Why Marijuana Should Be Illegal

[Granite]

The more intoxicated a culture becomes, the more DEPENDENT upon government it becomes.

:rotfl:

Right: I'm sure that the hearty exceedingly hard-drinking World War I generation of the Prohibition Era was utterly dependent on the small government of its time and that this self-sufficient up-by-your-bootstraps society just couldn't get by without Uncle Sam.:chuckle:

Prohibition is a means of control, ASC. It's a means of spreading governmental power. It's a form of...dependency. It's a way to lean on Big Brother and take care of things, rather than policing ourselves.

That's why liberals want pot and other recreational drugs legalized.

So, tell me, what made you stop lying about being a cop?

 

[some other dude]

I'm sure that the hearty exceedingly hard-drinking World War I generation of the Prohibition Era ...

:think: WWI and Prohibition didn't overlap.

 

[WizardofOz]

So, do you want to ban alcohol? Because every single bullet point you rattled off has to do with booze, ASC.

What do you say to someone who can't even cut and paste correctly?

 

[CabinetMaker]

Cabinetmaker, please stop parading your bigotry against people who don't share your cultural prejudices. Your reasons for pot prohibition reflect the hypocrisy of allowing two most lethal intoxicants to continue to cause massive amounts of deaths and destruction of human lives, I'm talking about alcohol and cigarettes, while coming down like a ton of bricks on the mildest and least damaging of any known intoxicant. Try looking at actual clinical statistics showing which drugs are sending the most people to hospitals and morgues before you try to slander marijuana usage.

Were you a little high when you typed your response? Seriously. It has nothing to do with what I said. I am FOR legalizing pot and more and treating them like we currently treat alcohol.

 

[PureX]

Doug McBurney and Bob Enyart present arguments for why marijuana should remain illegal. God does not require society to put up with the risk of neighbors who get intoxicated, which is why drunkenness and recreational drugs should be against the law. For when the normal use of any substance makes a person intoxicated, then the government correctly outlaws and classifies that drug as a controlled substance. Thus while THC and related medications should be available on a prescription basis from a pharmacy, pot use should not be normalized and the marijuana drug should be illegal.

You are confusing the substance with the abuse of the substance. Alcohol does not make a person drunk. The abuse of alcohol makes them dunk. (In this case we are defining "drunk" as being intoxicated.) The reason alcohol is legal is that many people can and do use it without abusing it and becoming intoxicated.

Yet the same is true of THC, and other related drugs. The mere ingestion of THC does not immediately intoxicate a person. Like alcohol, it can be used in moderation so that the user does not become intoxicated, but can enjoy the effects of the drug.

It is irrational to ban the abuse of a mood-altering chemical like alcohol while allowing the use of it, but then ban marijuana entirely even though it leads to a less debilitating form of intoxication when it is abused. In a society where we supposedly value the maximization of freedom, it makes sense that we would want to allow for the use of such mood altering chemicals as alcohol so that those who can use them responsibly will be free to do so. This is why we ban drunkenness rather than the drinking of alcohol. And even then we only ban it in public where the effects of intoxication infringe on the rights and safety of others. And it seems to me that it would be logical and reasonable to treat the use of marijuana in the same way. Especially given that marijuana intoxication does not tend to cause the user to become aggressive, as does alcohol.

Please explain to me why you believe that we should ban the behavior resulting from alcohol abuse, but not the use of alcohol, but then should ban the substance of marijuana when it in fact has a less harmful and dangerous effect on people when it is abused than alcohol.

 

[Granite]

Bill Hicks really said it best when it comes to marijuana and drug use in general.

 

[Nick M]

You are confusing the substance with the abuse of the substance. Alcohol does not make a person drunk. The abuse of alcohol makes them dunk.

No he isn't. He explicitly said otherwise. So why are you misdirecting down a rabbit trail? The heathen is out in force lately....

Thus while THC and related medications should be available on a prescription basis from a pharmacy, pot use should not be normalized and the marijuana drug should be illegal.

 

[Granite]

No he isn't. He explicitly said otherwise. So why are you misdirecting down a rabbit trail? The heathen is out in force lately....

This was a classic case of Enyart trying to have it both ways, nothing more and nothing less.

 

[waterbear]

Were you a little high when you typed your response? Seriously. It has nothing to do with what I said. I am FOR legalizing pot and more and treating them like we currently treat alcohol.

Sorry, my bad. My response was not to your post but to the rightwingers here trying to match pot use with liberalism which is actually the case. Too bad conservative philosophy doesn't seem to have any psycho-active plant to back up its ideology but that's because even plants know better than rightwingers..:wave:

 

[Nick M]

This was a classic case of Enyart trying to have it both ways, nothing more and nothing less.

Trying to have what both ways? It should be a controlled substance, not available over the counter.

 

[PureX]

No he isn't. He explicitly said otherwise. So why are you misdirecting down a rabbit trail? The heathen is out in force lately....

I will clarify, since you seem to be a little slow in understanding ...


Jefferson wrote: " ... drunkenness and recreational drugs should be against the law."

My question is why, in the case of alcohol, is "drunkenness" against the law, but not the use of alcohol, yet in the case of recreational drugs, it's the drugs themselves that are against the law and not the abuse of them (intoxication)?

Jefferson continues: "For when the normal use of any substance makes a person intoxicated, then the government correctly outlaws and classifies that drug as a controlled substance."

But the normal use (recreational use) of marijuana does not intoxicate a person any more than the recreational use of alcohol intoxicates a person. Yet the laws treat them completely differently. This is irrational, especially considering that marijuana intoxication tends not to lead to aggressive or violent behavior, whereas alcohol intoxication often does.

This is why I posted that Jefferson (and Bob Enyart) are unreasonably confusing the substances with their effect.

 

[Lighthouse]

Pot makes people lazy too. Lazy and useless.

 

[Paulos]

Pot makes people lazy too. Lazy and useless.

Tell that to Sarah Palin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Branson, Montel Williams, Stephen King, etc., etc., etc...

Google "marijuana athletes" and check out the first half dozen or so results. A very large percentage of professional athletes are pot smokers.

 

[Lighthouse]

Tell that to Sarah Palin, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Richard Branson, Montel Williams, Stephen King, etc., etc., etc...

Google "marijuana athletes" and check out the first half dozen or so results. A very large percentage of professional athletes are pot smokers.

While they are high they are lazy and useless.

 

[Nick M]

Jefferson wrote: " ... drunkenness and recreational drugs should be against the law."

My question is why, in the case of alcohol, is "drunkenness" against the law, but not the use of alcohol

Alcoholic drinks, such as beer or scotch, are consumed because they taste good. You can drink it without being intoxicated.

yet in the case of recreational drugs

The only point in the recreational drug is intoxication and taken for no other reason. I know you miss the easy things, I hope this helps.

it's the drugs themselves that are against the law and not the abuse of them (intoxication)?

As already stated. There is no reason to smoke wee aside from a good subistitue for percoset as a pain kiiller or sedative. Yet some want to take it just to get high, aka intoxicated from the feeling they get from it.

 

[Granite]

Pot makes people lazy too. Lazy and useless.

As usual, you don't know what the world you're talking about.

Are you ever going to grow up?

 

[Granite]

Trying to have what both ways? It should be a controlled substance, not available over the counter.

Uh, thank you, Nicholas, for making my point.:chuckle:

Bottomline, not a single argument can be made against pot that cannot also be made against alcohol. The only arguments that can be made against weed are based in ignorance, an uptight prudishness, or disinforming paranoia.

 

[Paulos]

The only arguments that can be made against weed are based in ignorance, an uptight prudishness, or disinforming paranoia.

Gross ignorance, rank hypocrisy, irrational fears based on false information...all of which have come together to make illegal a plant that was given to us directly from the hand of God Himself (Gen 1:11).

 

[PureX]

Alcoholic drinks, such as beer or scotch, are consumed because they taste good. You can drink it without being intoxicated.



The only point in the recreational drug is intoxication and taken for no other reason. I know you miss the easy things, I hope this helps.



As already stated. There is no reason to smoke wee aside from a good subistitue for percoset as a pain kiiller or sedative. Yet some want to take it just to get high, aka intoxicated from the feeling they get from it.

So your contention is that people use alcohol because they like the taste, and so they don't get intoxicated. But people use pot only to get intoxicated?

I'm curious how you know this, because I know lots of people who like to use pot but not to the point of being intoxicated. They also like the taste and the smell, and they find the ritual of smoking, relaxing. I also know a lot of people who do not like the taste of alcohol all that much, but drink it anyway for it's effect. It loosens them up, so they can be more at ease around others. But they don't like to get intoxicated. Have you ever tried pot? Do you smoke, otherwise? In any case, I don't see how you can presume to speak for everyone else about it. I personally don't use alcohol or drugs, but I have used them in the past, and I know lots of folks who use them now, and most of them don't use them to get intoxicated. They use them because they like the effect, the taste, and the social ritual. In fact, those folks who use either of these substances to get intoxicated will, in my experience, abuse anything that will get them high. They don't care about the taste or smell or anything else. They just want to get wasted. You seem to be assuming that everyone who uses pot is addicted to intoxication. But this simply is not true.

 

[Granite]

I think within thirty years legalization will be the new norm. As usual, the same predictable, tired, crabby, banal forces and arguments will be dragged along into the future kicking and screaming.

Some things never change.:smokie: