Is it time to legalize pot and reduce the death rate of tobacco and alcohol?

[Joe the meek]

66



Denying reality isn't convincing, Joe
Less dangerous is all you offer.

As I said, perhaps by own perspective is skewed due to past experiences.

I regret some of the physical things I did to people when I drank, never had that problem when I escaped by other means. That said, most of the men I knew that had issues controlling their temper usually had issues with the bottle as well.

Can't say I ever met a mean stoner, have you?

 

[Stone]

As I said, perhaps by own perspective is skewed due to past experiences.

I regret some of the physical things I did to people when I drank, never had that problem when I escaped by other means. That said, most of the men I knew that had issues controlling their temper usually had issues with the bottle as well.

Can't say I ever met a mean stoner, have you?

Can't say I ever met a mean stoner, have you?

Drunks are obviously meaner.
Pot heads obviously mellower.
Both groups provide negative issues to society, the drunks a lot more .......legalize pot abuse and all you do is add more to the sum total.

 

[Stone]

gotta go Joe.....good talking to you....I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow morning.....have a good one

 

[36gamer]

Indeed....that's why caffeine isn't listed as a restricted drug.....society does not see it as a hazard.
Society does still see pot abuse and drug abuse as hazardous behavior.
If there were no negative issues on a level destructive to a society, we wouldn't be debating pot abuse. It wouldn't be an issue.

Welcome to the real world.

Focusing on this part of your reply because I actually agree with your other part. The majority of society agrees that marijuana isn't a hazard. There are negatives, but ,like I said before, I don't think the negatives are even close to being big enough for it to be restricted.

and about your comment "Welcome to the real world"; yes I do in fact know that the system in the real world is incorrect. That's why I am arguing against it.

Anyways I see that you are leaving for now so I'll see you around, it has been fun debating with you. This is an issue that I barely am on the side that I am on about because I have some mixed feelings. So I understand both sides of the argument pretty well and think that there is good reason to believe either way. You have provided some very nice points on your side =)

 

[Joe the meek]

gotta go Joe.....good talking to you....I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow morning.....have a good one

Ditto.

I think we agree more than disagree.

However, I'm sincerely perplexed how a 66 year old man who writes so intelligently fails to laugh himself to death when he puts common sense, the general public and the government together thinking that things will turn out ok mixing all three.

You're a much better man than myself to have that much faith:clap

Hey, come to think of it, all one has to do is look towards the TSA as an example of common sense, public safety and government action:thumbup

 

[Alien Allen]

Did you bother to actually read what I posted?
Rand's study on Pot found, as a generality, that it was not a gateway drug.

It's intentionally being used as entrance to a culture of drug use/abuse. The goal already is one of being with that culture.
That's not the trait of a gateway drug

A gateway drug entices one into a culture of drug use/abuse.

you outdid yourself on this one Caveman

You want the best of both worlds in your argument.

 

[Stone]

Focusing on this part of your reply because I actually agree with your other part. The majority of society agrees that marijuana isn't a hazard. There are negatives, but ,like I said before, I don't think the negatives are even close to being big enough for it to be restricted.

and about your comment "Welcome to the real world"; yes I do in fact know that the system in the real world is incorrect. That's why I am arguing against it.

Anyways I see that you are leaving for now so I'll see you around, it has been fun debating with you. This is an issue that I barely am on the side that I am on about because I have some mixed feelings. So I understand both sides of the argument pretty well and think that there is good reason to believe either way. You have provided some very nice points on your side =)

The majority of society agrees that marijuana isn't a hazard.

Not that I've ever read.
The ranks are growing in support of legalizing addiction, but that's not really so much an endorsement of safety as it's a society's value system deteriorating, imo.

, I don't think the negatives are even close to being big enough for it to be restricted.

You are allowed your opinions.
Even when they're contrary to logic

and about your comment "Welcome to the real world"; yes I do in fact know that the system in the real world is incorrect. That's why I am arguing against it.

No....you missed the point....reality.

yes I do in fact know that the system in the real world is incorrect. That's why I am arguing against it.

Indeed.
If you bother to read the current pot threads, you'll find I agree wholly that the current draconian system has intense flaws.
But those flaws do not justify legalizing drug abuse when there is another option that works better that either draconian laws or legalization.

It's called decriminalization and is reported to be returning good results in reducing drug abuse while not treating the user as a felon.

So I understand both sides of the argument pretty well ....

You obviously don't and I suspect you haven't read my position in these threads.
There are more that two sides to this debate.
No one here has been arguing for the current criminal system on illegal drugs.

This is an issue that I barely am on the side that I am on about because I have some mixed feelings.

I suggest you research the decriminalization aspect.

 

[Stone]

you outdid yourself on this one Caveman

You want the best of both worlds in your argument.

Of course it want the best of both worlds.

A gateway drug entices one into a culture of drug use/abuse.

With pot, you're already there, you silly bunny

 

[The Man]

Careful Joe ..Although he may be 66 he seldom naps

 

[36gamer]

Have I read all 22 pages of this topic? No. Have I read all of the posts on the first page, and all of the posts since I started posting? Yes. If you could provide a brief summary for the "decriminalization" option than that would be nice, or at least link me to where it is explained well. I would look it up myself but am quite busy at the moment. I'm open minded and can be convinced pretty easily.

 

[Stone]

Ditto.

I think we agree more than disagree.

However, I'm sincerely perplexed how a 66 year old man who writes so intelligently fails to laugh himself to death when he puts common sense, the general public and the government together thinking that things will turn out ok mixing all three.

You're a much better man than myself to have that much faith:clap

Hey, come to think of it, all one has to do is look towards the TSA as an example of common sense, public safety and government action:thumbup

However, I'm sincerely perplexed how a 66 year old man who writes so intelligently fails to laugh himself to death when he puts common sense, the general public and the government together thinking that things will turn out ok mixing all three.

I said it's the responsibility of the government to protect, I don't claim they do a good job of it
Actually it's been pretty piss poor.

You're a much better man than myself to have that much faith:clap

Truthfully, I don't have as much faith in the government as you might think.
The government doesn't run on common sense.....it runs on politicians and corruption.

Hey, come to think of it, all one has to do is look towards the TSA as an example of common sense, public safety and government action

<sarcasm> and foreign policy and economics and..........( and on and on )
So why not fuck up drug policies, too, eh ?

 

[Stone]

Have I read all 22 pages of this topic? No. Have I read all of the posts on the first page, and all of the posts since I started posting? Yes. If you could provide a brief summary for the "decriminalization" option than that would be nice, or at least link me to where it is explained well. I would look it up myself but am quite busy at the moment. I'm open minded and can be convinced pretty easily.

It's probably in the other pot thread.
Here is my original link:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html

Another is this Forbes article:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkai...lization-drug-abuse-down-by-half-in-portugal/

Both are accepted and credible sources.

From the Forbes article:

Ten years ago, Portugal decriminalized all drugs. One decade after this unprecedented experiment, drug abuse is down by half:

Be sure to read the Cato and Google/AFP links in the above quote.

 

[36gamer]

I read the information provided in the links. Decriminalization seems like a very good solution. In a world with perfect people I would like it to be completely legalized, but we obviously do not live in a world of that type. Decriminalization would definitely be much better than what we have now, and even though it may not be the perfect solution, I think it would definitely suffice.

 

[Stone]

I read the information provided in the links. Decriminalization seems like a very good solution. In a world with perfect people I would like it to be completely legalized, but we obviously do not live in a world of that type. Decriminalization would definitely be much better than what we have now, and even though it may not be the perfect solution, I think it would definitely suffice.

Thank you for reading the links. :thumbup
When you see the results the Portuguese are getting, it makes sense to try that kind of model.

 

[36gamer]

Thank you for reading the links. :thumbup
When you see the results the Portuguese are getting, it makes sense to try that kind of model.

Yeah it does make sense. I am only sixteen, so it's not like I have a lifetime experience around drugs or differences in the Nation's culture with and without drug influences. So I take your opinion, as a sixty-six year old, to be much more experienced and well though out. Thanks for the information.

 

[Accountable]

All these rationalizations and explanations only support the false assumption by the authoritarians that those in political positions are somehow wiser than the rest of us.

They're not.

Drugs should be made legal for the consumption of competent adults because competent adults are competent enough to make their own goddamn decisions. If they aren't then they should be declared incompetent and rounded up for their own safety.

 

[The Man]

Let the round up begin

 

[Accountable]

Let the round up begin

I'm talking about everybody, including you.

 

[Francis]

If they aren't then they should be declared incompetent and rounded up for their own safety.

Isn't that why you have an election every four years.. To round up those who need to be kept safe in a big building, yours in Washington ours in our capital.. :24:

 

[Stone]

All these rationalizations and explanations only support the false assumption by the authoritarians that those in political positions are somehow wiser than the rest of us.

They're not.

Drugs should be made legal for the consumption of competent adults because competent adults are competent enough to make their own goddamn decisions. If they aren't then they should be declared incompetent and rounded up for their own safety.

All these rationalizations and explanations only support the false assumption by the authoritarians that those in political positions are somehow wiser than the rest of us.

I've given you hard evidence of the advantage of decriminalization and all you can do is piss and moan about your precious wisdom.......obviously you aren't as wise as you think you are by disregarding the articles showcasing success of decriminalization.

They're not.

You obviously aren't.

Drugs should be made legal for the consumption of competent adults because competent adults are competent enough to make their own goddamn decisions.

There you go again.......you think your freedoms have priority over the rest of us and write up a bogus statement that the competent have the right to violate the freedoms of others.......what arrogance :thumbdown
The 16 year old that I had a conversation was adult enough to grasp the situation but all you do is piss and moan like a little baby about your precious freedoms not being impinged upon while the rest of society has their freedoms impinged upon by your selfish politics.

If they aren't then they should be declared incompetent and rounded up for their own safety.

In that scenario, I suspect you'd be a first round pick


But as you might remember the last time we discussed incompetence....there is a legal context of an individual without necessary understanding to stand trial ....versus the context of a person that has a lack of ability. You confuse the two.

Your argument for rounding up the 'incompetent' is pure sophistry and the abuse of context.
And poorly done at that.