Restatement on decriminalizing marijuana

[SomeRandom]

Let's see how this works with cigarettes, which are legal.

Cigarettes contain obscene amounts of nicotine to addict the first time user and I have never met a smoker who didn't say they wanted to quit. There are also very many bad ingredients. Despite taxing the cigarette company, the extra hospital visit make it a drain on the economy. They can do this because they are dicks.

Even e-cigarettes have very many bad ingredients that are not even necessary. Again, it is because they are dicks.

So how can you say you'll get rid of skunk if you legalized weed.

Because everyone knows the effects of cigarettes by now. Like Jesus Christ we teach the affects to school kids these days. In fact it's against advertising law not to list the ingredients on the packets and the amounts. Hell where I live the packets all must contain horrific pictures of the potential side affects.

Skunk is not subject to consumer or advertising law, because it's illegal. No one really knows how the "seller" has tampered with the product, nor is the seller obligated to tell the customer. If it were legal then the potential side affects and higher THC would by law have to be advertised to any potential customer. If not then said customer can seek legal recourse. Thus diminishing the potential consumer base by default and holding the seller to a much higher standard of public health and safety.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Because everyone knows the effects of cigarettes by now. Like Jesus Christ we teach the affects to school kids these days. In fact it's against advertising law not to list the ingredients on the packets and the amounts. Hell where I live the packets all must contain horrific pictures of the potential side affects.

Skunk is not subject to consumer or advertising law, because it's illegal. No one really knows how the "seller" has tampered with the product, nor is the seller obligated to tell the customer. If it were legal then the potential side affects and higher THC would by law have to be advertised to any potential customer. If not then said customer can seek legal recourse. Thus diminishing the potential consumer base by default and holding the seller to a much higher standard of public health and safety.

People smoke a lot anyway, and if cigarettes can be so bad I'm not sure why they wouldn't successfully market something like skunk. Cigarettes don't have how bad the cigarette is on the label.

 

[SomeRandom]

People smoke a lot anyway, and if cigarettes can be so bad I'm not sure why they wouldn't successfully market something like skunk. Cigarettes don't have how bad the cigarette is on the label.

Yeah and people drink alcohol regardless of legality, what's your point? Hell more people died from alcohol during prohibition, because the government poisoned supplies to discourage people and sellers being now on the black market could mix their alcohol however they pleased without any regulations that ensure some semblance of safety standards for the consumer. Clearly just making something illegal is not pragmatic.
This is really about the lesser of two evils.
Inform the user and they can make an informed decision. If the side affects are so terrible and they weren't advertised, then the people selling can be brought to account. Thereby discouraging this in the future. Much harder to do that if the product is illegal because well you can't exactly go to the ombudsman if someone gives you weed laced with rat poison or something. The illegality really just heightens not only abuse but the lack of safety of a product.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Yeah and people drink alcohol regardless of legality, what's your point? Hell more people died from alcohol during prohibition, because the government poisoned supplies to discourage people and sellers being now on the black market could mix their alcohol however they pleased without any regulations that ensure some semblance of safety standards for the consumer. Clearly just making something illegal is not pragmatic.
This is really about the lesser of two evils.
Inform the user and they can make an informed decision. If the side affects are so terrible and they weren't advertised, then the people selling can be brought to account. Thereby discouraging this in the future. Much harder to do that if the product is illegal because well you can't exactly go to the ombudsman if someone gives you weed laced with rat poison or something. The illegality really just heightens not only abuse but the lack of safety of a product.

But what I"m saying is the people that put terrible stuff in cigarettes are not brought to account.

 

[SomeRandom]

But what I"m saying is the people that put terrible stuff in cigarettes are not brought to account.

Well they kind of are. They have to abide by regulations and the consequences for refusing are so costly to business that even the giant tobacco companies submit to them. Though you Americans give them a little more leeway than we do. Anyone who smokes nowadays knows exactly what they do to their body. We teach it in schools, in ads and (at least where I live) on the packets themselves.
But that's the thing about freedom of choice. You choose it for yourself. You can kill yourself with smokes or alcohol to your heart's content. So long as you are of age. If you're addicted you can go to health programs to try to quell the addiction. No smoker or drinker is scared to come forward for help, because unlike a drug addict, they don't run the risk of going to jail just for having the habit. Arguably making it easier to give lifelines to people addicted to tobacco than it is for pot heads.
Also I've worked in cigarette shops. They are especially strict with sales, because the fines levied out for breaking regulations are pretty freaking high. Way too high for it to be worth even slacking off on, and the company I worked for wasn't no small "mom and pop" store either. It was a giant multi billion corporation.
Can a random pot dealer really say the same of their product?

 

[robocop (actually)]

Interesting... I will put a note to think about that... I'll try to get back to you tomorrow.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Well they kind of are. They have to abide by regulations and the consequences for refusing are so costly to business that even the giant tobacco companies submit to them. Though you Americans give them a little more leeway than we do. Anyone who smokes nowadays knows exactly what they do to their body. We teach it in schools, in ads and (at least where I live) on the packets themselves.
But that's the thing about freedom of choice. You choose it for yourself. You can kill yourself with smokes or alcohol to your heart's content. So long as you are of age. If you're addicted you can go to health programs to try to quell the addiction. No smoker or drinker is scared to come forward for help, because unlike a drug addict, they don't run the risk of going to jail just for having the habit. Arguably making it easier to give lifelines to people addicted to tobacco than it is for pot heads.
Also I've worked in cigarette shops. They are especially strict with sales, because the fines levied out for breaking regulations are pretty freaking high. Way too high for it to be worth even slacking off on, and the company I worked for wasn't no small "mom and pop" store either. It was a giant multi billion corporation.
Can a random pot dealer really say the same of their product?

Well, as for coming forward with an addiction, I do believe you should be able to turn yourself in to get addiction treatment without going to jail.

The rest of your post is good. Of course I still don't want pot legalized because it will be a further drain on the economy in addition to cigarettes. There will be the same number of users right? So it drains the economy.

Also, not sure if this is relevant, but I thought of the question of legalizing child porn. No I do not want to legalize child porn, but some of these libertarians seem to be so hard core libertatian that I question whether they would. That ruins the lives of the actors for the rest of their lives period.

Humbly waiting your response.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well, as for coming forward with an addiction, I do believe you should be able to turn yourself in to get addiction treatment without going to jail.

The rest of your post is good. Of course I still don't want pot legalized because it will be a further drain on the economy in addition to cigarettes. There will be the same number of users right? So it drains the economy.

Also, not sure if this is relevant, but I thought of the question of legalizing child porn. No I do not want to legalize child porn, but some of these libertarians seem to be so hard core libertatian that I question whether they would. That ruins the lives of the actors for the rest of their lives period.

Humbly waiting your response.

The number of users is hard to gauge because of pot's illegality specifically. So I don't honestly know, but criminalising it certain hasn't lowered numbers as far as I can tell. The demand is stil there so it's rather a moot point. Making something illegal doesn't magically reduce the demand, such a way of thinking exposes one's naivety. Often it increases the demand because the product is now taboo. It's the classic forbidden fruit phenomenon. Tell a person they can't have something, bam! instant interest in the thing.

Child porn is illegal specifically because a child cannot consent in any sense of the word. A user if they are advertised a product can actually consent. An adult has every right to destroy their lives because that's a consequence of freedom of choice. A child cannot, because they aren't developed enough (emotionally, mentally and physically) to decide if the consequences are worth it. Pretty simple and straightforward if you ask me.
Freedom has to include every option as long as there's informed consent. Otherwise it's just hypocritical.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The number of users is hard to gauge because of pot's illegality specifically. So I don't honestly know, but criminalising it certain hasn't lowered numbers as far as I can tell. The demand is stil there so it's rather a moot point. Making something illegal doesn't magically reduce the demand, such a way of thinking exposes one's naivety. Often it increases the demand because the product is now taboo. It's the classic forbidden fruit phenomenon. Tell a person they can't have something, bam! instant interest in the thing.

Child porn is illegal specifically because a child cannot consent in any sense of the word. A user if they are advertised a product can actually consent. An adult has every right to destroy their lives because that's a consequence of freedom of choice. A child cannot, because they aren't developed enough (emotionally, mentally and physically) to decide if the consequences are worth it. Pretty simple and straightforward if you ask me.
Freedom has to include every option as long as there's informed consent. Otherwise it's just hypocritical.

I'm glad to hear that libertarians won't want to legalize child porn.

I don't really take that much stock in your forbidden fruit phenomenon and I disagree with what you said that you can't really count the sales because it's illegal. I think there would be a lot more sales if it were legal because people don't take it because they don't want to go to jail.

 

[SomeRandom]

I'm glad to hear that libertarians won't want to legalize child porn.

Pretty sure only pedophiles want child porn legal.

I don't really take that much stock in your forbidden fruit phenomenon

Then explain the multi billion dollar black market.

and I disagree with what you said that you can't really count the sales because it's illegal.

I said the statistics are probably hard to truly gauge because it's illegal. I mean you can collect data, but when something is illegal, it makes it harder than if something is legal. People tend to be more forthcoming if they don't fear jail, funnily enough.

I think there would be a lot more sales if it were legal because people don't take it because they don't want to go to jail.

Again hard to say. Here's what happened when alcohol was illegal.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w3675.pdf
Legal, illegal, if the demand is there, it won't magically disappear just because of the laws.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I think we've bashed heads and not gotten anywhere for a while now... can we agree to disagree?

 

[robocop (actually)]

.

Just heard a rapper today singing "I'm young and I smoke weed." Terrible.

 

[SomeRandom]

Just heard a rapper today singing "I'm young and I smoke weed." Terrible.

Lol that's because it's a rapper. In other news water is wet.

 

[robocop (actually)]

I don't want to pick this up too long (you're welcome to rebuttal). But I thought this was interesting for all its worth.

The LDS church said legalizing marijuana would have "serious adverse consequences." That was in regards to Utah's bill, the strictest in the land. The LDS Church does not mention marijuana negatively in its health code from the 1800s and the Book of Mormon has a verse about people using many herbs for health.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My mother in law smoked all through college and worked for NASA. My father in law smoked all through college and is a patent holding mechaical engineer. Both of them had siblings whose careers and lives were destroyed by alcohol addiction.

Yup. Myself, when I was on campus, there was a good chance I was stoned.

Me getting Fs in many math classes one semester and As

That's your experience. My math grades were better toking up before a math test. And it's no exaggeration when I say I was stoned all the time throughout college. And I graduated with honors and distinctions, magna cum laude. Clearly, it did not hinder my academic performance.

 

[robocop (actually)]

That's your experience. My math grades were better toking up before a math test. And it's no exaggeration when I say I was stoned all the time throughout college. And I graduated with honors and distinctions, magna cum laude. Clearly, it did not hinder my academic performance.

Shadow Wolf, you of course realize there are a lot of variables involved:

(1) How bad was the weed smoked? Mine might have been worse than yours.
(2) What age were we? I went to College young.
(3) How much natural talent was required for the math? I could have smoked a bowl of weed and aced Calculus 101 and 102. These failed classes were undergrad classes, but still a lot harder. Everyone has a different natural talent that weed probably doesn't effect until they reach a curve and then they only have so much left after the curve for everything after.
(4) How much natural ability to learn once it gets difficult did we have? I was unable to learn Abstract Algebra, but when I took it the next Semester I got an A.

Do me a favor and do a web search and see if it doesn't say that weed affects judgment. I was so stoned I even missed the deadline to withdraw the Semester failing.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Shadow Wolf, you of course realize there are a lot of variables involved:

The point was the futility of providing anecdotal evidence because inevitably someone else will have a completely different experience.

Do me a favor and do a web search and see if it doesn't say that weed affects judgment. I was so stoned I even missed the deadline to withdraw the Semester failing.

Many different things affect our judgements in different ways. And with drugs, not everyone will experience them the same way. With heroine, some people speed way up while others slow way down. With stimulants some find sleep comes easier, while others will find sleep to be impossible. With weed, I've seen and known of reactions that range from making people very tired, allergic reactions, making people ramble, turning people's comic switch on, and for some it's a relief from depression and anxiety, while for some it an increase anxiety. Individual genetic traits makes drugs weird like that. It's why they even have genetic marker tests for psychotropic medications.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The point was the futility of providing anecdotal evidence because inevitably someone else will have a completely different experience.

Many different things affect our judgements in different ways. And with drugs, not everyone will experience them the same way. With heroine, some people speed way up while others slow way down. With stimulants some find sleep comes easier, while others will find sleep to be impossible. With weed, I've seen and known of reactions that range from making people very tired, allergic reactions, making people ramble, turning people's comic switch on, and for some it's a relief from depression and anxiety, while for some it an increase anxiety. Individual genetic traits makes drugs weird like that. It's why they even have genetic marker tests for psychotropic medications.

OK thank you. So it would help if people could get genetically tested for the affects if they wanted to try marijuana no?

 

[robocop (actually)]

The point was the futility of providing anecdotal evidence because inevitably someone else will have a completely different experience.

Many different things affect our judgements in different ways. And with drugs, not everyone will experience them the same way. With heroine, some people speed way up while others slow way down. With stimulants some find sleep comes easier, while others will find sleep to be impossible. With weed, I've seen and known of reactions that range from making people very tired, allergic reactions, making people ramble, turning people's comic switch on, and for some it's a relief from depression and anxiety, while for some it an increase anxiety. Individual genetic traits makes drugs weird like that. It's why they even have genetic marker tests for psychotropic medications.

By the way, that makes one long Surgeon General's Warning!

 

[ecco]

You've mentioned the Utah State Hospital several times. I'm not denying information from the government. I'll believe it when I see something from your source, other than your say so.

Googling Utah State Hospital pot study brought up no results.

Besides, if you were so mentally impaired, how could you possibly remember what someone from Utah State Hospital said?

Why would it turn up results?

Because you said...

When I was in the Utah State Hospital they said that weed from China sticks in your system for 20 years after minimal use and really affects judgment.

The Utah State Hospital said some weed can screw you up for 20 years.

First you said "they said", without specifying who "they" is. Then you said the "Hospital said", in an attempt to give the comment more credence. You even suggested it came from the Government when you said "Would the Government lie?"

I guess what you meant was that someone told you this bit of BS and you believed it. Was it someone with a mop and a pail?