What's new
By:

I knew this was going to happen!

Never drive further than an hour in a vehicle not baked tbh.

Er, I mean, when I have to drive for longer than an hour, I'm never not baked. Weird sentence fo sho.

Want some ****ing Lucky Charms now.
 
LazyD said:
Never drive further than an hour in a vehicle not baked tbh.

Er, I mean, when I have to drive for longer than an hour, I'm never not baked. Weird sentence fo sho.

Want some ****ing Lucky Charms now.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point.
 
Bronco70 said:
Using prohibition as an argument to keep marijuana illegal... was that just an academic exercise, Colton?
Click to expand...

You pretty much missed my point. I advise you to re-read my post. I was using prohibition to counter Nate's claim that more access will definitely not result in more usage. I think that's a completely false idea, so felt the need to debunk it.

As to whether marijuana should be legal or illegal, I've made my opinion on that known in previous threads and don't have time to rehash* it right now.


* pun intended, ha ha, aren't I funny
 
GVC said:
It's probably worth mentioning that weed impairs driving far less than alcohol. IF weed is more of a substitute than complement for alcohol...
Click to expand...

That's a huge if. Is there any evidence that that's the case? (I haven't run across anyone claiming that, but it's not something I've researched.)
 
colton said:
You pretty much missed my point. I advise you to re-read my post. I was using prohibition to counter Nate's claim that more access will definitely not result in more usage. I think that's a completely false idea, so felt the need to debunk it.

As to whether marijuana should be legal or illegal, I've made my opinion on that known in previous threads and don't have time to rehash* it right now.


* pun intended, ha ha, aren't I funny
Click to expand...

Yeah, I actually figured that out not too long after I wrote the post, but was too lazy to go back and delete.

My bad.


Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
colton said:
That's a huge if. Is there any evidence that that's the case? (I haven't run across anyone claiming that, but it's not something I've researched.)
Click to expand...

Good question. Are cigarettes a substitute for, or a complement to alcohol? Cigarettes are more of an analogue to joints really. So if people pick up smoking do they often stop drinking since smoking now took its place?
 
colton said:
You pretty much missed my point. I advise you to re-read my post. I was using prohibition to counter Nate's claim that more access will definitely not result in more usage. I think that's a completely false idea, so felt the need to debunk it.

As to whether marijuana should be legal or illegal, I've made my opinion on that known in previous threads and don't have time to rehash* it right now.


* pun intended, ha ha, aren't I funny
Click to expand...

*ain't
 
colton said:
You pretty much missed my point. I advise you to re-read my post. I was using prohibition to counter Nate's claim that more access will definitely not result in more usage. I think that's a completely false idea, so felt the need to debunk it.
Click to expand...
That's not really my claim though. My claim was that availability doesn't drive demand. The proof is in the pudding in the sense that I doubt any of you who don't smoke weed now will up and start if it's just available. And if I'm wrong I really, really doubt the reason will be "well golly, it's here so I must try it." Now I will admit that if a supply is artificially restricted that use will go up to satisfy the demand that was unable to procure the supply. However, mere legality doesn't mean people will try something. Salvia was legal for many years and I don't know anyone who ever tried it.

But the original contention was basically that "when something is more available more people will do it." That's a theory I don't agree with at all. There are plenty of things that have been widely available that people don't buy. Mere availability doesn't increase a product's use. If it did the New Coke would have been a smashing success since it was everywhere during that glorious summer of 1985.
 
Nate505 said:
That's not really my claim though. My claim was that availability doesn't drive demand. The proof is in the pudding in the sense that I doubt any of you who don't smoke weed now will up and start if it's just available. And if I'm wrong I really, really doubt the reason will be "well golly, it's here so I must try it." Now I will admit that if a supply is artificially restricted that use will go up to satisfy the demand that was unable to procure the supply. However, mere legality doesn't mean people will try something. Salvia was legal for many years and I don't know anyone who ever tried it.

But the original contention was basically that "when something is more available more people will do it." That's a theory I don't agree with at all. There are plenty of things that have been widely available that people don't buy. Mere availability doesn't increase a product's use. If it did the New Coke would have been a smashing success since it was everywhere during that glorious summer of 1985.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think you have this slightly backwards. I'd say there ARE people who don't use MJ because it is illegal and they'd have to interact with a criminal drug dealer in order to get it. For those people, if there was a store on the corner and they could waltz in and pick up some MJ and know that they weren't getting the stranger price or the bottom of the bag shake, etc. they'd be more likely to use some now and then.

I don't see that as a reasonable justification for taking on all the unintended horrific consequences of prohibition, but...
 
colton said:
That's a huge if. Is there any evidence that that's the case? (I haven't run across anyone claiming that, but it's not something I've researched.)
Click to expand...
1. There's a link in my post that you quoted.

2. Google is your friend.

Don't think it's a huge "if" at all. I'm an incredibly solitary person, but I know two people (one of whom was/is an alcoholic) who reduced their alcohol consumption when they started smoking weed.

I'd guess the number of non-drinkers who'd smoke weed if it were legal is pretty close to zero. With that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised at all if fatal accidents decreased under a legalized regime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top