Woman gets 10 Years in Prison for Selling $30 Worth of Weed in Oklahoma

[GVC]

Cheese contains opiates, rendering it extremely addictive. What should we do about cheese, especially since there are actual fatal diseases that can be attributed to overeating, whereas with cannabis there are none?

Besides, cannabis is not physically addictive. By choosing to consume cannabis, I am exercising my liberty, not giving it up.

And the gateway theory? Really? Study after study comes back showing no pharmacological or statistical link between cannabis use and other drug use. Milk might as well be considered the most dangerous drug because it is often the jumping off point to use hard drugs. And, to further argue the point, one of the big problems with the current prohibition is that the market for soft (cannabis) and hard (opiates, amphetamines, etc.) drugs are mixed. That is, the dealer of cannabis is often also dealing in hard drugs, and thus the cannabis user is exposed to more options that he may not be exposed to in a legalized and regulated cannabis market.

Beyond that, cannabis prohibition has been a boon to organized crime, just as alcohol prohibition was. Virtually all cannabis-related violence is gang/organized crime violence. Legalizing takes organized crime out of the equation, and thus would almost certainly cut down on the casualties in the worldwide War on Drugs.

Harm reduction strategies, like those being undertaken in Portugal, have been shown to lead to better outcomes, both in terms of public health and safety and financial cost. There is no rational reason for non-violent recreational drug users to be treated like violent criminals. None.

It's going to be difficult to continue this conversation with someone who makes unsubstantiated claims that also are false nearly 100% of the time. I've posted links to studies earlier in this thread, and can post more to support my point of view, but would like to see someone support the prohibition side.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Where you look at studies that back you up, I am going off of my life experiences.
I cant control what people do in a study, or how they go about it, or what their aim is.
I can state what I have experienced, and tell you that many friends started with pot and moved on from there.
Is pot the only factor involved, no, but it is involved.
It is weak to say it has not been proven to be a contributing factor... that is just rhetoric.

Forget the studies, I have seen it in someones actual life.

What you mean to say is it's going to be hard to continue this conversation with someone that does not agree with you.
I'm not trying to convince you of anything, I'm just throwing another point of view out there so you know not everyone will think you are a genius for talking big and throwing studies around. There are tons of studies and most of them are crap... meaningless. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.
Studies come and go, and stories change all the time. I take most studies with a grain of salt, because there are always multiple factors in situations and a study only looks at one or a few.
Carry on, like I said before, lets agree to disagree, but don't try to pretend you are smarter than me because you think you have "science" on your side.

 

[GVC]

What you mean to say is it's going to be hard to continue this conversation with someone that does not agree with you...There are tons of studies and most of them are crap... meaningless. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

You respond to none of my points, and then insult me. Bravo.

I am willing to listen to those who make actual counter-arguments and support them with more than anecdotal evidence, as I've shown in this thread.

So because science can only provide evidence to disprove bad theory, even when overwhelming evidence is provided that contradicts your unsupported opinion, you balk at it? Do you expect to be taken seriously? Why even enter this thread if you don't take the time to consider anyone else's point of view?

 

[JohnStockalypse]

Why even enter this thread if you don't take the time to consider anyone else's point of view?

I think he has...and the offered his...

 

[GVC]

I think he has...and the offered his...

If he actually considered what I was saying, he'd respond intelligently to my points instead of dismissing them in lieu of his self-serving anecdotes.

The questions: Should people be locked up at great expense to the tax payer for recreational drug use? Do the benefits of such approaches justify the costs? Why should people be punished at all for harmless actions undertaken in the privacy of their own homes? Why is it the business of anyone other than myself and my family what I choose to consume?

 

[JohnStockalypse]

I think he has answered those questions, from his viewpoint. He considered what you said and chose to put more faith in what he's seen in real life rather than studies none of us know the participants of, or motivation for. Doesn't seem that ridiculous.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

This whole post is absolute ********. It's hard to know where to start.
Maybe you should shut the **** up about things you know nothing about, and allow people to live their lives as they see fit. I'm not pounding down your door and harassing you for doing things that I don't do because you're probably not hurting anyone with your actions. I expect the same level of respect.

That's an oversimplification (which you are prone to).

Talking in vague generalities about "society" and "morals" is likewise meaningless. I'm interested in rational discussions. You avoid them at all cost, instead injecting irrational religious and moral ideals.
This is my life, not yours, not your god's. Mine. As a member of society, I am obligated to act in a way that respects that same principle as it applies to others (IMO), but otherwise should be free to act as I see fit. What's wrong with enjoying life? Why do I have to work toward going to the heaven you've invented?

It's going to be difficult to continue this conversation with someone who makes unsubstantiated claims that also are false nearly 100% of the time. I've posted links to studies earlier in this thread, and can post more to support my point of view, but would like to see someone support the prohibition side.

You respond to none of my points, and then insult me. Bravo.

I am willing to listen to those who make actual counter-arguments and support them with more than anecdotal evidence, as I've shown in this thread.

So because science can only provide evidence to disprove bad theory, even when overwhelming evidence is provided that contradicts your unsupported opinion, you balk at it? Do you expect to be taken seriously? Why even enter this thread if you don't take the time to consider anyone else's point of view?

I have not insulted you, but I have taken the tone of the "conversation" in the direction you have taken it, but not as far. Who has insulted who?
I don't see the point in responding to you. In fact there have been plenty of points I have made that you have not addressed. Double standard here? I have considered your points... they have been measured, and they have been found wanting. You are entitled to your view, I have no problem with that, I just do not agree at all.

Maybe we can agree more when talking about basketball?

 

[GVC]

I don't see the point in responding to you. In fact there have been plenty of points I have made that you have not addressed. Double standard here? I have considered your points... they have been measured, and they have been found wanting.

Which points have I not addressed?

Which of my points have "been found wanting"? It sounds like you just dismiss every question/point someone makes that doesn't jive with your world view. Maybe you should open your mind a little bit and actually consider the possibility that you're wrong on occasion.

I'm waiting for a response to my questions. I won't be responding to any more of your posts that avoid them. "Drugs are bad" is not an "argument" worthy of serious discussion.

 

[JohnStockalypse]

It sounds like you just dismiss every question/point someone makes that doesn't jive with your world view.

To be fair, I see some of this on both sides. Let's go blaze and work this all out.

 

[franklin]

You respond to none of my points, and then insult me. Bravo.

GayVeganCrybaby. Tone it down, angry.

I am willing to listen to those who make actual counter-arguments and support them with more than anecdotal evidence, as I've shown in this thread.

Your studies were anecdotal. Science does not study literature and draw conclusions from surveys and loose correlations with a multitude of unidentified variables.

Please lay out your scientific proof that marijuana isn't a gateway drug (not that I care if it is). I know people who started out with pot, moved up the thrill ladder, and committed suicide as teenagers.

 

[GVC]

Your studies were anecdotal. Science does not study literature and draw conclusions from surveys and loose correlations with a multitude of unidentified variables.

Fair enough. Is it safe to say that I'm making a better case than Jazzspazz? Should I just resort to dismissing the academic literature in favor of personal anecdotes and knee jerk reactions?

Please lay out your scientific proof that marijuana isn't a gateway drug (not that I care if it is). I know people who started out with pot, moved up the thrill ladder, and committed suicide as teenagers.

Ugh. I may take the time, but it will likely take me several days, as I don't have internet access at my current residence (in the woods). I'm not denying that many people who move on to hard drugs do so after trying marijuana. I would guess most heroin addicts tried beer before moving on to heroin. The fact remains that an overwhelming percentage of cannabis users are not users of hard drugs (opiates, amphetamines, etc.). If cannabis use compelled people to try hard drugs, wouldn't hard drug use be more widespread?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Cheese contains opiates, rendering it extremely addictive. What should we do about cheese, especially since there are actual fatal diseases that can be attributed to overeating, whereas with cannabis there are none?

Maybe you should change cheese's, because I have never been addicted to cheese and have eaten it off and on. If cheese is addictive to you you should stop eating it.

Besides, cannabis is not physically addictive. By choosing to consume cannabis, I am exercising my liberty, not giving it up.

I don't buy that cannabis is not physically addictive. For argument sake lets assume you are right and it is not. It is still mentally and/or emotionally addictive. There is more to things than just physical addiction. Cannabis is often mixed with other drugs that are very addictive, as it is not always smoked on its own. If it was not addictive in some way, people would not want to smoke it, let alone smoke it often.

And the gateway theory? Really? Study after study comes back showing no pharmacological or statistical link between cannabis use and other drug use. Milk might as well be considered the most dangerous drug because it is often the jumping off point to use hard drugs. And, to further argue the point, one of the big problems with the current prohibition is that the market for soft (cannabis) and hard (opiates, amphetamines, etc.) drugs are mixed. That is, the dealer of cannabis is often also dealing in hard drugs, and thus the cannabis user is exposed to more options that he may not be exposed to in a legalized and regulated cannabis market.

I've addressed my hesitation to believe studies just because somebody did a study.

Beyond that, cannabis prohibition has been a boon to organized crime, just as alcohol prohibition was. Virtually all cannabis-related violence is gang/organized crime violence. Legalizing takes organized crime out of the equation, and thus would almost certainly cut down on the casualties in the worldwide War on Drugs.

Organized crime would just change what it is they are involved in, and it really would not cut down on the casualties... it would just change the name of where we associate the casualties.

Harm reduction strategies, like those being undertaken in Portugal, have been shown to lead to better outcomes, both in terms of public health and safety and financial cost. There is no rational reason for non-violent recreational drug users to be treated like violent criminals. None.

I do have much less of a problem with non-violent recreational drug users.
I'm not going to give ground though and say I think it is ok. I know nothing about harm reduction strategies as I have not looked into them yet. Thanks for the tip.