Lamigra! Lamigra!!

Joe Gearin wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: Making it legal goes way beyond medication. Make it more available and more people (including kids) will smoke it. One more mind altering thing they can do to end up kiling themselves or others in a car wreck. I guess everyone decides for themselves what is moral and what isn't, but in my opinion it certainly isn't going in the right direction.

I hear your point, but I have to disagree. If a 16 year old wants to get weed today, all he has to do is ask one of 15 kids at school who deal it illegally. If the same teen wants to get beer, he has to get a fake ID, or con an older sibling into buying it, or stake out a liquor store and ask someone to buy for them......it is much more difficult. I'm under the opinion that if you legalize marijuana it will make it harder for kids to get ahold of it. Adults over 21 will be able to have access to the drug (some of whom it can really help--medically speaking) Sure kids will still find a way, but it will be more difficult than it is now. It would also help to decrease the intense crime that our border towns are trying to deal with. again just my .02

Okay. Points taken. You may be right about that. But to be clear, I'm not opposed to it being used for legitimate medical reasons.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: Making it legal goes way beyond medication. Make it more available and more people (including kids) will smoke it. One more mind altering thing they can do to end up kiling themselves or others in a car wreck. I guess everyone decides for themselves what is moral and what isn't, but in my opinion it certainly isn't going in the right direction.

Wouldn't a good moral compass in your eyes prevent them from smoking it? It's not the government's job to do the parenting/instilling of morals.

Yes. But kids are highly influenced by many things a parent cannot completely control.

bravenrace wrote:

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Joe Gearin: Making it legal goes way beyond medication. Make it more available and more people (including kids) will smoke it. One more mind altering thing they can do to end up kiling themselves or others in a car wreck. I guess everyone decides for themselves what is moral and what isn't, but in my opinion it certainly isn't going in the right direction.

Wouldn't a good moral compass in your eyes prevent them from smoking it? It's not the government's job to do the parenting/instilling of morals.

Yes. But kids are highly influenced by many things a parent cannot completely control.

Fair enough. Luckily, i don't think legalizing said substance would mean that any kid could just go and buy it.

In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac:

What world do you live in? The government has made it their job.

I'm going to have to join bravenrace in saying legalizing marijuana isn't a great course of action. The research on it's medical benefits isn't entirely conclusive, and even in the cases that cannabinoids seem to be beneficial, it would make more sense to not administer them buy giving people something to smoke. Now, some of you may point out that the options like Marinol that have already been developed seem less effective, but there's no reason why scientists can't synthesize any of the chemicals beside THC that may benefits in medical treatment.

While the government doesn't exist to dictate morality, it's more than reasonable for laws to prohibit certain behaviors. Legalizing marijuana wouldn't make it harder for kids to get. It's been a few years since high-school, but pills were at least as common, if not more prevalent, than weed. There's no reason to assume marijuana wouldn't follow the same course percocets and other prescription drugs have.

Brett_Murphy wrote: In reply to 92CelicaHalfTrac: What world do you live in? The government has made it their job.

Doesn't mean it SHOULD be their job. That's my point.

bravenrace wrote: ...One more mind altering thing they can do to end up killing themselves or others in a car wreck....

I would rather drive on a two way road were EVERYONE was high on weed than a road where ONE person was drunk.

Although I have to admit it would get a bit old following this guy at 20 under the limit:

ransom wrote: In reply to bravenrace: We also have NA,

Yes we do but the problem is, a car is incomplete without a turbo...

MG_Bryan wrote: While the government doesn't exist to dictate morality, it's more than reasonable for laws to prohibit certain behaviors.

Yep. But looking at the similarities between alcohol and marijuana, and the problems we have with each (in short, we have alcohol abuse, and in the other corner we have drug abuse and an untaxed, unregulated, and violent black market to supply it), I find the status quo makes less sense to me than legalization and regulation.

Legalizing marijuana wouldn't make it harder for kids to get. It's been a few years since high-school, but pills were at least as common, if not more prevalent, than weed. There's no reason to assume marijuana wouldn't follow the same course percocets and other prescription drugs have.

I suspect this varies from region to region. Growing up in a college town on the west coast, it's hard for me to imagine there's room for availability to increase. Seemed like anybody who wanted it could get it.

aircooled wrote:

bravenrace wrote: ...One more mind altering thing they can do to end up killing themselves or others in a car wreck....

I would rather drive on a two way road were EVERYONE was high on weed than a road where ONE person was drunk. Although I have to admit it would get a bit old following this guy at 20 under the limit:

A high person is 6.6 times more likely to be involved in an accident. A drunk person is 6 times more likely. "High" being the concentration resulting after a habitual smoker smokes his or her normal amount.

ransom wrote:

MG_Bryan wrote: While the government doesn't exist to dictate morality, it's more than reasonable for laws to prohibit certain behaviors.

Yep. But looking at the similarities between alcohol and marijuana, and the problems we have with each (in short, we have alcohol abuse, and in the other corner we have drug abuse *and* an untaxed, unregulated, and violent black market to supply it), I find the status quo makes less sense to me than legalization and regulation.

Legalizing marijuana wouldn't make it harder for kids to get. It's been a few years since high-school, but pills were at least as common, if not more prevalent, than weed. There's no reason to assume marijuana wouldn't follow the same course percocets and other prescription drugs have.

I suspect this varies from region to region. Growing up in a college town on the west coast, it's hard for me to imagine there's room for availability to increase. Seemed like anybody who wanted it could get it.

The estimates I've seen suggest there are about 15 to 20 million marijuana users in the US. That number can be expected to rise if the behavior is legalized. In my opinion, that's not a positive thing, but that's coming from someone who can't stand drug use.

Ignoring my distaste for for the habit, I still can't rationalize making it legal. The alcohol comparison is very valid, but when 170+ million citizens are involved in that problem, it's not likely any organization or policy can control it. The revenue taxing marijuana could create wouldn't begin to offset the cost of the damages associated with it's recreational use - taxing alcohol doesn't either.

You may well be correct that there isn't a potential for increased availability; however, I maintain that legalization certainly wouldn't decrease the ease of access.

I do genuinely wonder if any of the proponents of legalizing marijuana would support legalizing other vices like prostitution, other psychedelic/hallucinogenic drugs, or narcotics?

MG_Bryan wrote: ...I do genuinely wonder if any of the proponents of legalizing marijuana would support legalizing other vices like prostitution, other psychedelic/hallucinogenic drugs, or narcotics?

There are a reasonably large number of people who believe that what someone does to themselves is there own business. As far as kids.. that's what parents / guardians are for.

Someone who supports legalization of marijuana is very likely to support some sort of legalization of the others. It's kind of hypocritical not to.

aircooled wrote:

MG_Bryan wrote: ...I do genuinely wonder if any of the proponents of legalizing marijuana would support legalizing other vices like prostitution, other psychedelic/hallucinogenic drugs, or narcotics?

There are a reasonably large number of people who believe that what someone does to themselves is there own business. As far as kids.. that's what parents / guardians are for. Someone who supports legalization of marijuana is very likely to support some sort of legalization of the others. It's kind of hypocritical not to.

I respect their right to hold that opinion. I'm am genuinely interested in how committed to it and consistent in that belief they are.

In my eyes it seems that the natural progression of the thinking is that the problems someone may suffer as a result of their own decision making aren't society's burden; i.e. if you show up at the ER but can't pay, you get turned away.

While everyone has a right to his her own opinion, I will go as far as to say that idea that you have a right to anything and everything you please as long as you're actions aren't immediately infringing on the people around you (because I'm pretty damn sure that no matter how far these ideas may go, no one is asking for a lawless society where rape, murder, steal etc) is a an awfully slippery slope.

There's just a point where the idea that what you do to yourself is exclusively your own business has to be become hypocritical or unreasonable. Idealism is great on paper, but I've never seen it work in practical application.

I think this is sort of two different topics.

I like the theory of letting people decide what to ingest, but I also find it easy to see the difference between marijuana and methamphetamines. The latter has a much greater tendency to cause health and behavior problems, and with less opportunity for the user to react, which to me differentiates it tremendously. I don't have a pat answer for how best to handle the harder drugs, and I'm not necessarily against maintaining them as illegal. I would point out, though, that I consider the issue practical, not moral.

Prostitution, on the other hand, strikes me as an utter red herring in this discussion. The reality is that it hurts my fairy tale sensibilities and I don't like it. That being said, it's legal in Germany and doesn't seem to be surrounded by the same scale of problems it has here. It's hard for me to argue that it's any of my business. But the question is not really related to that of drugs. The concerns are different. The repercussions are different. The mechanisms by which they have effect (direct and indirect) are different.

A couple of posts ago, it was basically asked "are the people in favor of legalizing this vice in favor of legalizing a bunch of other vices?" To me, it's not about whether something is a vice. Coffee is a vice. Autocrossing is a vice. I admit I spend way more on my car than I give to charity, and it's hard to argue that the car is a better use of my funds. Sometimes I choose to work on my car instead of making dinner for my girlfriend; again, less than ideal behavior. But I don't think I'm out of control, and I'm getting on reasonably well with the world around me. Some people wonder how I can engage in such antisocial behavior, burning fossil fuel and rubber and thousands of dollars for no higher purpose than my own amusement, and it's a fair question, entirely apart from whether or not I'm obliged to answer it, or whether I should be allowed to continue with my chosen vice.

Choose your drugs and vices wisely..

MG_Bryan wrote: There's just a point where the idea that what you do to yourself is exclusively your own business has to be become hypocritical or unreasonable. Idealism is great on paper, but I've never seen it work in practical application.

There is a point where what you do to yourself has repercussions very obviously outside yourself. It's frequently not a fine line.

Again, I think we're at just differing perspectives. I feel that I'm being pragmatic, not idealistic. This notion of basing laws on your feeling that putting a chemical in one's system is immoral strikes me as an idealistic stance, with the observation that your ideals are structured around your worldview and what you have defined as your moral framework.

I think I've already outlined why it is that I think the system, such as it is, would work better with certain substances legalized and regulated. I don't think it would be perfect, but I think it would be an improvement. It looks like our core difference is on our prognostications about what would really happen if that came to pass. We had a big tangent about vices and morality, but to me it is just that: a tangent.

Speaking of tangents, I very much am not in the turn-people-away-from-the-ER camp. I feel strongly that we do more harm to society by leaving individuals to implode than we do by trying to bring them back from whichever brink they've gotten themselves up to, but I can get yelled at for that in some other thread

ransom wrote: I think this is sort of two different topics. I like the theory of letting people decide what to ingest, but I also find it easy to see the difference between marijuana and methamphetamines. The latter has a much greater tendency to cause health and behavior problems, and with less opportunity for the user to react, which to me differentiates it tremendously. I don't have a pat answer for how best to handle the harder drugs, and I'm not necessarily against maintaining them as illegal. I would point out, though, that I consider the issue practical, not moral. Prostitution, on the other hand, strikes me as an utter red herring in this discussion. The reality is that it hurts my fairy tale sensibilities and I don't like it. That being said, it's legal in Germany and doesn't seem to be surrounded by the same scale of problems it has here. It's hard for me to argue that it's any of my business. But the question is not really related to that of drugs. The concerns are different. The repercussions are different. The mechanisms by which they have effect (direct and indirect) are different. A couple of posts ago, it was basically asked "are the people in favor of legalizing this vice in favor of legalizing a bunch of other vices?" To me, it's not about whether something is a vice. Coffee is a vice. Autocrossing is a vice. I admit I spend way more on my car than I give to charity, and it's hard to argue that the car is a better use of my funds. Sometimes I choose to work on my car instead of making dinner for my girlfriend; again, less than ideal behavior. But I don't think I'm out of control, and I'm getting on reasonably well with the world around me. Some people wonder how I can engage in such antisocial behavior, burning fossil fuel and rubber and thousands of dollars for no higher purpose than my own amusement, and it's a fair question, entirely apart from whether or not I'm obliged to answer it, or whether I should be allowed to continue with my chosen vice.

To be honest, I shouldn't have thrown prostitution in the mix just for the fact that I know next to nothing about it aside from what it is and that people partake in it. The thought process was mostly just that it's another issue where on the surface everyone involved has consented to the deed and are only hurting themselves, but upon further thought one can easily see that it can lead to unwanted pregnancies and the spread of disease.

Sticking to drugs as the example though, and continuing to look at it as a practical matter, legalizing marijuana is a regressive step. Despite the fact that it is still the most widely abused illegal substance, our drug policy has diminished use from 13% in the late 70s to around 6% today.

I don't know how I hit the "add post" button before I intended but...

Marijuana is more commonly found in to be a cause in car accidents that land drivers in shock trauma, despite the fact that is used be far fewer people than alcohol. Marijuana isn't nearly as harmful as meth or heroine, I'll concede that without hesitation, but it is very harmful to people who abstain from it's use.

MitchellC wrote: Most Hispanic immigrants are fully fluent in English by the second generation... I have read that this is much, much faster than immigrants of different lineages in our nation's past.

You wanna check who's stats those are, and exactly who they are refering to. Legal Hispanic immigrants? Yes. Illegals? How would you know? I work with most of the (ahem) underfinanced members of my community, and I'll tell you, there is a whole subculture of "undocumented immigrants" (love that term. Was asked recently, "Do you think it's very Christian to refer to these people as illegal? They're not all criminals!" YES THEY ARE.) who stay below the radar. For some of them, their kids are graduating from HS. after being born here in the States. But most of them still speak so little English they need someone to interpret when they come to the local food pantry. They live in spanish speaking neighborhoods, they do business with spanish-only businesses, they work for people who can communicate in spanish and they only work where other hispanics are already employed. They still fly a Mexican flag in front of the house. They don't want to become US citizens. No, not all illegals, but my guess is 3 out of 4.

MitchellC wrote: Are you talking about the Irish who fled their terrible living conditions due to food shortages, corrupt government, etc..? Did they fill out all required paperwork before coming into the country, have it notarized, or did they jump on the boat thinking, "Dear God, anything is better than this E36 M3hole Ireland without even dirt to eat"?

Sorry. All of the Irish migration to the US was done within the law. Laws were different? yes, but not that different.

I promise you, there is waaaaaayyyy more than 15-20 million weed smokers here.

aircooled wrote: Someone who supports legalization of marijuana is very likely to support some sort of legalization of the others. It's kind of hypocritical not to.

I could care less about pot, but coke produced some of the hardest workers I've ever seen

I have no problems with legalizing weed. I don't see it being any worse alcohol or tobacco. You aren't going to be able to overdose like with harder drugs. It will produce tax revenue and create jobs. If it was ever legalized, I believe they should make a law like DUI for marijuana.

MG_Bryan wrote: I do genuinely wonder if any of the proponents of legalizing marijuana would support legalizing other vices like prostitution, other psychedelic/hallucinogenic drugs, or narcotics?

Yes. As long as what you are doing doesn't impact me, I could give a damn what you do. So shoot up heroin while banging a prostitute. Just don't drive for a few days and we're cool.