rather than the evidence, but I'll do you a favor and put it all in one easy place for you.

(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 06:53 PM)Airrest Wrote:  Regardless, I suppose you could say "even if it causes harm to one other person, it should be fined", in which case it is my opinion that we should fine things that cause equivalent harm. But the thing is, I don't think the level of harm I believe marijuana to cause warrants a fine being levied. And ultimately, the thing is: there's a level of subjectivity to the idea behind issuing fines and no amount of data can decide the consequences for us.

Here's the debate we SHOULD be having, thank you for saying it. What are the honest consequences of marijuana? And are they negative enough to warrant severe regulation or even a ban? If so, what regulations or bans and their enforcement would work? I have laid out reasons for why it should be banned recreationally. I have laid out reasons for why the current ban does not work. I have laid out propositions to allow an effective ban.

However, both sides like to fuck with the data, so reasonable debate is damn near impossible, because you're absolutely right to say that data is essential here.

I've almost never been able to find some data on the matter that didn't come from the government, the legalization lobby, or the anti-legalization lobby.

(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  There are arguments of logic and there are arguments of evidence and there are hybrid arguments. Right now, we're talking about the logic of it AND the evidence of it.

Also, keep in mind, the lobbies on both sides of this debate are currently very powerful. There is a lot of bad data on both sides, which is why it's so hard to discern the truth sometimes. So I like to stick to logic, personal verifiable experience, and I am open to evidence with heavy skepticism to weed out propaganda (no pun intended).

Here's the problem: This issue, like gun control, is loaded with money. There is a TON of manipulated or outright false numbers on both sides. Most studies you will see about pot admit that they are not strong, are hard to verify, and should not be relied on as concrete evidence.

The fact is, I do not have a database of numbers to pull from, but merely my opinion having been based on the evidence that has been brought to my attention from all different perspectives over a long period of time. My views have changed accordingly, as I'm now in favor of medical legalization, but I remain extremely skeptical of the studies from both "sides" here. Logic is concrete; we can argue from there and come to a place where we can have a debate based on evidence. By weeding out bad arguments on both sides, we can find where the true debate lies.


(03-12-2013 10:23 PM)Airrest Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  That does not mean that it can't significantly reduce usage.
Prove it.

I mean, seriously dude. Provide some evidence that fines on recreational drug use reduce its usage. I don't have to counter any other point in your paragraph until we reach this point. But I will.

That said, I'm actually all for laws against driving under the influence of marijuana, just like driving under the influence of alcohol. I believe there are studies on driving and marijuana usage (one that I found), but I don't think enough studies have been done yet, all in all. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23220273

But I'm NOT for the banning of or fines for marijuana usage.

Where am I supposed to pull this evidence from? Out of my ass? Can you prove that the ban does not work? Where does the burden of proof lie? Who is making the first claim here? Common knowledge and history shows that bans tend to work, with exceptions for things like alcohol for reasons I've stated already and don't feel like repeating.

Here's the deal, dude, I'm far too busy to look all this stuff up for you. I shouldn't even be typing this right now. So, as someone who agrees with neither "side" on this, all I can request of you is that you remain open-minded and skeptical of evidence that is produced by an entity with possible ulterior motives. It's cool to defend pot right now. And it's culturally expected that you enjoy alcohol. That doesn't mean we should take these norms for granted.

(03-12-2013 10:23 PM)Airrest Wrote:  I suggested that fines may not be enough of a deterrent to make a difference worth fining.

Besides, what good is a deterrent unless it works and some people actually stop doing what you're trying to deter?

And what is YOUR evidence for that? Because the majority of rules and laws and fines I've ever experienced have acted as great deterrents, even if they will never achieve 100% effectiveness.

(03-12-2013 10:23 PM)Airrest Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  People who tell you that marijuana prohibition is causing usage to go up are selling you a pile of horseshit.

I'm not sure that's the case. We can study data from other countries where drugs are decriminalized or legalized. But largely, even that's a debate right now and that data isn't exactly clear. For example, the observations in Portugal after their decriminalization are not clear.

THAT SAID, I never mentioned this at all. I'm not interested in talking about it, really. It's not really relevant to me since I don't care whether people use drugs or not.

Where is your evidence of this, because all logic points against this.

People who would use pot more because it is legalized:
1. Those who didn't want to get caught
2. Those who couldn't afford it (or afford as much of it)
3. Those who didn't have easy access to it

People who would use pot less because it is legalized:
1. Nobody whatsoever, are you fucking crazy?

C'mon, man. Don't be silly. There are plenty of reasons I can see you'd want it legalized, even if I believe that those reasons are fundamentally flawed, but are you going to throw out the value of logic and reason just because it isn't convenient to one aspect of your argument? I don't like religion and I think there are many, many reasons why it shouldn't exist, but that doesn't mean I'm gonna start saying that it's never done anything good in the world.

It's times like this when people refuse to be rational that prevents us from having arguments about the right things. As I mentioned briefly, I expected more of you, Eric. Logic doesn't tend to be your weak point.

(03-12-2013 10:23 PM)Airrest Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 09:05 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  And just to clarify, the reason I'm for medical marijuana is because the benefits of it outweigh the potential negative consequences. The same cannot be said of recreational usage, because, as I've stated, it is possible to negate most of the negatives of the drug war without legalization.

I don't see how this meshes with your other views. How can the benefits outweigh the consequences? Are you suggesting that someone who has cancer or depression has more right to feel good than someone without? Maybe I'm way off the mark here, but how exactly do the benefits of marijuana for a medical patient outweigh the benefits to the average Joe?

Yes. Making a deadly disease like cancer (and the process of fighting it, chemo) bearable is totally equivalent to "feels good" and "makes me think different" and "makes me cool" for average Joe.

I'm not even going to dignify this with more of an answer.

C'mon, dude.

(03-12-2013 10:40 PM)Airrest Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 10:27 PM)Uraby210 Wrote:  
(03-12-2013 10:22 PM)1KidsEntertainment Wrote:  Both. Duh. Doesn't take a rocket scientist. But one thing we can change, the other we can't.

What, we can't resolve psychological issues? I'd better tell my therapist to pack it all in and become a full-time internet celebrity then.

Though Uraby is right here.

It is infinitely harder to tackle a psychological or societal issue than it is to legislate control over drugs (which is also difficult, mind, but not nearly as much). You're right that it's not impossible, but it's also difficult as hell, and produces much less results.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-13-2013, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013 09:00 AM by Uraby210.)
Post: #39
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
But surely it's inherently more worthwhile to tackle the root of a problem, rather than just one of the (possibly many) secondary problems that spring from it?

YOUR ALL DICKS
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-13-2013, 11:09 AM (This post was last modified: 03-13-2013 11:11 AM by 1KidsEntertainment.)
Post: #40
RE: Last Dance with Mary Jane
What a simplistic way to look at things.

Given that no legislation or funding will ever completely solve a problem, wouldn't it be reasonable to tackle problems from all sides possible?

Sure, we can tackle the psychological issues a person might have that are amplified while high or drunk. Tell me now, how are we to diagnose the people that have those tendencies when not high or drunk? How are we to diagnose the people that have those tendencies ONLY when high or drunk? Furthermore, what treatment is effective? If someone is only violent when high or drunk, do we give them medication to take WITH the pot or alcohol to calm them down? That's absolutely ridiculous.

My claim was simple and completely valid: It is infinitely harder to legislate a solution to a psychological or societal problem than it is to control drugs and/or weapons. If you want to do both, fine, but the less-effective solution cannot be suggested as a replacement for the effective solution.

Even if I don't challenge your loaded question where you assume that psychology is the "root" of the problem, the answer is simple: If there is a problem, you need to do whatever is most effective. Oftentimes, challenging the "root" of the problem is the most effective. Sometimes it is not. This is one of those times.

You are arguing from an opinion here rather than deriving an opinion from logic. Stop.

Chances are, if you're reading this, it's after reading a ridiculously long post by me, something harshly phrased or confrontational, and/or me being stupid. I want to apologize for my above post, and end this signature with a quote of wisdom to soothe your soul.

"Ho ho..hoho hoho..santa for the wondering thismust be a joke in your series!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1"
~A scholar beyond his time

[10:10:35 PM] Airrest (Eric): YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes 1KidsEntertainment's post
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)