Questions on Decriminalization/Legalization movement

[nodoginnafight]

Pot makes some people psychotic. It's bad enough that many people with mental health issues in this country don't receive aqueduct treatment. We don't need legalization/decriminalization of pot to make things worse.

Rocko, that's the reasoning they used in the 1930's (as I'm sure you've heard) with reefer madness. I thought that we had come a long way since that movie but you're proving me wrong.

Marijuana is everywhere, and everyone smokes it. If it made people psychotic we would know about it pretty concretely by now, just as if alcohol or coffee made people permanently psychotic.

It doesn't make everyone psychotic, but it has been known to trigger psychotic episodes in people with mental disorders. Numerous studies have shown that.

water can trigger a psychotic episode in SOME people.

Wanna start a "war on water"???

 

[MikeK]

Yeah, except there are warning labels on anything dangerous to tell you that if you ingest it, you will die.

No one has died from ingesting marijuana. Ever.

You don't know that so why lie?

Yes he does know that. And so do I. And so does everyone else with enough common sense to know there is no record in the annals of medical science attributing death or illness to marijuana use. None.

If you wish to dispute that you'll need some evidence -- and there is none. The fact is people have died from eating peanuts but no one has ever died from using marijuana. And while I know ideas we've been conditioned (brainwashed) to believe are difficult to dismiss the sooner you let go of this one the easier it will be for you to accept the truth and stop banging your head against the wall of ignorance.

 

[KNB]

Millions of Americans smoke weed. Millions of Americans do not turn into raving lunatics and zombie axe murderers. Therefore, the idea that marijuana should be illegal because it causes psychosis is absurd.

America legalized MARIHUANA during World War II, and guess what? America did not descend into a braindead stoner commie atheist wasteland. Instead, Cannabis legalization helped our nation become more independent of foreign imports, it lowered the unemployment rate, it provided life-saving equipment for millions of American soldiers, it contributed to bringing the US out of the Great Depression, and it helped to end global genocide.

 

[KevinWestern]

Yeah, except there are warning labels on anything dangerous to tell you that if you ingest it, you will die.

No one has died from ingesting marijuana. Ever.

You don't know that so why lie?

We hear stories of cocaine overdoses, heroine overdoses, alcohol overdoses, prescription med overdoses, water overdoses (remember when those people died from drinking too much water?), but never have I heard of someone overdosing on pot. Not through word of mouth, on the news, anywhere.

Has it happened in the history of mankind? Maybe. But regardless not to any sort of concern level that would be grounds for prohibition.

That's the point.

 

[BlindBoo]

Yes we see just how good.

people have been doing drugs a long time Katz....it is not something that just started in the last few years.....when your out in a crowd many of those people may smoke Pot at the house.....many are pretty successful at what they do too.....

People have been murdering and raping a long time as well should we legalize that?

tapatalk post

Because one ingesting a plant for it's euphoric effect is so much like violently killing another human being or violently sexually assaulting someone.

That has got to be the lamest of the lame.

 

[kaz]

Yeah, except there are warning labels on anything dangerous to tell you that if you ingest it, you will die.

No one has died from ingesting marijuana. Ever.

You don't know that so why lie?

We hear stories of cocaine overdoses, heroine overdoses, alcohol overdoses, prescription med overdoses, water overdoses (remember when those people died from drinking too much water?), but never have I heard of someone overdosing on pot. Not through word of mouth, on the news, anywhere.

Has it happened in the history of mankind? Maybe. But regardless not to any sort of concern level that would be grounds for prohibition.

That's the point.

Even if it did happen, aren't the cons the ones talking about small government not making our choices for us? Apparently they meant government should only allow us to chose when we make the right choices and they should step right in when we don't.

I'm anti-pot. It may not be physically addictive, but it's certainly mentally addictive. However, I actually meant it when I said I want government to allow us make our own choices over our own lies and our own bodies, and I meant it if we make the right or the wrong choices...

 

[kaz]

Pot makes some people psychotic. It's bad enough that many people with mental health issues in this country don't receive aqueduct treatment. We don't need legalization/decriminalization of pot to make things worse.

Rocko, that's the reasoning they used in the 1930's (as I'm sure you've heard) with reefer madness. I thought that we had come a long way since that movie but you're proving me wrong.

Marijuana is everywhere, and everyone smokes it. If it made people psychotic we would know about it pretty concretely by now, just as if alcohol or coffee made people permanently psychotic.

It doesn't make everyone psychotic, but it has been known to trigger psychotic episodes in people with mental disorders. Numerous studies have shown that.

So government should make everyone's choices for them?

BTW, have you noticed that even high school kids can get all the pot they want? Have you notice we're funding organized crime? Have you seen what we've done to endlessly destabalize countries like Columbia and Afghanistan? Is there some point where in the effort to make people's choices for them, we realize the cost of making people's choices of them is incredibly high, and then doesn't even work?

 

[KevinWestern]

Even if it did happen, aren't the cons the ones talking about small government not making our choices for us? Apparently they only meant government should only allow us to make the right choices and they should step right in when we don't.

I'm anti-pot. It may not be physically addictive, but it's certainly mentally addictive. However, I actually meant it when I said I want government should allow us to make our own choices, and I meant it if we make the right or the wrong ones...

Oh I'm with you, and don't really care if someone is anti-pot. That's your life. What I do have a problem with is when someone is anti-pot and wants to make it illegal for everyone else who might not be.

I will say though that marijuana is a fine alternative to drinking. It relaxes you, it generally will help you see things in new ways, it forces you to be introspective, and it really doesn't last all that long. If you ingest it, there are virtually zero negative physical side effects (unlike alcohol, which destroys the liver amongst other things).

Also, want to add that most GOOD things are mentally addicting (like reading a good book, or biking, or drawing, or making music, etc). Sex is addicting. Doesn't mean those are bad things; you just need to learn (like anything else) to do them in moderation.

Anyways, if you're against prohibition than we have no beef. Your life is your life.

 

[kaz]

Even if it did happen, aren't the cons the ones talking about small government not making our choices for us? Apparently they only meant government should only allow us to make the right choices and they should step right in when we don't.

I'm anti-pot. It may not be physically addictive, but it's certainly mentally addictive. However, I actually meant it when I said I want government should allow us to make our own choices, and I meant it if we make the right or the wrong ones...

Oh I'm with you, and don't really care if someone is anti-pot. That's your life. What I do have a problem with is when someone is anti-pot and wants to make it illegal for everyone else who might not be.

I will say though that marijuana is a fine alternative to drinking. It relaxes you, it generally will help you see things in new ways, it forces you to be introspective, and it really doesn't last all that long. If you ingest it, there are virtually zero negative physical side effects (unlike alcohol, which destroys the liver amongst other things).

Also, want to add that most GOOD things are mentally addicting (like reading a good book, or biking, or drawing, or making music, etc). Sex is addicting. Doesn't mean those are bad things; you just need to learn (like anything else) to do them in moderation.

Anyways, if you're against prohibition than we have no beef. Your life is your life.

I think all drugs should be legal, so as you said from that perspective we have no disagreement.

Just on the use of pot though, I would agree that for people who truly only smoke it on a Friday night with friends instead of drinking, I don't see a difference. However, it's a poor analogy to your examples of books, biking, ... For regular pot users, they are using pot to retard their natural mental development. I see people who use pot and say it's the same, but they smoke it in the morning and during the day on weekdays. Only serious alcoholics do that. Other than true, social pot smokers, I think pot smokers are deluding themselves.

However, again, that is not an appropriate choice for government any more than the decision to have cake and ice cream for dinner.

 

[KevinWestern]

I think all drugs should be legal, so as you said from that perspective we have no disagreement.

Just on the use of pot though, I would agree that for people who truly only smoke it on a Friday night with friends instead of drinking, I don't see a difference. However, it's a poor analogy to your examples of books, biking, ... For regular pot users, they are using pot to retard their natural mental development. I see people who use pot and say it's the same, but they smoke it in the morning and during the day on weekdays. Only serious alcoholics do that. Other than true, social pot smokers, I think pot smokers are deluding themselves.

However, again, that is not an appropriate choice for government any more than the decision to have cake and ice cream for dinner.

Yes, we fully agree on how to approach this from a Governmental perspective - which is the most important piece - and now we're just into a discussion of opinions. Totally get that.

What makes you so sure that regular pot users are "retarding their natural mental development"? Ideally none of us should have to use drugs to reach a heightened sense of awareness (ie the "end game"), however I think it's a good tool to get people thinking in the right direction in many respects.

Carl Sagan - an American astrophysicist - used to swear by the drug to help cultivate his mind to come up with new "outside the box" theories that ended up revolutionizing the way we now think about the universe. I mean, for him it was a tool to (again) open up his mind a bit. That's not retarding mental development is it?

You know you can take the things you learn while on the drug and USE it the next time while you're sober. That's advancing mental development.

Again, do some people become couch potatoes? Sure. But that's blame to be rested upon the person and not the drug. You can take a hammer and build a house, or you can take a hammer and smash a bunch of store windows with it; the hammer is neutral while the wielder of the hammer is responsible .

.

 

[thanatos144]

Rocko, that's the reasoning they used in the 1930's (as I'm sure you've heard) with reefer madness. I thought that we had come a long way since that movie but you're proving me wrong.

Marijuana is everywhere, and everyone smokes it. If it made people psychotic we would know about it pretty concretely by now, just as if alcohol or coffee made people permanently psychotic.

It doesn't make everyone psychotic, but it has been known to trigger psychotic episodes in people with mental disorders. Numerous studies have shown that.

So government should make everyone's choices for them?

BTW, have you noticed that even high school kids can get all the pot they want? Have you notice we're funding organized crime? Have you seen what we've done to endlessly destabalize countries like Columbia and Afghanistan? Is there some point where in the effort to make people's choices for them, we realize the cost of making people's choices of them is incredibly high, and then doesn't even work?

Have you noticed people can murder people too? Guess we better make that legal

tapatalk post

 

[thanatos144]

Hey after we make all drugs legal then we can make the sex trade legal! Hey then it will be okay for 50 year old men to have sex with 14 year old children

tapatalk post

 

[KevinWestern]

Have you noticed people can murder people too? Guess we better make that legal

A man murdering another man has absolutely no parallels with a man choosing to smoke pot. Two different things.

Try again.

 

[KevinWestern]

Hey after we make all drugs legal then we can make the sex trade legal! Hey then it will be okay for 50 year old men to have sex with 14 year old children

The act of a man selling human beings, or having sex with children who can't consent (rape) has absolutely nothing in common with the act of a man choosing to put drugs in his own body voluntarily.

Try again.

 

[kaz]

It doesn't make everyone psychotic, but it has been known to trigger psychotic episodes in people with mental disorders. Numerous studies have shown that.

So government should make everyone's choices for them?

BTW, have you noticed that even high school kids can get all the pot they want? Have you notice we're funding organized crime? Have you seen what we've done to endlessly destabalize countries like Columbia and Afghanistan? Is there some point where in the effort to make people's choices for them, we realize the cost of making people's choices of them is incredibly high, and then doesn't even work?

Have you noticed people can murder people too? Guess we better make that legal

tapatalk post

So seriously, you see someone doing something that harms themselves and someone doing something that harms someone else as the same? I have to point that out to you?

 

[kaz]

I think all drugs should be legal, so as you said from that perspective we have no disagreement.

Just on the use of pot though, I would agree that for people who truly only smoke it on a Friday night with friends instead of drinking, I don't see a difference. However, it's a poor analogy to your examples of books, biking, ... For regular pot users, they are using pot to retard their natural mental development. I see people who use pot and say it's the same, but they smoke it in the morning and during the day on weekdays. Only serious alcoholics do that. Other than true, social pot smokers, I think pot smokers are deluding themselves.

However, again, that is not an appropriate choice for government any more than the decision to have cake and ice cream for dinner.

Yes, we fully agree on how to approach this from a Governmental perspective - which is the most important piece - and now we're just into a discussion of opinions. Totally get that.

What makes you so sure that regular pot users are "retarding their natural mental development"? Ideally none of us should have to use drugs to reach a heightened sense of awareness (ie the "end game"), however I think it's a good tool to get people thinking in the right direction in many respects.

Carl Sagan - an American astrophysicist - used to swear by the drug to help cultivate his mind to come up with new "outside the box" theories that ended up revolutionizing the way we now think about the universe. I mean, for him it was a tool to (again) open up his mind a bit. That's not retarding mental development is it?

You know you can take the things you learn while on the drug and USE it the next time while you're sober. That's advancing mental development.

Again, do some people become couch potatoes? Sure. But that's blame to be rested upon the person and not the drug. You can take a hammer and build a house, or you can take a hammer and smash a bunch of store windows with it; the hammer is neutral while the wielder of the hammer is responsible .

.

Keep in mind I've agreed that social smokers are no different than social drinkers. But as you your question, pot is a way to not deal with life's issues, which means you're by definition not developing normal coping skills but relying on pot to do it for you.

Not for you, I know we're on the same page, but but lest anyone read this who hasn't read the prior portion of the thread, we are both against pot being illegal, we are just discussing the effects of pot.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

I'm anti-pot. It may not be physically addictive, but it's certainly mentally addictive. However, I actually meant it when I said I want government to allow us make our own choices over our own lies and our own bodies, and I meant it if we make the right or the wrong choices...

You've got it almost right, so let's trim the rough edge.

Marijuana is "mentally addictive" -- but only where those affected by the addictive personality are concerned. These are individuals who are inclined to addiction and will throughout their tormented lives become addicted to everything from chocolate to alcohol, sex, and/or opiates. And somewhere along the line they will pick up on marijuana.

The infamous "gateway drug" notion is attributed to this category because it is assumed their addictive progress began with marijuana when in fact it could have started with Hershey bars, cigarettes, beer, or any number of things. I knew someone who once drove fifteen miles to an all-night convenience store at 3AM to buy Coca Cola. She also was "addicted" to marijuana and cocaine. I will assume that by now, presuming she's still alive, she has progressed to heroin and amphetamines.

Fortunately the addictive personality is uncommon. So to think of marijuana as being mentally addictive in the general sense is a mistake.

 

[KevinWestern]

Keep in mind I've agreed that social smokers are no different than social drinkers. But as you your question, pot is a way to not deal with life's issues, which means you're by definition not developing normal coping skills but relying on pot to do it for you.

My argument was more or less focused around insights; it had nothing to do with using pot as a means to "cope". Are there people that do that (?), sure, but there are most definitely many people who do not.

Again, is it a bad thing if an astrophysicist finds that smoking marijuana is the best way to solve complex problems that a "sober" mind would have difficult approaching because of the way our sober minds are designed (ie very generalizing, yet efficient)?

Again, I see it as a tool.

Plus, it can be a nice relaxer/stress reducer in the evenings (vs drinking a beer or two). Note that for habitual users a single "puff" or what not will produce nothing more than a body buzz. It does not alter the mind, it simply relieves the user of stress (which is an extremely healthy thing).

 

[Harry Dresden]

Rocko, that's the reasoning they used in the 1930's (as I'm sure you've heard) with reefer madness. I thought that we had come a long way since that movie but you're proving me wrong.

Marijuana is everywhere, and everyone smokes it. If it made people psychotic we would know about it pretty concretely by now, just as if alcohol or coffee made people permanently psychotic.

It doesn't make everyone psychotic, but it has been known to trigger psychotic episodes in people with mental disorders. Numerous studies have shown that.

water can trigger a psychotic episode in SOME people.

Wanna start a "war on water"???

so can violent movies.....the "Avengers" i heard made kids all over the place start to throw punches.....WWF the same reaction....

 

[kaz]

[...]

I'm anti-pot. It may not be physically addictive, but it's certainly mentally addictive. However, I actually meant it when I said I want government to allow us make our own choices over our own lies and our own bodies, and I meant it if we make the right or the wrong choices...

You've got it almost right, so let's trim the rough edge.

Marijuana is "mentally addictive" -- but only where those affected by the addictive personality are concerned. These are individuals who are inclined to addiction and will throughout their tormented lives become addicted to everything from chocolate to alcohol, sex, and/or opiates. And somewhere along the line they will pick up on marijuana.

The infamous "gateway drug" notion is attributed to this category because it is assumed their addictive progress began with marijuana when in fact it could have started with Hershey bars, cigarettes, beer, or any number of things. I knew someone who once drove fifteen miles to an all-night convenience store at 3AM to buy Coca Cola. She also was "addicted" to marijuana and cocaine. I will assume that by now, presuming she's still alive, she has progressed to heroin and amphetamines.

Fortunately the addictive personality is uncommon. So to think of marijuana as being mentally addictive in the general sense is a mistake.

Good point, Mike. I like you don't really buy the gateway drug argument, and for that reason. BTW, I smoked pot in High School and for a couple years in college. It was the seventies, pot was everywhere. I also do believe what they say and that it's a lot more potent now. I never did any other drugs and had no interest in doing so. However, I do think my starting to grow up and quitting smoking pot are not unrelated.