Massachusetts Ballot Initiative

[hblask 1]

So pot is bad for you, but we want to legalize it because alcohol and cigarettes are also bad for you?

No, it should be legalized because each person should own their own body. Also, because the harm of the drug war is way worse than the harm from drugs. The only theory on why the government should be involved seems to be the busybody theory: the deep-seated fear that someone, somewhere is having a type of fun that I don't approve of.

[vbnautilus 48]

Well the effects are substantially worse, Cannabis is actually ranked with alcohol and smoking for long term effects though only limited studies have been done. Also if its legal in shops it would stop illegal dealing and the money going to terrorism.

So pot is bad for you, but we want to legalize it because alcohol and cigarettes are also bad for you?

x Swift x seems to have made this up. Please cite studies showing that cannabis is "ranked with" alcohol and smoking (what does that even mean?), since all of the studies that I have read have found little to no long term effects of smoking marijuana.

[hblask 1]

[El Guapo 8]

That is the most ridiculous chart I have ever seen.LOL at Anabolic Steroids and Ecstacy being the lower end of the spectrum.

[vbnautilus 48]

graph

Kind of interesting, but still a lot of that seems way off to me. What are these ratings based on?Methamphetamine is probably doing the most harm right now and they have amphetamine below benzos....ecstasy should not be that far down to due the effects of long term use on mood.... I really wonder how they are measuring "harm".

[hblask 1]

That is the most ridiculous chart I have ever seen.LOL at Anabolic Steroids and Ecstacy being the lower end of the spectrum.

Do you have some data to contradict this? Remember, this is relative. Are you saying ecstasy, a drug that was used for years by psychologists with great success, belongs up with, say, cocaine, a drug that is only popular because of the drug war?

[copernicus 0]

This is something i have thought about a lot. Now there has to be some thing is your brain that gets switched on when you take drugs. Is there a way to turn this switch without the help of drugs. IMO there isn't, The same effects of psychoactive drugs can be achieved in other ways, including TM, asceticism etc. but say there is. Then what do you do. Can you tell people that they can't go to that state of mind? Or do you educate them about those effects? And would you outlaw all the teachers that would be teaching people how to reach this state of mind? None of which has anything to do with the self-delusion that is endemic to that "state of mind".Oh yeah, how many drugs have you taken in your life cope? It seems like you had a bad acid trip in high school or something. Never had a bad one. How many....next time you watch the movie Woodstock, and when you hear Chip Monck exort the crowd to stay away from the brown acid, you can tell your friends "hey, I know the guy responsible for that from a politics forum".

[El Guapo 8]

Do you have some data to contradict this? Remember, this is relative. Are you saying ecstasy, a drug that was used for years by psychologists with great success, belongs up with, say, cocaine, a drug that is only popular because of the drug war?

Yes I am. I don't work in that field anymore, so I don't have access to that data anymore.Drugs used in a controlled environment with a specific purpose and for short term periods of time at low doses can obviously be beneficial for various reasons.They still use cocaine, the actual powder, when doing different kinds of nasal surgeries.Also what are they basing this off of, one time use, long term use, abuse?Long term steroid use has so many different side effects, but one time use, even at high doses is going to relatively harmless.Conversely long term ecstacy use at low doses won't have the same affects as steroids, but take too much and you body can overheat and you can die. Also when you take an EX pill, you don't know how much you are getting and can OD on one pill.

[Sheiky 0]

Really? We can't measure it? All you do is figure out how many people were using it BEFORE drug laws, and how many AFTER drug laws. If the answer is the same, then drug laws make no difference.Also, if your theory is that drug laws reduce use, you'd have to explain HOW this is accomplished. Marijuana is more available in junior high schools than alcohol. One is legal, one is not. In that, we have a very simple real-world experiment on the effect of drug laws on availability. The answer is always the same, no matter which way you look at it. There is a good psychological reason for that. People who would use illegal drugs have a particular psychological/biochemical makeup. People who NEED the drug get it with or without laws. People who don't need the drug don't use it, with or without drugs laws. All the drug laws do is increase the suffering, and do not change availability or demand.You're a free market guy. Supply = demand. The government cannot override that, now or ever. So the question is not whether the govt can wave their special government magic wand and make drugs and drug use go away, the question is to how to minimize the harm to non-users. The IWoD is the opposite of a good solution.

Would you care to provide us all with the realms of data you have to prove that?The point you make about Marjuana being more availible in high school's is A) Wrong, and B) doesn't prove anything. The reason you can get marjuana in schools is because it's illegal. No one's going to start selling alcohol in schools because you can buy alcohol anyway, if majuana was legal and alcohol wasn't you'd have exactly the same situation reversed. You are seriously deluding yourself if you believe that marjuana is more widely available now than it would be if it was totally legal like alcohol.

[copernicus 0]

You must have missed the statistic: the 100 years and billions spent has produced NO CHANGE -- that's zero -- in drug usage.

Which says nothing about the change that might have been seen without the war on drugs. Talk to residents of Amsterdam about how great legalization is for that city.

[vbnautilus 48]

Do you have some data to contradict this? Remember, this is relative. Are you saying ecstasy, a drug that was used for years by psychologists with great success, belongs up with, say, cocaine, a drug that is only popular because of the drug war?

Ecstasy is perhaps one of the most harmful drugs to the brain itself; it is basically neurotoxic and has the capability of killing serotonin-producing neurons. (Some of the original studies on this turned out to be exaggerated due to error, but still it seems to be the case in long term users). I believe it can be used safely, but it does have the potential to be very unhealthy.

[copernicus 0]

Ecstasy is perhaps one of the most harmful drugs to the brain itself; it is basically neurotoxic and has the capability of killing serotonin-producing neurons. (Some of the original studies on this turned out to be exaggerated due to error, but still it seems to be the case in long term users). I believe it can be used safely, but it does have the potential to be very unhealthy.

but then so does too much water.

[copernicus 0]

duplicado

[vbnautilus 48]

None of which has anything to do with the self-delusion that is endemic to that "state of mind".

You've stated this belief several times without expressing any support for it, either with argument or with evidence. No doubt people can be self-deluded in a drug state. But they also can gain actual insight into the world or into themselves.

when you hear Chip Monck exort the crowd to stay away from the brown acid, you can tell your friends "hey, I know the guy responsible for that from a politics forum".

Responsible for the bad acid or for the warning?

[vbnautilus 48]

but then so does too much water.

yeah that's pretty poor comparison. health risk of ecstasy and of water not really the same.

[strategy 4]

To tax marijuana? What happens to the guy growing a plant at home? Or the mexican cartels using our southern national forests? The government makes huge sums of money keeping marijuana and other drugs illegal.

I think you underestimate the efficiency of large-scale commercial growers. additionally, even with tax, the whole legitimacy part of the equation does indeed provide value for the consumer. I personally might have gone further than just sampling if not for the whole problem of buying from random, untrustworthy dealers.I think the government benefits from the added power and influence it assumes in its current role, but economically, I don't think there's any doubt that it's a net negative for everyone involved.

[copernicus 0]

You've stated this belief several times without expressing any support for it, either with argument or with evidence. No doubt people can be self-deluded in a drug state. But they also can gain actual insight into the world or into themselves. Again, I distinguish between creativity and insight/self-realization. The vast majority of "creative work" under the influence is garbage, and what isnt would have found its way out sooner or later.Responsible for the bad acid or for the warning? Im not sure what the distinction is, however, it wasnt BAD. It was awesome, pure and uncut with speed. The problem was people were so used to adulterated crap that when they didnt get the body rush they were used to they took MORE....big mistake if you werent used to high doses (which was already high with a single tab). James Taylor and some of his friends also were blessed with that experience soon after .

[copernicus 0]

yeah that's pretty poor comparison. health risk of ecstasy and of water not really the same.

I didnt equate the two, I just pointed out that anything can be toxic if you are uninformed of the risks.

[hblask 1]

The point you make about Marjuana being more availible in high school's is A Wrong, and B doesn't prove anything. The reason you can get marjuana in schools is because it's illegal.

So it's wrong, and if it's not, it doesn't prove anything, besides, it's only true because drugs are illegal.Would you like to contradict yourself a few more times in two sentences? I think you are close to the record. But thanks for making my point, which you conveniently continued here:

No one's going to start selling alcohol in schools because you can buy alcohol anyway, if majuana was legal and alcohol wasn't you'd have exactly the same situation reversed. You are seriously deluding yourself if you believe that marjuana is more widely available now than it would be if it was totally legal like alcohol.

I think it is *equally* available, overall, as it would be if it were legal, which is completely and without any difficulty whatsoever, because there is a demand that will be met. I'm not a drug user, but I bet I could get hold of some by the end of the day at no risk if I chose to. Drugs exist in schools because they are illegal (you said so yourself). So, your choices are: make it legal and limit it's use to responsible adults, or make it illegal and give shady people incentive to sell it to responsible adults AND CHILDREN.Yours seems to be the same argument that the gun grabbers make: we don't like <product>, so let's just have the government declare it illegal and <product> won't be a problem anymore. It won't be around anymore, and we won't have to worry about it.It is wrong for the same reasons, too.

[vbnautilus 48]

The vast majority of "creative work" under the influence is garbage, and what isnt would have found its way out sooner or later.

There would be no jazz without heroin, no reggae without marijuana, and no rock and roll without alcohol.

[Sheiky 0]

So it's wrong, and if it's not, it doesn't prove anything, besides, it's only true because drugs are illegal.Would you like to contradict yourself a few more times in two sentences? I think you are close to the record. But thanks for making my point, which you conveniently continued here:I think it is *equally* available, overall, as it would be if it were legal, which is completely and without any difficulty whatsoever, because there is a demand that will be met. I'm not a drug user, but I bet I could get hold of some by the end of the day at no risk if I chose to. Drugs exist in schools because they are illegal (you said so yourself). So, your choices are: make it legal and limit it's use to responsible adults, or make it illegal and give shady people incentive to sell it to responsible adults AND CHILDREN.Yours seems to be the same argument that the gun grabbers make: we don't like <product>, so let's just have the government declare it illegal and <product> won't be a problem anymore. It won't be around anymore, and we won't have to worry about it.It is wrong for the same reasons, too.

I wasn't contradicting myself, you assume I was because you're twisting my views into an argument that i'm not arguing for. It's easy to get pot, heck I go to a really good school and I could get some within a week. However, it's lot less easy to get a hold of crack, heroin or pills because they're are a lot more illegal.People like me and my friends smoke pot occasionally because it's so decriminalized the risk is minimal. If possessing pot was punishable by an automatic 3 year jail sentance, there isn't a cat in hells chance that I or many many other people would even dream of smoking it. Obviously, making something illegal doesn't eradicate, not by a long shot, but making something legal does greatly increase the use of it among peripheral would be users like me. You seem to be painting my viewpoint as 'Illegality=eradication' when it clearly isn't. You also deny that there is a link between avalibility+usage and legal status, which I would also dispute. Also, the point you make about legalizing it and only selling to adults means that adult usage increases and U18 usage would also increase because the substance is further decriminalized (and this is EXACTLY what happens with alcohol).

[hblask 1]

It's easy to get pot, heck I go to a really good school and I could get some within a week. However, it's lot less easy to get a hold of crack, heroin or pills because they're are a lot more illegal.

Actually they (the harder drugs) are less available because they are stupid, and only insane people want to use them. The number of insane people << the number of rational people. In most cases, the people who can get you pot can also get you crack, heroin, or any other drug of choice. It's just that there is not as much demand for the more dangerous drugs.

People like me and my friends smoke pot occasionally because it's so decriminalized the risk is minimal. If possessing pot was punishable by an automatic 3 year jail sentance, there isn't a cat in hells chance that I or many many other people would even dream of smoking it.

So you are saying that you are a responsible user that would quit if the harm to your life became greater than the benefit. I thought drug warriors didn't believe in "responsible users".

You also deny that there is a link between avalibility+usage and legal status, which I would also dispute.

It changes the cost-benefit analysis of casual, non-criminal users. But for people who crave the chaos and thrill of drug use, legal status does not affect availability or desire to use it.So, drug laws, like gun laws, harm law-abiding responsible users, and have no effect on irresponsible and criminal users.This is a good policy?

[copernicus 0]

There would be no jazz without heroin, no reggae without marijuana, and no rock and roll without alcohol.

totally disagree.

[Sheiky 0]

Actually they (the harder drugs) are less available because they are stupid, and only insane people want to use them. The number of insane people << the number of rational people. In most cases, the people who can get you pot can also get you crack, heroin, or any other drug of choice. It's just that there is not as much demand for the more dangerous drugs.So you are saying that you are a responsible user that would quit if the harm to your life became greater than the benefit. I thought drug warriors didn't believe in "responsible users".It changes the cost-benefit analysis of casual, non-criminal users. But for people who crave the chaos and thrill of drug use, legal status does not affect availability or desire to use it.So, drug laws, like gun laws, harm law-abiding responsible users, and have no effect on irresponsible and criminal users.This is a good policy?

Don't get the impression that i'm against the legalization of cannabis because i'm not. I used to be totally for it a while ago, then I tried the stuff and it was awesome but it made me think whether something like that should be legal or not because it was a lot more potent that I had expected (I'm also a complete lightweight at any kind of stimulant which didn't help). I don't really have a strong view one way or another whether it should be legal now, part of me thinks that the absolute effects of it in comparison to legal drugs like alcohol and tobbacco is not at all worth the criminality associated with it. And part of me thinks that even though that is the case, would it really be an improvement if a drug like that was made legal? And then another other part of me thinks 'Who's to say what's an improvement and whether it should be the government's job to act in the way to 'improve' society?' However, even when I did support legalization I didn't believe that legalizing would not lead to an increase in supply and usage, because I think the logical conclusion is that it would.

[dapokerbum 0]

There would be no good jazz without heroin, no good reggae without marijuana, and no good rock and roll without alcohol.

FYP .... is that better cope?Also, while I disagree with much of what you think about drugs, I respect the fact that you have a solid base from which to pull your ideals. It sounded at the beginning that you never took a drug, or at the very most had a few bad experiences. But I guess you had some good times, but choose to think differently.