Legalize Cannabis

[Nate505]

23% seems like a frighteningly large gateway to me. Different perspectives, I guess.

It's less than a one in four. And that's combining all of the harder drugs together, and just using government estimates of numbers.

If the "gateway" drug proponents would use those numbers then fair enough, but the numbers they cite are "95% of heroin addicts used pot before they tried heroin." And the reason they use those numbers is simple, because 95% is a big scary number. If they said the reverse fact, that there are roughly 213K monthly heroin users and 16.7 million monthly pot smokers, therefore 1.2% of all pot smokers go on to become heroin users, I doubt it would strike the same fear into people's hearts as the opposite claim does. 1% isn't all that much. The 23% number I cited includes heroin, meth, and cocaine with cocaine making up the bulk of the number (something like 2 million of the 3-4 million, though if I did the math the number is closer to 3 which therefore reduces the gateway to about 18%...when I made the post I was going off the numbers the last time I had an argument about the gateway theory, which IMO the math proves is not there).

 

[Nate505]

For starters, what percent of alcohol users become serious addicts? I doubt it's anywhere near the 23% gateway you just quoted.

And of course it's not near that number. A far larger number of people use alcohol, because of its legal status and the fact it's more culturally accepted. But conversely I'd wager the same percentage of hard drug users who have tried pot have also tried booze, with that number probably being in the high 90%s.

If one wants to argue that drug law keeps people from using drugs, I'd agree to that to an extent, especially when it comes to a drug like pot which doesn't have significant addicting qualities to it. Though I find it interesting that people who claim they are for drug laws also say they would never try currently illicit drugs if they were illegal, so I guess they want to keep the laws for the people who aren't as disciplined/moral/righteous/etc. as they are.

 

[Scat]

We've been down this path before as well. If you use, you risk being busted regardless of whether you are high at that exact moment or not. There is no way to tell how recently you used, just that you have used. It's no different than getting a DUI for having narcotics in your system even though you haven't taken anything for 3 days.

So then you think if it gets legalized, then anyone who smokes pot should/would have to forfeit their driving privilege?

I think it's nonsense if you are saying someone who tests positive from a joint they smoked 3 weeks ago should still get a DUI just for testing positive. Especially when lots of tests have shown that smoking a joint won't even necessarily make your driving anymore dangerous at all, let alone 3 weeks later.

Until better, more accurate testing becomes available there are two options:

1. Test for THC and if it is present, prosecute regardless of when the last doobie was partaken of.

2. Test for alcohol. Test for narcotics. Completely ignore pot. After all, it is harmless, right?

Until better, more accurate testing procedures are available, it is what it is. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right. You can't obey certain guidelines, you forfeit your right to drive.

Tell you what, I hear that people who smoke pot are highly creative and imaginative and have brilliant ideas when stoned. You should get together with Nate and GVC, smoke a fat one and figure out a way to more accurately test for current THC levels. Hopefully you remember what your brilliant idea was once you sober up. VIVA TRES EINSTEINS!!

 

[GVC]

There are more options and issues to consider. Unlike most illicit substances, cannabis can be detected in the system long after its effects are felt. Some (many/most/all?) of the other substances (alcohol being the most obvious) adversely affect driving ability far more. If you cause an accident, and drugs were found to be a contributing factor, I have no problem with "punishing" the offender more than the non(detected)-user. If you can't pass a filmed sobriety test, and are found to have a potentially dangerous amount of THC in your system, there should be consequences. These people shouldn't be driving.

Beyond that, it's worth considering that cannabis and alcohol may be substitutes. I'm feeling lazy right now, but I recall reading a (mainstream) news piece within the last 6 months or so detailing how lowered rates of some class of traffic accident were being attributed to the substitution of weed for booze (as recreational drugs) in a jurisdiction that had undergone some loosening of their drug laws.

 

[Nate505]

Tell you what, I hear that people who smoke pot are highly creative and imaginative and have brilliant ideas when stoned. You should get together with Nate and GVC, smoke a fat one and figure out a way to more accurately test for current THC levels. Hopefully you remember what your brilliant idea was once you sober up. VIVA TRES EINSTEINS!!

Yeah, after getting high all of a sudden I would become some sort of expert in biochemistry.

 

[colton]

It's less than a one in four. And that's combining all of the harder drugs together, and just using government estimates of numbers.

If the "gateway" drug proponents would use those numbers then fair enough, but the numbers they cite are "95% of heroin addicts used pot before they tried heroin." And the reason they use those numbers is simple, because 95% is a big scary number. If they said the reverse fact, that there are roughly 213K monthly heroin users and 16.7 million monthly pot smokers, therefore 1.2% of all pot smokers go on to become heroin users, I doubt it would strike the same fear into people's hearts as the opposite claim does. 1% isn't all that much. The 23% number I cited includes heroin, meth, and cocaine with cocaine making up the bulk of the number...

I think it's scary that you don't think this claim is scary: "If you try pot, there's a 1 in 4 chance that you will eventually get hooked on heroin, meth, or cocaine." Granted that's not what the numbers mean (because the correlation/causation business), but as I said before, to me that seems like a huge percentage. I'm amazed that you are so easily writing it off.

 

[CONAN]

Ya we don't need our frontal lobes anyway. Never ceases to amaze me how far druggies will go with their rationalizing.

 

[Stoked]

Ya we don't need our frontal lobes anyway. Never ceases to amaze me how far druggies will go with their rationalizing.

My stance is it is their frontal lobes so what do you care? Personally I agree with your view of drug use but I am for personal freedom. If I believe in freedom I cannot decide what people do with theirs.

 

[SaltyDawg]

Until better, more accurate testing becomes available there are two options:

1. Test for THC and if it is present, prosecute regardless of when the last doobie was partaken of.

2. Test for alcohol. Test for narcotics. Completely ignore pot. After all, it is harmless, right?

Until better, more accurate testing procedures are available, it is what it is. Remember, driving is a privilege, not a right. You can't obey certain guidelines, you forfeit your right to drive.

Tell you what, I hear that people who smoke pot are highly creative and imaginative and have brilliant ideas when stoned. You should get together with Nate and GVC, smoke a fat one and figure out a way to more accurately test for current THC levels. Hopefully you remember what your brilliant idea was once you sober up. VIVA TRES EINSTEINS!!

Well one major problem with your suggestion is the fact that I don't smoke weed.

Just because someone doesn't think the government should be writing restrictive laws to supposedly protect us from ourselves, doesn't mean all engage in the actions that supposedly warrant the government taking action.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I think it's scary that you don't think this claim is scary: "If you try pot, there's a 1 in 4 chance that you will eventually get hooked on heroin, meth, or cocaine." Granted that's not what the numbers mean (because the correlation/causation business), but as I said before, to me that seems like a huge percentage. I'm amazed that you are so easily writing it off.

I think he just knows it's a BS statistic.

How many people eat some other food after eating a salad? Is salad a "gateway" food? Should people avoid salad because it puts them at high risk of eating other foods and possibly making them fat?

Or maybe people would eat the other food anyway and the salad is of no relevance.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Finally a thread I've never seen before.
This place was getting boring, good to see new material.

 

[GVC]

Ya we don't need our frontal lobes anyway. Never ceases to amaze me how far druggies will go with their rationalizing.

You do realize, of course, that even heavy cannabis use isn't associated with a reduction in quantity or integrity of white matter, right?

 

[Dr. Jones]

And my frontal lobe is just fine, thanks.

 

[PearlWatson]

Name calling?

I find your support of limited government very hollow when you don't care that a government incarcerates people for personal choices they make. What's your problem with people using marijuana and does it extend to fatty foods, alcohol, pain medicine?

Perl, my appeal on this issue is emotional because for me putting humans who posses inalienable rights in prison (cage) because they make personal choices about what they ingest is tragic. Period. You want data, argue with everyone else about how harmful or beneficial legalization is. I don't care if society suffers when there are more pot heads. My existence isn't for the benefit of the state, it is for my benefit and personal enjoyment.

You never name call. I've always respected that in you. I included other advocates in that statement.

Why do I have a problem with people using pot? On a personal level it turned my brother into a thieving ***. Since pot destroys the moral filters in a persons brain, it is destructive to our society since the constitution can only work with a moral and religious people. Also on a political level I see it is part of the stinky hippie entitlement culture.

As for your comment on my support for limited government. Legalizing pot will not limit government in the equation. It will increase government involvement through taxation, and they will still be policing who uses it and sells it. I also see thugs becoming legitimate wealthy businessmen and political figures like the Kennedy's.

 

[Bronco70]

So people who break the law are not actual criminals? What are they, then?

OK, I know what you mean. But still, your sentence was quite odd.

So breaking the law = criminal activity? Have you ever exceeded the speed limit in your car? That's criminal. Jaywalked? Criminal. Littered? Criminal.

I guess if the letter of the law (rather than the impact on other people) is the most important thing, then you are absolutely right.

 

[Stoked]

So breaking the law = criminal activity? Have you ever exceeded the speed limit in your car? That's criminal. Jaywalked? Criminal. Littered? Criminal.

I guess if the letter of the law (rather than the impact on other people) is the most important thing, then you are absolutely right.

Technically it is crimal behavior. So technically he is right.

 

[Bronco70]

LDS should refrain from posting in this thread. I'm sorry.

I know Stoked already chimed in on this, but that was a pretty ignorant statement.

I'm LDS and I'm very much pro-legalization. And I'm not even vaguely alone.

If you're worrying about opinions based on misinformation and/or stereotyping, you may want to evaluate some of your own.

 

[Bronco70]

Technically it is crimal behavior. So technically he is right.

Yeah, I get that. Thanks.

 

[colton]

How many people eat some other food after eating a salad? Is salad a "gateway" food? Should people avoid salad because it puts them at high risk of eating other foods and possibly making them fat?

Or maybe people would eat the other food anyway and the salad is of no relevance.

If salad were addictive and mind altering, then your comparison would be apt.

 

[colton]

Finally a thread I've never seen before.
This place was getting boring, good to see new material.

I'm having deja vu all over again.