Arrested for weed

[CaptainXeroid]

If you criminalize an otherwise peaceful market, you bring about violence. It's really a simple concept. We don't see "booze wars" anymore because prohibitionists lost.

Agreed. Please go back and read my posts where I said I would vote to legalize.

I don't smoke weed so I'm not really sure how your analogy holds.

My analogy about breaking laws is self explanatory. If you don't smoke weed, you're not breaking that law, so you are not subjecting yourself to arrest.

Your line of reasoning would judge MLK and other civil rights leaders as lawless hooligans...

They were law breakers, and if you study your history, you will find that many of them were arrested. The point is that they knew they were breaking a law and subjecting themselves to arrest. The accepted that risk as part of their strategy to protest an unjust law. Your referring to them as 'hooligans' is a bit of a strawman fallacy. It's not proper debate form and really does not strengthen your argument.

If the potheads are using a similar tactic to protest what they view as an unjust law, then they need to know the risks and decide if they are mature enough to face them.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Gettem' Jello!

[youtube]oJ4MauvhRxM[/youtube]
Why Marijuana is illegal (Part 1) - YouTube

 

[Thief]

I have an informed opinion, not a fly-by-night set of assumptions built up over our short exchange. I have provided plenty of rebuttal, but I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot make it drink.

This is my line ....not yours.

That is my opinion, and you do not have the argument to change it.

Well then ....be on your way.

 

[gnomon]

I have an informed opinion, not a fly-by-night set of assumptions built up over our short exchange. I have provided plenty of rebuttal, but I can only lead a horse to water, I cannot make it drink.

Perhaps it would help if I pointed out some of my rebuttal points raised so far:

1. Medicinal - Drugs are common in medicine, cannabis is not. Ergo for medicinal purposes it is not a suitable product to displace existing medicines. Either because of cost or benefit.
2. Criminalisation - I do not believe young people should be criminalised for trying it, after all curiosity is difficult to stifle, and policing it costs a fortune; but I do believe dealers should be tackled to get it off the streets.
3. Legalisation - Cannabis is not safe enough to put in general usage for mental health reasons, we have not discussed social reasons, and people driving round with spliffs in their mouths.
4. Environment - Children deserve to grow up in an environment where mind altering drugs is not the norm in society.
5. Mental Health Risk - I have first hand knowledge of the mental health links
6. Mental Health Risk - There is a plethora of information that appraises cannabis and mental health issues, suggesting a high correlation between cannabis and various forms of mental health problems.
7. Risk - You say it is low risk because many people smoke it without harm, and would know if it was bad. I say that people are not that well informed, and that people who smoke cannabis in countries where it is illegal are risk takers, and therefore likely en masse to ignore the risks of taking cannabis and focus on the perceived benefits, so the number of smokers is not a barometer of safety.

and your arguments to my points:

1. Medicinal - It has health benefits
2. Criminalisation - Everyone in jail because of cannabis should be released because they should never have been there in the first place.
3. Legalisation - cannabis should be legalised, the law should never have been bought in and should be repealed (though you give no good reason why?)
4. Environment - It should be available to everyone
5. Mental health risk - There is none and this is all Propaganda - A propaganda film made in the 30's still applies today which prevents you from absorbing any new information.
6. Risk - No risk because millions of casual users smoke it, and if it was bad they would know.

Your approach is more Liaise-Faire than mine. I take a precautionary approach.

Do I want a load of youngsters to have criminal convictions? No I do not. Perhaps on the spot fines, but criminal convictions affect a child's future, and I would not want to see that happen; dealers should have no protection.

It is important to err on the side of caution when looking at these issues, and be sure of science before unleashing it on an entire nation. As long as there is doubt then you should err on the side of caution.

I think it is obvious we are not going to agree because I have already determined what my outcome would be, and you yours.

That is my opinion, and you do not have the argument to change it.

There is not a plethora of studies establishing a causal link between marijuana and mental illness.

I have first hand experience of mental illness, living among people being treated for mental illness and the first hand experience of using mind altering drugs.

As well, cannabis is not common in medicine because the federal government won't allow it. Cocaine is common in medicine and it's illegal for personal consumption. The scientific research heavily supports cannabis for medical purposes and hemp for numerous practical purposes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I think is just, or unjust is irrelevant because it's the law, period. Why can't you understand this?

Because it's not an answer. "You have to obey the law because it's the law"? You're just creating a circle without explaining anything.

I obey the law because it is an expression of justice. However, when it ceases to be an expression of justice, this reason for obeying it ceases to be valid.

Here's an example of an unjust law that I'm obliged to agree with even though I personally think is absurd: A man can drive his vehicle to a bar, drink alcohol and then drive himself home.

That's nonsense. You're not obliged to agree with it at all... as evidenced by the fact that you just disagreed with it. Did you spend the night in jail for writing that post?

And your example isn't at all analogous to what we're talking about. A law that allows people to drink alcohol does not impinge on your free choices at all. You're still free not to drink alcohol if that's what you choose. OTOH, when marijuana is prohibited, only one option is available (legally, anyhow): not to use it.

Actually, now that I think about it, your example makes no sense at all, because the "law" you refer to doesn't really exist. In a society without laws, our default state would be that everything is permitted; as laws are introduced, they restrict freedom. If it's legal for someone to drive home from a bar where you are, it's not because someone has passed a law making it legal; it's because nobody's passed a law against the activity. Your law is actually a non-law... a hole in the law, not a law itself.

There are many laws, rules and regulations that make absolutely no sense to me, but untill I'm in a position to change them, then there's not much I can do other than ***** and complain; blame everyone and everything around me, or simple obey them.

Out of curiosity, if you did decide not to obey the "law" you mentioned, how would you go about disobeying it?

 

[cablescavenger]

There is not a plethora of studies establishing a causal link between marijuana and mental illness.

I have first hand experience of mental illness, living among people being treated for mental illness and the first hand experience of using mind altering drugs.

As well, cannabis is not common in medicine because the federal government won't allow it. Cocaine is common in medicine and it's illegal for personal consumption. The scientific research heavily supports cannabis for medical purposes and hemp for numerous practical purposes.

Perhaps you never read the word correlation. I have not claimed a causal link.

I am fairly sure we have covered your other points too.

 

[Iti oj]

Perhaps you never read the word correlation. I have not claimed a causal link.

I am fairly sure we have covered your other points too.

from first hand experience and from that of others and from studies i8 have read..... the correlation is the other way around people with possible mental illness are more likely to smoke.

 

[Two-bit guru]

From Wikipedia, Henry David Thoreau on Civil Disobedience:
Civil Disobedience (Resistance to Civil Government) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican-American War.

 

[Alceste]

The problem isn't that pot is illegal, the problem is those people who break the law by smoking it. If you're not getting your smoke from your own garden, or hydro from someone who takes the time to set it up, then chances are it comes directly from Mexico.

...but it's just an oz, I'm not contributing to murder

Sorry, but I live in British Columbia. This is not the case in my neck of the woods. Mexico could not hope to compete.

 

[Alceste]

Criminalize milk and the same thing....see what I did there, I can make absurd analogies, too.

I'm sure I have, but I don't intentionally seek out a product that someone may have lost their head over; literally lost their head, I should add.

Point is this: It's illegal for a reason, and regardless of how ridiculous you or I may think said reason is, it's still illegal. So no blame should be put on the powers that be, every single murder; all deaths related: both intentional and unintentional, falls completely on the consumer e.g your common everyday pot smoker.

Please enlighten me as to the reason you think pot is illegal.

 

[gnomon]

Perhaps you never read the word correlation. I have not claimed a causal link.

I am fairly sure we have covered your other points too.

My bad. I even quoted your post and still thought you mentioned a causal relationship.

I did look at the Royal College of Psychiatrists link but it is only a summation of the cohort studies that were done. From looking at the conclusions of various studies at best what we have is that a few studies show a correlation of psychoactive symptoms among individuals who regularly used cannabis before the age of 15. What this means exactly is unknown because we need more directed studies of the chemical effects of the variety of chemicals in cannabis.

What we also know is that the United States has one of the highest rates of marijuana usage but one of the lowest incidences of schizophrenia. However, trying to find reliable numbers on incidences of schizophrenia in the U.S. by year or decade, especially with evolving diagnostic definitions, and comparing that to the large jump in marijuana use from the late 1960's and tracking the correlation of the two is a bit difficult at the moment. Need a bit more digging.

 

[cablescavenger]

My bad. I even quoted your post and still thought you mentioned a causal relationship.

I did look at the Royal College of Psychiatrists link but it is only a summation of the cohort studies that were done. From looking at the conclusions of various studies at best what we have is that a few studies show a correlation of psychoactive symptoms among individuals who regularly used cannabis before the age of 15. What this means exactly is unknown because we need more directed studies of the chemical effects of the variety of chemicals in cannabis.

What we also know is that the United States has one of the highest rates of marijuana usage but one of the lowest incidences of schizophrenia. However, trying to find reliable numbers on incidences of schizophrenia in the U.S. by year or decade, especially with evolving diagnostic definitions, and comparing that to the large jump in marijuana use from the late 1960's and tracking the correlation of the two is a bit difficult at the moment. Need a bit more digging.

To be honest I understand why people stand both sides of the argument, and I am not a hard liner, I am a live and let live kind of guy. This is just my view, and I don't care about it enough to ram it down peoples throats.

If the science showed it was safe I would support legalisation, I only take a cautious stance because I am not convinced it is, and I need more substance to support it.

If Ron Paul gets in people might get their wish :yes:

 

[Shermana]

If Ron Paul gets in people might get their wish

Or Herman Cain, he has recently stated he will support a State's right to decide on this. And he has a far better chance at winning.

 

[gnomon]

To be honest I understand why people stand both sides of the argument, and I am not a hard liner, I am a live and let live kind of guy. This is just my view, and I don't care about it enough to ram it down peoples throats.

If the science showed it was safe I would support legalisation, I only take a cautious stance because I am not convinced it is, and I need more substance to support it.

If Ron Paul gets in people might get their wish :yes:

My view comes from weighing which causes more harm. The use of the drug or the State's attempts to control the use of the drug. What we have in the U.S. in regards to enforcing the laws has reached a frightening militaristic level against the citizenry to the point that enforcing the drug laws is hurting more people than the actual use of the drug.

A possible 300% increase in psychoactive symptoms among a small percentage of marijuana users is a risk that can be dealt with by the community and health industry as opposed to the violence citizens face from the black market trade and from our own law enforcement agencies on top of the erosion of personal privacy and property rights that has accompanied this decades long campaign.

But this is the U.S. I've always viewed the U.K. and other European nations as less problematic in this regard. In other words, those nations are not selling armored personnel carriers to small towns to fight the drug war.

 

[cablescavenger]

My view comes from weighing which causes more harm. The use of the drug or the State's attempts to control the use of the drug. What we have in the U.S. in regards to enforcing the laws has reached a frightening militaristic level against the citizenry to the point that enforcing the drug laws is hurting more people than the actual use of the drug.

A possible 300% increase in psychoactive symptoms among a small percentage of marijuana users is a risk that can be dealt with by the community and health industry as opposed to the violence citizens face from the black market trade and from our own law enforcement agencies on top of the erosion of personal privacy and property rights that has accompanied this decades long campaign.

But this is the U.S. I've always viewed the U.K. and other European nations as less problematic in this regard. In other words, those nations are not selling armored personnel carriers to small towns to fight the drug war.

Yeah we don't have a small army of armed personnel going to drug busts. I am sure they would if we had the right to bear arms though, luckily we do not.

 

[apophenia]

Why was marijuana made illegal ?

Primarily because of the desire of the Du pont corporation to monopolise global textile markets.

Du Pont invented a method for making paper from wood pulp. That method required chemicals marketed by Du Pont. There is a massively higher yield of paper from marijuana, and the whole process is way more eco-friendly.

Du Pont also invented nylon. Shortly before the criminalisation of marijuana a machine was invented which could produce fabric to rival silk from hemp fibre, much cheaper than silk. And again, way more eco-friendly than Du Pont's nylon.

So basically the reasons for pot being demonised and criminalised was big money. Consider the value of the global markets for nylon and paper in the early 20th century. Du Pont did. So there was massive lobbying of the government, and poroduction of films like 'Reefer Madness'.

Also the lobbyists exploited underlying racist attitudes - marijuana was associated with blacks and Mexicans.

So far as I know there were no medical studies which found any medical reason to ban marijuana at the time.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's always been my belief that marijuana is less harmful than either alcohol and nicotine, and it's health benefits far surpass it's bad points.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So far as I know there were no medical studies which found any medical reason to ban marijuana at the time.

There weren't any. Actually many doctors and scientists fought to keep marijuana legalized during the court debates, and pointed out that what the government was presenting were lies.
And unfortunately today privatized prisons keep people rich so people are still making money from it being illegal.