Re: Legalization of Marijuana

by Gauz Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:57 am

Not all marijuana smells so potent and "skunky".

That article just claims that user under the age of 18 might be at risk of developing mental health issues. If marijuana were legal, the age limit would either be 18 or 21 so I don't see a problem.

If it is legalized it'll actually decrease the amount of users under the legal age because now you have to use an ID to buy it, whereas underground dealers won't card you.

by Rasq'uire'laskar Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:12 am

KrAzY wrote:I will accept peer reviewed studies Rasq. not posts from the Huffington post with no listed sources.

get me the actual source on that and I will probably change my mind on this debate

Yeah, sorry about that.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

by **KrAzY** Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:24 am

BAM

teenagers and children should definately not touch the stuff. science prevails.

are there any studies showing the same with adults though? right now the prevalence of dealers is what makes it easy for kids to get the stuff. I do not argue that dealing drugs is ever okay, even if it were made legal I think that non-liscensed dealers should be apprehended and arrested.

unfortunately the fact that it is illiegal forces people to go to dealers, since they dont have anywhere legal to go to.

making it legal for adults would not stop dealers from selling it to kids though, and would probably make it easier for dealers to obtain to sell to kids. so there might be less dealers because of it, but the ones who dont go out of business would likely be more prolific.

a conundrum

again... I dont have a strong enough opinion on the stuff to really care either way, dumb shits are going to use it no matter what.

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:25 am

"Puberty was a period of "critical brain development" when neural circuits were still forming, they pointed out. At this stage in life the brain was vulnerable to 'toxic insult'."

No shit kids shouldn't be taking drugs. That is an across the board answer for any mind altering substance.

"But the study found no evidence of similar problems affecting people who only took up cannabis as adults."

Adults came out fine.

So should kids who's brains and minds are still growing be allowed to take mind altering drugs? Of course not, I doubt anyone is arguing that. If Marijuana would be legalized i'm sure the age for it would be 18 or 21.

Hell the article even says

"It's such a special study that I'm fairly confident that cannabis is safe for over-18 brains, but risky for under-18 brains."

A grown ass man who works all day shouldn't be allowed a smoke because some dipshit 15 year old will lose 8 IQ points in the course of 10 years?

Same rules as Alcohol I believe: do it in moderation, not for kids, and don't do it while working.

Rotaretilbo wrote:Chronic marijuana use is also linked with various mental disorders, primarily in regards to emotional instability, such as anxiety and depression. It also has been linked with schizophrenia.

"We have known for some time that heavy use of cannabis increases risk of schizophrenia-like psychoses but this remains a relatively rare outcome so it's not so important from a public health point of view.

And here's a news flash: If a guy smokes weed and decides not to go to work that day and would rather sit around and smoke weed instead

Spoiler:

by **Lord Pheonix** Thu Sep 06, 2012 10:11 am

KristallNacht wrote:i don't have the time right now to read the whole thing so i'll just respond to this.

Legalization of Marijuana - Page 5 Long-post_o_689422

by KristallNacht Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:33 pm

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Chronic marijuana use is also linked with various mental disorders, primarily in regards to emotional instability, such as anxiety and depression. It also has been linked with schizophrenia.

wow, you're ignoring the obvious in this. People that are anxious and depressed are also fairly likely to do drugs. It could be a reverse causation. Anxiety and depression are CAUSING weed use, not the other way around. And possibly the same with schizophrenia.

'linked' is a way for soccer moms to claim ridiculous things.

by KristallNacht Thu Sep 06, 2012 12:36 pm

hey, i read it all later...it was just at that moment.

by Indecisive One. Thu Sep 06, 2012 8:38 pm

Legalizing marijuana would heavily reduce the number of prisoners currently in the over crowded prison system. And also, no ones saying that if its legalize that you have to do it. If you don't like it, don't be around it. And from my experience, people are less likely to do anything that involves moving when smoking weed.

by **Rotaretilbo** Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:33 am

Gauz wrote:You're right, the tobacco industry would get involved with marijuana if it becomes legal. I don't think that all legal marijuana will have additives like tobacco though, because there'll always be the people who want just the organic marijuana w/o additives.

And how much are you willing to pay for a pack of "organic" pot? Cigarette prices are ridiculously high, and the "organic" cigarettes are even more expensive. American Spirit often runs for a few dollars more than the other name brands.

Gauz wrote:What is your source that the effects or marijuana in the brain last that much longer? I've never experienced that and I'm not sure if that's true.

National Institute on Drug Abuse. And I'm not saying the high lasts, just the laziness and stupidity, which are both things that you're not going to notice while you're being lazy and stupid.

Gauz wrote:Marijuana also has been claimed to be used as medicine to treat some severe diseases successfully.

You seem to be confused. Marijuana is used as a painkiller. It isn't used to treat diseases, it's used to make symptoms of diseases more bearable.

Gauz wrote:I guess if you make a ridiculous fine for possession it would still be profitable illegal, but I still think that's unreasonable (for such a petty crime).

The fine I outlined wasn't ridiculous. The current fine is $2000. I simply increased the fine by 2.5 and removed the potential for jail time for misdemeanor possession.

Gauz wrote:The profit off taxing it would be much greater. Plus it'll curb the usage of harder, more illegal substances.

I think you people are putting too much emphasis on the concept that marijuana is a gateway drug because your dealer is going to trick you into trying harder stuff. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it provides a high, and many people will seek out the "best" high. If a person finds out that getting a blowjob makes them feel good, they will typically seek out sex, which will make them feel even better. It doesn't matter if they hang around with sluts all the time or not. Hanging around with sluts might make it easier, and maybe some people who would otherwise seek it out won't if it's not readily available, but not being around sluts all the time is not going to suddenly curb people seeking out recreational sex.

KristallNacht wrote:I know people that smoke weed every day and graduated with honors and continue to do really well.

And I know people who drank alcohol in excess every day for thirty years and their livers were perfectly fine. And I know people who smoked cigarettes their whole life and never got lung cancer. The existence of outliers does not disprove the general notion.

KristallNacht wrote:I really don't think its so much that marijuana causes people to skip work, just stupid people that want an excuse to skip work.

I think it's pretty well documented that people who are high on weed are more prone to make stupid decisions, especially stupid decisions that involve short-term gain and long-term loss. And it's not like you can use weed as an excuse to skip work. "Sorry, boss. I was high, so I couldn't come in." Ya, that's not happening.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Correlation does not imply Causation.

And I never said it did.

Lord Pheonix wrote:Because a dumb fuck smokes weed and skips work does not mean that he skipped work because of weed, it's because he was a dumbfuck.

And their is a significant correlation between dumb fucks and people who smoke weed.

The point stands, P. Weed is like alcohol in this regard, except that with alcohol, it's generally understood that you don't drink right before work.

KrAzY wrote:Rot, you need to go look up some studies on the persistant mental state of chronic alcohol abusers. as that is SEVERELY more destructive than "skipping work, being late, having accidents"

Because two wrongs makes a right, amirite?

KrAzY wrote:it is not the federal governments job to stop people from doing something that is self destructive, states can get in on that, but mainly that is supposed to be a personal choice. I choose not to drink or smoke because I don't like it and I want to maximize how long I live.

Unless it's a harder drug? Because I don't see anyone advocating the legalization of cocaine and heroin. Those drugs are decidedly self-destructive, after all. Shouldn't it be a personal choice? This argument is a slippery slope. You can't say that the government has no right to prevent people from being self-destructive unless you're willing to go all the way with that argument.

KrAzY wrote:also Rot, if you think that spending a year of your life in jail isn't damaging to someone and that they won't come out of it more likely to later go on to prison. you are flat out ignoring the actual statistics.

And what are the statistics, KrAzY? Because it seems increasingly difficult to run a study on how many people who went to jail who would otherwise have not gone to prison instead did go to prison because they went to jail, what with the whole having to accurately predict possible distant futures thing. It seems rather impossible to accurately ascertain whether or not going to jail has any affect on going to prison later, as one could just as easily argue that someone who went to jail was more inclined to go to prison in the first place. Frankly, when I looked, I couldn't find any statistics on people who go to jail being turned into criminals. Most of the articles and such that I read involved people who go to prison becoming better criminals. The point stands: jail is a miserable place, but it isn't a criminal mastermind factory.

KrAzY wrote:And I won't even get started on the act of trying to make money off of people by making something illiegal and fining it away from them. that is SO unethical I honestly can't believe you would suggest something like that.

I expect better from you, KrAzY. This is a massive strawman argument. I never said that the government should explicitly make marijuana illegal for the purpose of profiting. I simply suggested an alteration to the current consequences that countered people's claims that we should legalize marijuana because it was not profitable to enforce the current law. Frankly, I feel like my suggested consequences are lighter, given that it doesn't involve any jail time.

Gauz wrote:If it is legalized it'll actually decrease the amount of users under the legal age because now you have to use an ID to buy it, whereas underground dealers won't card you.

How so? You act like legalizing marijuana is just going to make dealers disappear. How is making marijuana super easy to obtain going to make dealers disappear? If anything, it will force dealers to sell to underage.

KristallNacht wrote:wow, you're ignoring the obvious in this. People that are anxious and depressed are also fairly likely to do drugs. It could be a reverse causation. Anxiety and depression are CAUSING weed use, not the other way around. And possibly the same with schizophrenia.

The point stands, NT. It can't be said one way or the other whether weed causes or is caused by these disorders, which is why I used the neutral term "linked" rather than the negative term "caused". However, you cannot completely ignore the possibility just because there is another possibility. That was my point. Everyone in the thread was acting like marijuana was perfectly safe and that there was no reason whatsoever for there to be restrictions on it. I was simply pointing out evidence to the contrary.

Indecisive One. wrote:Legalizing marijuana would heavily reduce the number of prisoners currently in the over crowded prison system.

You're grossly overestimating the number of people in prison for possession or dealing of marijuana. In 2004, there were 1414846 people in prison. Of those, roughly 44816 were in prison for marijuana-related felonies. That's about 3.17% of all prisoners. That's down from 3.38% in 1997. The legalization of marijuana would hardly solve the overcrowding of prisons.

by KristallNacht Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:45 am

Rotaretilbo wrote:

National Institute on Drug Abuse. And I'm not saying the high lasts, just the laziness and stupidity, which are both things that you're not going to notice while you're being lazy and stupid.

cause they definitely don't have an agenda....

by KristallNacht Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:54 am

Rotaretilbo wrote:

Unless it's a harder drug? Because I don't see anyone advocating the legalization of cocaine and heroin. Those drugs are decidedly self-destructive, after all. Shouldn't it be a personal choice? This argument is a slippery slope. You can't say that the government has no right to prevent people from being self-destructive unless you're willing to go all the way with that argument.

I am. If you let heroin ruin your life, you ruined your own life, and I have no sympathy for you, but doesn't mean some guy thats got his shit together can't go down to Tijuana every weekend and get some black tar.

Rotaretilbo wrote:The point stands, NT. It can't be said one way or the other whether weed causes or is caused by these disorders, which is why I used the neutral term "linked" rather than the negative term "caused". However, you cannot completely ignore the possibility just because there is another possibility. That was my point. Everyone in the thread was acting like marijuana was perfectly safe and that there was no reason whatsoever for there to be restrictions on it. I was simply pointing out evidence to the contrary.

such loose 'links' are NOT evidence by any means. There is a link between criminals and cereal consumption.....

Rotaretilbo wrote:
You're grossly overestimating the number of people in prison for possession or dealing of marijuana. In 2004, there were 1414846 people in prison. Of those, roughly 44816 were in prison for marijuana-related felonies. That's about 3.17% of all prisoners. That's down from 3.38% in 1997. The legalization of marijuana would hardly solve the overcrowding of prisons.

3 percent!?!?!!? Out of the couple hundred different crimes someone could do to go to prison, 3% of those in prison are for non-violent drug crimes?! That's not a little weird? No, legalization won't SOLVE the issue, but it's a practical step.

Ntm, the war on drugs just empowers the cartels that ruined mexico, no big deal...

by Nocbl2 Fri Sep 07, 2012 7:55 am

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Gauz wrote:Marijuana also has been claimed to be used as medicine to treat some severe diseases successfully.

You seem to be confused. Marijuana is used as a painkiller. It isn't used to treat diseases, it's used to make symptoms of diseases more bearable.

This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract THC from the plant and use it in pills.

Honestly, people should be able to do what they want to their bodies, so long as it does not effect the rights of others. Recreational drugs should be used only in homes and private places where everyone consents to it.

There also should be a heavy tax on those who sell drugs, and no drug should be sold to anyone under 25. Yes, 25. After your frontal lobes have moved to the front and grown and your brain is done with development. No crystal meth though.

by Ruski Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:21 am

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22897939

by **KrAzY** Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:32 am

Rotaretilbo wrote:
KrAzY wrote:Rot, you need to go look up some studies on the persistant mental state of chronic alcohol abusers. as that is SEVERELY more destructive than "skipping work, being late, having accidents"

Because two wrongs makes a right, amirite?

no, two wrongs don't make a right. I'm going to use your own slippery slope against you now. if the government should stop people from doing self destructive behavior, when why aren't they stopping EVERYTHING that could potentially cause damage to paeople? shouldn't alchohol and soda and fattening foods all be illiegal too? Get arrested for selling some safe albeit unpasteurized milk to your neighbor? (yes, I know about prohibition, you don't need to tell me about it)

oh wait... they are actually now passing laws in some places outlawing those too. I am against all government intervention unless the act actually hurts other people, that includes harder drugs too. People should have their sentences increased if they are on the drug and do a crime, but if they want to fuck up their own lives, let them. dont make it illegal to do do something to yourself... make it illegal to commit crimes. I think DEALING drugs should be a crime, taking them shouldn't.

rotaretilbo wrote:
KrAzY wrote:it is not the federal governments job to stop people from doing something that is self destructive, states can get in on that, but mainly that is supposed to be a personal choice. I choose not to drink or smoke because I don't like it and I want to maximize how long I live.

Unless it's a harder drug? Because I don't see anyone advocating the legalization of cocaine and heroin. Those drugs are decidedly self-destructive, after all. Shouldn't it be a personal choice? This argument is a slippery slope. You can't say that the government has no right to prevent people from being self-destructive unless you're willing to go all the way with that argument.

I answered some of this already, but I just wanted to point out that you are currently arguing for an arbitrary stopping point on the slippery slope. Slippery slope arguments are a fallacious argument and you know it, there is no reason that we can't at any point on it stop and say "thats enough" which is precisely what you are doing now. there can be a middle ground, and to claim there cant most certainly is using this in the fallacious sense.

rotaretilbo wrote:
KrAzY wrote:also Rot, if you think that spending a year of your life in jail isn't damaging to someone and that they won't come out of it more likely to later go on to prison. you are flat out ignoring the actual statistics.

And what are the statistics, KrAzY? Because it seems increasingly difficult to run a study on how many people who went to jail who would otherwise have not gone to prison instead did go to prison because they went to jail, what with the whole having to accurately predict possible distant futures thing. It seems rather impossible to accurately ascertain whether or not going to jail has any affect on going to prison later, as one could just as easily argue that someone who went to jail was more inclined to go to prison in the first place. Frankly, when I looked, I couldn't find any statistics on people who go to jail being turned into criminals. Most of the articles and such that I read involved people who go to prison becoming better criminals. The point stands: jail is a miserable place, but it isn't a criminal mastermind factory.

youve got me here, I don't actually have any statistics. My argument there were bad.

but you seem to not realize that Jail doesn't just hold short-term sentenced people... it can hold people convicted of much more serious crimes awaiting trial for, varies on state, but up to 5 years I think, I would have to look that up. People in jail are separated out how they act, not what crime they were convicted/accused of.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
KrAzY wrote:And I won't even get started on the act of trying to make money off of people by making something illiegal and fining it away from them. that is SO unethical I honestly can't believe you would suggest something like that.

I expect better from you, KrAzY. This is a massive strawman argument. I never said that the government should explicitly make marijuana illegal for the purpose of profiting. I simply suggested an alteration to the current consequences that countered people's claims that we should legalize marijuana because it was not profitable to enforce the current law. Frankly, I feel like my suggested consequences are lighter, given that it doesn't involve any jail time.

I didn't make an argument at all. I said the idea was disgusting and I think it is. I am disgusted by the fact that you even suggested it.

by Gauz Fri Sep 07, 2012 4:19 pm

Rot wrote:
And how much are you willing to pay for a pack of "organic" pot? Cigarette prices are ridiculously high, and the "organic" cigarettes are even more expensive. American Spirit often runs for a few dollars more than the other name brands.

American spirits aren't that much more. Plus if they charge it that much then people will just go to dealers again, and I think the companies would know this so they probably won't make it that much..

Rot wrote:
And I'm not saying the high lasts, just the laziness and stupidity, which are both things that you're not going to notice while you're being lazy and stupid.

I didn't say the high would last longer. I found that out rot, thanks. It wouldn't be stupid to assume the effects ended after the high wears off. That's what people assume, when it's over it's over.

by Dud Doodoo Sat Oct 20, 2012 1:11 am

Rotaretilbo wrote:
And how much are you willing to pay for a pack of "organic" pot? Cigarette prices are ridiculously high, and the "organic" cigarettes are even more expensive. American Spirit often runs for a few dollars more than the other name brands.

In case you are unaware, one major selling point for stoners is that marijuana is mild and organic while legal painkillers are synthetic, dangerous, and addictive. Companies that add substances to their weed are likely to alienate this customer base. Organic cigarettes are more expensive because they are considered a rarity in the market, while with marijuana this would never be the case. This issue could also be averted by making it legal to grow a limited number of plants yourself, which is far more tangible than growing tobacco.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
National Institute on Drug Abuse. And I'm not saying the high lasts, just the laziness and stupidity, which are both things that you're not going to notice while you're being lazy and stupid.

This isn't entirely accurate. Smoking weed once will not produce a fog that persists into the next day. However, heavy chronic use will certainly affect your mental performance until you take a few days sober.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
You seem to be confused. Marijuana is used as a painkiller. It isn't used to treat diseases, it's used to make symptoms of diseases more bearable.

Not entirely true either. For example, marijuana has been shown to lower intraocular pressure for those suffering from glaucoma. It is also one of the few drugs out there that stimulates apatite. It has a nearly nonexistent record of drug interactions, making it instrumental for patients using apatite suppressing drugs such as those going through chemotherapy. Cannabis is beneficial to those with ALS and Alzheimers as well.

This brings me to another point I'd like to raise. The use of synthetic THC/CBD pills is widespread in states/countries where medical marijuana is illegal. These pills are prescribed for a variety of ailments, specifically cancer. The government cannot seriously deny the medical value of cannabis while these are FDA approved and used everywhere. Does removing the active ingredients from their natural form, and synthesizing them in a lab somehow improve their value? I am not arguing that there is much, if any, difference between natural and synthetic THC/CBD. I merely wish to draw attention to the fact that it is simple to obtain marijuana extracts of the same purity, yet these are considered schedule I substances.

From the DEA scheduling of drugs:
The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision

Marijuana is scheduled with heroin and MDMA. According to the DEA, it is more addictive, dangerous and has less utility as a medicine than drugs such as methamphetamine, cocaine, opium, oxycodone, and morphine. (all schedule II) Steroids, ketamine, and synthetically prepared THC such as Marinol are all the way down in schedule III which is defined by the following:

The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.

Preparing marijuana synthetically apparently makes it less harmful, less addictive, and more useful than its natural form, or even an extract of equivalent chemical composition.

Moving on to schedule IV, which has a low potential for abuse and limited dependence as compared to drugs in higher schedules. Here we have benzos such as xanax and valium, and some barbiturates. If you are unfamiliar with these drugs, you should know that they can be highly addictive and furthermore they kill people. (along with every other drug I have mentioned thus far other than marijuana) I have friends who are currently addicted to xanax and valium, and I have personally known someone killed by xanax. These are carelessly prescribed for any number of minor issues.

I can respect dissenting opinion regarding the legalization of marijuana. However, anyone who stands by this is a complete and utter moron. It is painfully evident that the government's current drug policy is unreasonable, inaccurate, and ignorant. This is a clear case of stubbornness and a refusal to admit that they were wrong. It is as if it was written by a brainwashed 12 year old; an affront to common sense.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
The fine I outlined wasn't ridiculous. The current fine is $2000. I simply increased the fine by 2.5 and removed the potential for jail time for misdemeanor possession.

The current fine is ridiculous. Alcohol and tobacco are legal for those of age, and they both are extremely addictive and damaging. Caffeine causes all sorts of health issues, is addictive, and kills thousands of people every year. It is entirely unregulated and is present in every tasty drink our kids consume. Hell, chronic fast food consumption is far more harmful than marijuana. You get caught on the streets with 5 dollars worth of weed? 2000 dollars and a possible sentence. You suggest it should be 5000???

Rotaretilbo wrote:
I think you people are putting too much emphasis on the concept that marijuana is a gateway drug because your dealer is going to trick you into trying harder stuff. Marijuana is a gateway drug because it provides a high, and many people will seek out the "best" high. If a person finds out that getting a blowjob makes them feel good, they will typically seek out sex, which will make them feel even better. It doesn't matter if they hang around with sluts all the time or not. Hanging around with sluts might make it easier, and maybe some people who would otherwise seek it out won't if it's not readily available, but not being around sluts all the time is not going to suddenly curb people seeking out recreational sex.

The driving factor in experimentation is normally curiosity, not seeking the best high. Many harder drugs don't offer a better high than marijuana in my opinion, just a different one. Some drugs don't even offer a remotely relative experience to marijuana, and people have different motives for taking different drugs. Psychedelics such as LSD or psilocybin mushrooms for example are normally taken for a fresh perspective, spiritual awakening or working through life's issues. Pleasure sometimes isn't even a factor. (DMT, ayahuasca, mescaline for example are not considered fun)

Your analogy is fundamentally flawed, because there is no clear linear progression of highs with drugs, and because nothing anyone will ever do or say will impact something as hard wired into our being as seeking sex. A better one would be a menu at a fast food joint. Everyone goes there to try out the infamous bacon cheeseburger. This becomes a daily ritual, and upon returning for your 20th cheeseburger suddenly you realize that there are a whole menu of options available that you've never tried before. How about the sunday, a chili dog, or the sandwich where the buns are chicken breasts. There is a good chance that curiosity will get the best of you. If those items were to be suddenly removed from the menu and offered at a different chain, those seeking the bacon cheeseburger would be less likely to try them.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
KrAzY wrote:Rot, you need to go look up some studies on the persistant mental state of chronic alcohol abusers. as that is SEVERELY more destructive than "skipping work, being late, having accidents"

Because two wrongs makes a right, amirite?

Of course not, but our justice system is based on the premise of consistency. It is inconsistent to allow for worse things such as alcohol, tobacco, caffine, and unhealthy food, then outlaw marijuana in the extreme.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
KrAzY wrote:it is not the federal governments job to stop people from doing something that is self destructive, states can get in on that, but mainly that is supposed to be a personal choice. I choose not to drink or smoke because I don't like it and I want to maximize how long I live.

Unless it's a harder drug? Because I don't see anyone advocating the legalization of cocaine and heroin. Those drugs are decidedly self-destructive, after all. Shouldn't it be a personal choice? This argument is a slippery slope. You can't say that the government has no right to prevent people from being self-destructive unless you're willing to go all the way with that argument.

That is a terrible argument Rot, I have come to expect better from you. It is generally understood that it isn't government's job to outlaw and police unhealthy lifestyles. Only in the extremes of self destruction should it intervene with law, and these distinctions can be made by common sense. If for some reason we must go all the way and advocate the legalization of all addictive and damaging substances, then you must likewise be prepared to argue that every US citizen needs to be monitored and punished for all poor choices, bad habits, and unethical behavior.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
And what are the statistics, KrAzY? Because it seems increasingly difficult to run a study on how many people who went to jail who would otherwise have not gone to prison instead did go to prison because they went to jail, what with the whole having to accurately predict possible distant futures thing. It seems rather impossible to accurately ascertain whether or not going to jail has any affect on going to prison later, as one could just as easily argue that someone who went to jail was more inclined to go to prison in the first place. Frankly, when I looked, I couldn't find any statistics on people who go to jail being turned into criminals. Most of the articles and such that I read involved people who go to prison becoming better criminals. The point stands: jail is a miserable place, but it isn't a criminal mastermind factory.

This doesn't require statistics, it's common sense. Jail may not be prison, but it is still full of people who are occupational criminals. In jail you are treated as a subhuman stripped of your rights because you did something very bad. Any environment you spend an extended period of time in will come to affect the way you view the world and yourself. Needless to say we should never put people in there who don't deserve to be in there, and most people don't consider it morally wrong to possess weed.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
I expect better from you, KrAzY. This is a massive strawman argument. I never said that the government should explicitly make marijuana illegal for the purpose of profiting. I simply suggested an alteration to the current consequences that countered people's claims that we should legalize marijuana because it was not profitable to enforce the current law. Frankly, I feel like my suggested consequences are lighter, given that it doesn't involve any jail time.

52% of drug related arrests are from marijuana. The arrests, processing, and prosecution alone likely exceed any money made back by fines. The drug war has cost us several billion since its beginning, never did we make a profit from this. The agencies dedicated to the war however, get the majority of their funding for marijuana. If it were to be legalized we would no longer have these expenses and would have a new source of tax revenue.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
How so? You act like legalizing marijuana is just going to make dealers disappear. How is making marijuana super easy to obtain going to make dealers disappear? If anything, it will force dealers to sell to underage.

They wouldn't disappear right away, but the only reason they are there at all is because marijuana is illegal. We learned this during prohibition. Sure, dealers wouldn't vanish overnight. The alcohol dealers were just as powerful during that era though, and now the idea of an alcohol dealer for kids is silly. In my years of hooliganism I never met one. If you've ever been through this ordeal, you would know that getting alcohol underage is faaaar more of a pain in the ass than getting weed. Unless you're stealing it from your parents of course.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
The point stands, NT. It can't be said one way or the other whether weed causes or is caused by these disorders, which is why I used the neutral term "linked" rather than the negative term "caused". However, you cannot completely ignore the possibility just because there is another possibility. That was my point. Everyone in the thread was acting like marijuana was perfectly safe and that there was no reason whatsoever for there to be restrictions on it. I was simply pointing out evidence to the contrary.

None of that has really been proven true. If you want to show the negative impact of marijuana use, you should stick with the fact that it inhibits brain development during teenage years.

Rotaretilbo wrote:
You're grossly overestimating the number of people in prison for possession or dealing of marijuana. In 2004, there were 1414846 people in prison. Of those, roughly 44816 were in prison for marijuana-related felonies. That's about 3.17% of all prisoners. That's down from 3.38% in 1997. The legalization of marijuana would hardly solve the overcrowding of prisons.

That's 44816 people that are doing serious time for something that most of the country doesn't consider morally wrong.

Nocbl2 wrote:
This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract TCP from the plant and use it in pills.

If you can't even name the molecule you probably shouldn't be in this argument.

by Nocbl2 Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:08 pm

Dud Doodoo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract TCP from the plant and use it in pills.
If you can't even name the molecule you probably shouldn't be in this argument.

Dude, it was a typo from an argument like 6 months ago.

by **Angatar** Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:23 pm

Nocbl2 wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract TCP from the plant and use it in pills.
If you can't even name the molecule you probably shouldn't be in this argument.
Dude, it was a typo from an argument like 6 months ago.

That post he's quoting from you was posted 6 weeks ago, not 6 months.

by Gauz Tue Oct 23, 2012 7:53 pm

He's high!

by Nocbl2 Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:35 pm

Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract TCP from the plant and use it in pills.
If you can't even name the molecule you probably shouldn't be in this argument.
Dude, it was a typo from an argument like 6 months ago.
That post he's quoting from you was posted 6 weeks ago, not 6 months.

"Like" as in, I'm exaggerating. Point is, it was a while ago.

by **Angatar** Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:51 pm

Nocbl2 wrote:
Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract TCP from the plant and use it in pills.
If you can't even name the molecule you probably shouldn't be in this argument.
Dude, it was a typo from an argument like 6 months ago.
That post he's quoting from you was posted 6 weeks ago, not 6 months.
"Like" as in, I'm exaggerating. Point is, it was a while ago.

And? Time doesn't really matter if there hasn't been new content between then and now, and you hadn't changed your stance or corrected it.

by Nocbl2 Tue Oct 23, 2012 11:15 pm

Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract TCP from the plant and use it in pills.
If you can't even name the molecule you probably shouldn't be in this argument.
Dude, it was a typo from an argument like 6 months ago.
That post he's quoting from you was posted 6 weeks ago, not 6 months.
"Like" as in, I'm exaggerating. Point is, it was a while ago.
And? Time doesn't really matter if there hasn't been new content between then and now, and you hadn't changed your stance or corrected it.

Didn't even notice it until now, but I guess if it's that damn important to you all then I'll fix it.

by **Rotaretilbo** Wed Oct 24, 2012 3:08 am

Nocbl2 wrote:
Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract TCP from the plant and use it in pills.
If you can't even name the molecule you probably shouldn't be in this argument.
Dude, it was a typo from an argument like 6 months ago.
That post he's quoting from you was posted 6 weeks ago, not 6 months.
"Like" as in, I'm exaggerating. Point is, it was a while ago.
And? Time doesn't really matter if there hasn't been new content between then and now, and you hadn't changed your stance or corrected it.
Didn't even notice it until now, but I guess if it's that damn important to you all then I'll fix it.

I really don't like pyramid quotes.

by Rasq'uire'laskar Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:49 am

Rotaretilbo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract TCP from the plant and use it in pills.
If you can't even name the molecule you probably shouldn't be in this argument.
Dude, it was a typo from an argument like 6 months ago.
That post he's quoting from you was posted 6 weeks ago, not 6 months.
"Like" as in, I'm exaggerating. Point is, it was a while ago.
And? Time doesn't really matter if there hasn't been new content between then and now, and you hadn't changed your stance or corrected it.
Didn't even notice it until now, but I guess if it's that damn important to you all then I'll fix it.
I really don't like pyramid quotes.

Really? I thought it was funny as Hell. Laughing

by Dud Doodoo Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:27 pm

Rasq'uire'laskar wrote:
Rotaretilbo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Angatar wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
Dud Doodoo wrote:
Nocbl2 wrote:
This. And they don't even use marijuana; they extract TCP from the plant and use it in pills.
If you can't even name the molecule you probably shouldn't be in this argument.
Dude, it was a typo from an argument like 6 months ago.
That post he's quoting from you was posted 6 weeks ago, not 6 months.
"Like" as in, I'm exaggerating. Point is, it was a while ago.
And? Time doesn't really matter if there hasn't been new content between then and now, and you hadn't changed your stance or corrected it.
Didn't even notice it until now, but I guess if it's that damn important to you all then I'll fix it.
I really don't like pyramid quotes.
Really? I thought it was funny as Hell.

No. Quote loops are a serious offense on respectable message boards. This is a serious thread where we discuss serious issues in society.

Bonus points for anyone who can name the molecule in my avatar.

by Sponsored content

Should we?