Weed is a loser drug, don't care what anyone says

[Deep Dish]

bradd80:
You point to alcohol as being proof that drugs can be used in moderation, but the incredibly high rates of alcoholism prove otherwise. Overall, recreational drugs such as marijuana and heroin cannot be used in moderation, because the physically and mentally addictive qualities of these substances make this impossible for all users to do.

You are arguing from the extreme. Plenty of people do drink in moderation and the existence of alcoholics does not prove it cannot be used in moderation.

By the way, according to a study by the Canadian government, the average healthcare costs for marijuana users is $20 a year. While not 'harmless,' the health impact is virtually negligible. There is a chart (figure 1) which shows that virtually no marijuana users (about 2%) are at 'high risk'. Sorry, but your "no such thing as moderation" argument is unpursuasive.

But I notice druggees do that a lot, when you talk about how harmful weed is they try to change the subject and they talk about how evil alcohol is. As if by legalizing one harmful substance, that automatically means we should legalize ALL harmful substances.

It pains to me say this, but to be logically consistent, yes. Heroin, crystal meth, cocaine, ecstasy, should all be legal.

This is not an endorsement or encouragement for people to use heroin, quite the contrary, but public health is no role of government in criminal policies. Drug prohibition only makes drugs more dangerous, pushes people towards more dangerous legal substances, inflicts far greater costs on society than if the drugs were legal, and there is the libertarian harm principle that "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

 

[Deep Dish]

bradd80:
I just posted two pages worth of scientific studies which list all of the harmful effects of marijuana use. You chose to ignore them all, and instead you tell me the Canadian government uses its income from taxing people like me to spend only $20 on each weed addict.

Everything in perspective.

The thing is, deepdish, I don't want to spend even five cents of my hard earned money on health programs for each of these druggies, let alone $20.

You already spend $40 billion every year. $1 trillion over the past 40 years. To fight an unwinnable war.

The City of Amsterdam is refusing to issue any more new licenses to marijuana cafes in the city. They're also introducing a series of bylaws that make it more difficult for weed cafes to stay in business. You know why? Because they don't want weed in their city any more.

Amsterdam refuses to ban sales to tourists because they don't want crime to increase. I can quote the mayor of Amsterdam if you want.

 

[Deep Dish]

bradd80:
Legalization won't win that war either.

That is the Perfect Solution fallacy. No, legalization will not solve every problem, it's no silver bullet, but it is realistic pragmatism. Drug prohibition is a total abject failure.

Are you denying that no more new weed cafe licenses will be issued, and that the purpose of this is to try to shut down the few remaining ones?

The purpose is not to shut down the market. To quote the mayor Eberhard van der Laan, "The 1.5 million tourists will not say 'then no more marijuana', they will swarm all over the city looking for drugs. This would lead to more robberies, quarrels about fake drugs, and no control of the quality of drugs on the market - everything we have worked towards would be lost to misery." From what I understand, the pressure on the Dutch Parliament comes from neighboring European countries who don't like the big flow of smuggling coming out of the country into theirs.

It's very interesting that Uruguay may very soon be the first country in the world to directly distribute marijuana to its citizens, figuring that it's better they handle the market rather than underground thugs.

 

[Married Buried]

Brad is obviously a troll who comes here to spew senseless ramblings against weed. Weed can do no wrong give it up Brad.

 

[Deep Dish]

Deep Dish:
Plenty of people do drink in moderation and the existence of alcoholics does not prove it cannot be used in moderation.

bradd80:
It proves that people as a combined group cannot use weed in moderation. What do I care that only a few people have only tried it once or twice? The main problem is the huge number of people who abuse drugs such as marijuana and heroin and cause all sorts of social and economic problems.

Deep Dish:
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.”

bradd80:
And this is exactly why drugs such as heroin, crack, marijuana, and ecstasy should be illegal.

1. Most people do just fine in moderation.
2. You are wrong about social and economic costs. The drug laws cause more problems than it solves.

To quote the study in the British Journal of Anesthetics which you have cited:

Aggression and violence
Although historically linked to aggressive acts in assassins (from which the term hashish is derived), cannabis in most recreational settings decreases aggressive feelings in human and increase sociability. However, occasional predisposed individuals, especially if under stress, become aggressive after taking cannabis. Violent behavior may also be associated with acute paranoid or manic psychosis induced by cannabis intoxication, and polydrug use, mainly cannabis, appears to increase the risk of aggression and violence in affective disorders or schizophrenia. An investigation of criminal behavior found that 30% of 73 cannabis users incarcerated for homicide had taken the drug within 24 h of the crime. Although usually alcohol or other drugs had also been taken, 18 prisoners said that cannabis had contributed to their homicidal act. Thus cannabis, in common with alcohol, appears to be a potential contributor to violence and possibly to criminal behavior.​

This is a piece of propaganda. Drill this into your obtusely deformed phrenological cranium: correlation is not causation.

It is likely alcohol which is causing the problems, since alcohol is proven to physically cause violence. It’s no surprise that people with anger management issues would turn to marijuana to relax, but it’s also no surprise a few of those people with intense rage would eventually snap, anyway. Marijuana synergistically amplifies the effects of alcohol, but there is no convincing evidence that marijuana alone causes violence. Even if alcohol was not present in 100% of these murders, it still wouldn’t prove anything because of the spurious factor of people with anger management issues. I hope you know the definition of the word ‘spurious.’

I once read a pamphlet by the federal government about 10 “myths” of marijuana. Under the “myth” that marijuana is a victimless ‘crime,’ it was argued that marijuana is associated with street crime and gang violence, but that’s the unintended consequence of criminal law. In a legalized market, people settle disputes with lawyers; in a criminalized market, people use guns. The demand will never go away and there will always be supply. Many more people have been murdered because of criminal prohibition than marijuana has ever murdered anyone. It’s patently ridiculous when the federal government has to stretch all the way out to murderers and organized crime to argue that marijuana causes violence.

Moreover, criminal prohibition of marijuana erodes society. To quote Albert Einstein, “The prestige of government has undoubtedly been lowered considerably by the prohibition law. For nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced. It is an open secret that the dangerous increase of crime in this country is closely connected with this.” If you want to know more about all of the unintended negative consequences of drug prohibition, study up on Noble Prize winner Milton Friedman. Here is an infographic which illustrates a summary of how prohibition is a total abject failure, and always will be. (The infographic is multiple slides, so be sure to slide.) I also highly recommend Stephen Soderbergh’s Traffic. You are standing on the wrong side of history.

If someone punches you, charge them with battery. If someone mugs you, charge them with armed robbery. If someone sneaks into your home, charge them with burglary. If someone crashes into your car because they were too impaired, charge them with DUID. But pre-crime doesn’t work unless we’re living in the movie Minority Report.

Malice:
Brad is obviously a troll who comes here to spew senseless ramblings against weed. Weed can do no wrong give it up Brad.

+1

 

[Married Buried]

Nah, it effects people differently. I know people that gave up on Division 1 college sports scholarships at awesome schools because "they didnt want to get tested" wtf.

That is really stupid of them because it's easy to beat a piss test.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Although I concede that such a thing might exist, I never met a lawyer who was not into altered consciousness or escapism in some way. Not that I ever practiced law, but from what I understand it is difficult to constantly deal with people with problems, as well as tell the people with no money to fvck off because they can't afford a lawyer. It wears on anyone's soul.

Roughly half of lawyers are alcoholics. Pills are popular, too, especially among women. They love anti-depressants, valium, and xanax. Illegal drugs I think would be in a minority, but there are a fair amount of lawyers who use pot and coke. The lawyers you see who really are squeaky clean will be fanatically into something as their escapism. Distance running and religion are common; each of them is a type of high. Sex is another one - remember John Larroquette's character on the old show Night Court - that one tends to overlap to some extent with alcoholism.

 

[Deep Dish]

Brad, the ultimate irony in this discussion is that you live with the consequences of being wrong. 

It is because of prohibition that marijuana is easier for teenagers to get than beer, because drug dealers don't check their ID. It is because of prohibition that drug cartels have been fueled to move into Central America and kill 60,000 people in Mexico. It is because of prohibition that people smoke 'synthetic' marijuana which is more dangerous than the real thing. It is because of prohibition that black men are hassled and arrested at disproportionate rates; it is the new Jim Crow law. It is because of prohibition that the police are corrupted by bribes. It is because of prohibition that the Supreme Court ruled it’s okay for the police to search your house without a warrant if they hear your toilet flush. Alcohol is legal because people decided that the social costs of prohibition were far worse than the social costs of alcohol itself. History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Like it or not, legalization is coming to a neighborhood near you.

Fin.

 

[Married Buried]

You spelt "Anaesthetics" incorrectly. If you're going to claim to be smarter than everyone else, at least try to spell the words you use correctly.

\

Then why is "anesthetic" in the dictionary? It can be spelled either way and both are correct.

"Anaesthetics" is not even in the dictionary.

 

[Deep Dish]

There is one cliff note I want to add: one out of every three people are arrested before the age of 23. This rise only began happening in the past 30 years, mostly because of prohibition.

Now, I'm done.

 

[Bible_Belt]

That's an interesting stat. Alcohol accounts for a lot of those arrests, too. Obviously alcohol was just as prevalent in the early 80's, but our attitude towards it has changed. Now we employ a giant police state to "crack down" on DUI and underage drinking, all in the name of public safety.

If we really wanted to stop drunk driving, we'd just make it the law that every car has to have a breathalyzer installed in it. But the truth is that there is a huge industry of people who only have a job because of arrests like DUI. We are approaching the point right now in the US where there will be more people who have a DUI arrest on their record than people who do not. That pays the salaries of cops, lawyers, judges and court workers, POs, and prison guards. It's a lot like pot prohibition.

I realize that unlike pot itself, drunk drivers do kill people; I almost got wiped out by one myself while on a motorcycle. But like I said, if we really wanted to prevent it, we wouldn't set up society so that almost everyone does it. Everyone drinks, there's very little public transport in the US, and cars start just fine for any drunk. That's why every bar has a full parking lot on weekends. They want everyone to drive a little buzzed so that the DUI industry never runs out of clients.

btw, unless you just chugged a bottle of booze a few minutes before being stopped and it hasn't hit you yet, don't ever blow into a cop's portable breathalyzer device. They are ridiculously inaccurate and you can guess in whose favor they will err. You have the right to use the non-portable bac monitor, which will be located at the police station, and that is not considered to be refusing the breathalyzer. My state suspends your license for twice as long if you refuse the breathalyzer, which ought to give you an idea of how crooked it is. The worst that can happen by taking the non-portable bac is that at least you get an accurate reading. The time it takes the cop to get you back to the police station will help to lower your bac reading as well. If you've been drinking and they want a bac test, you're going there anyway.

Lawyers will tend to tell you to refuse the breathalyzer altogether, because that gives them a chance to argue your case in court. That's also part of why my state does the automatic one-year suspension for refusing a bac test; it works to get you found not guilty, but that's a separate issue from the license suspension, and you'll still lose that automatically for the suspension period.

 

[Epimanes]

Well .. here is a few you tube clips to help with you discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xhBQ9LDoto - is alcohol worse than ecstacy (uk study documentary)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNpFqJcJcps - news documentary about ecstacy hosted by peter jennings on ABC news

Check them out .. both are very informative and interesting.

Edit to add .. i dont condone drug ABUSE.. but feel that many drugs (not all, theres some pretty crazy shyt out there that can ruin you) have a use if used properly in moderation.

 

[Epimanes]

ALso ... if alcohol was created today .. it would be illegal.

 

[Married Buried]

Why do I feel like I'm on a thread surrounded by a bunch of potheads? Oh yeah that's because I am.

Deepdish quoted a medical publication entitled "The British Journal of Anaesthesia" which he spelt incorrectly.

Good for you. You corrected a spelling and then you beat your chest about winning the debate. From my experience those who beat their chest about winning a debate are usually the losers.

I don't care what you think about me being a "pothead". Weed helps me relax, and collect my thoughts. I don't have time do go grammar policing on sosuave and I'm not even a lawyer. I work in IT solving peoples computer problems.

so that leaves the question why are you having time to go grammar policing on sosuave? aren't you a lawyer?

Who are you defending? Old grandmothers who hate weed? Probably so.

 

[Married Buried]

It's quite clear from anyone who read the last four pages who's argument was more convincing. Deepdish presented some articles which stated marijuana has no effect on adults, while conceding that it had a tremendously adverse effect on people under 18. So basically, he wants you to believe that drugs are horrible for a 17 year old but perfectly fine and zero risk for an 18 year old.

Utterly preposterous.

He mentioned a study done in 2006 with 1200 people and claimed that this study was the largest of its kind and so he wins the debate. But then I mentioned an even larger study done in 2012 with 49,000 people which proved how dangerous marijuana can be, and all I heard were crickets. He simply ignored it. I mentioned the thoughts of medical experts at Yale University who concluded that weed is bad, and he dismissed it as "propaganda" and then tried to change the subject by quoting some druggie named Allan.

Malice, I know you want the pro-weed debate to win because you want to smoke your drugs so bad. And while you think it helps relax you or whatever, weed destroys lives. In my spare time, I used to practice the martial arts and I'd teach inner city kids this stuff to keep them off of drugs. I've seen first hand the devastating effect drug pushers like deepdish have on our kids, our families, and our neighbourhoods, and how their attitude that stuff like heroin, crack, and weed should be available has destroyed lives and ruined a lot of very promising futures.

Every time I proved Deepdish wrong, he would point to the evils of alcohol, as if the negative effects of that drug somehow made legalizing marijuana a necessity. Early on when I was very young, I learned that during debates people often tried to change the subject to something else when they saw that they had lost on a certain topic.



It didn't take much effort for me to see that deepdish misspelt that word, since I was the one who referenced that particular journal that he quoted. I really didn't want to be a d*ck and bring it up but I only did because deepdish had several times tried to demonstrate his "superior intellect" over other posters on this thread and it was time to put him in his place so people could see just how "smart" he really is. He came here armed with a bunch of phony studies from his pro-drug website, not realizing someone (me) was coming to the fight with even better, larger, more accurate, and more recent studies all of which concluded that cannabis is in fact a very harmful hallucinogenic/narcotic drug.

I'm speaking for the kids out there who had promising futures that were cut short because they too at one point thought that weed wasn't bad for them, that they could take it in moderation. And then suddenly they became stupid, lazy, and totally devoid of motivation. I'm speaking for my own family, because I don't want to live with neighbours who smoke weed and then drive their car around risking the lives of my kids. I also don't want these neighbours to develop psychosis or make some of their pre-existing mental disorders any worse than they already are.

The world has so many problems as it is the last thing I want to do is add to it.

Please show me one article where someone went into "psychosis" after smoking weed? Or where weed has destroyed a life.. show me some news reports?

I have been around it my whole life. The only time marijuana ever caused pain and ruined lives was when the police caught them with it.

 

[Married Buried]

Malice are you serious were you totally fvcking high while you were reading the last 4 pages of this thread? Did you not bother reading any of the links I posted to the studies which discuss how marijuana causes psychosis and a variety of other physical and mental problems?

Goddamn dude, you're not doing much to help the cause of legalizing weed.. but once again, here is the article:

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schizophrenia/content/article/10168/2017327

And the medical experts who performed the study concluded that “results from 7 cohort studies showed a 40% increased risk of psychosis in cannabis users compared with nonusers. The data also revealed a dose-response effect—the risk of psychotic symptoms was increased approximately 50% to 200% in those who used cannabis frequently compared with nonusers.”

Actually I have not smoked any weed for awhile. And that is contributing to the fact I want to reach out and choke you for your stupid views, but I am going to smoke a bowl first to relax.

Your studies didn't prove anything. Those studies are old news. I was asking for some new evidence not from old textbooks you read 20 years ago.

 

[Married Buried]

Seattle police department announces legalization of weed:

http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2012/11/09/marijwhatnow-a-guide-to-legal-marijuana-use-in-seattle/

The people have spoken. Voters have passed Initiative 502 and beginning December 6th, it is not a violation of state law for adults over 21 years old to possess up to an ounce of marijuana (or 16 ounces of solid marijuana-infused product, like cookies, or 72 ounces of infused liquid, like oil) for personal use. The initiative establishes a one-year period for the state to develop rules and a licensing system for the marijuana production and sale.

Marijuana has existed in a grey area in Seattle for some time now. Despite a longstanding national prohibition on marijuana, minor marijuana possession has been the lowest enforcement priority for the Seattle Police Department since Seattle voters passed Initiative 75 in 2003. Officers don’t like grey areas in the law. I-502 now gives them more clarity.

Marijuana legalization creates some challenges for the Seattle Police Department, but SPD is already working to respond to these issues head on, by doing things like reviewing SPD’s hiring practices for police officers to address now-legal marijuana usage by prospective officers, as well as current employees.

While I-502 has decriminalized marijuana possession in Washington, the new state law does not change federal law, which classifies marijuana as a Schedule I narcotic. All Seattle Police officers have taken an oath to uphold not only state law, but federal law as well. However, SPD officers will follow state law, and will no longer make arrests for marijuana possession as defined under I-502.

The Seattle Police Department and Mayor Mike McGinn have already begun working with state officials to navigate this conflict, and follow the direction of Washington voters to legalize marijuana.

In the meantime, the Seattle Police Department will continue to enforce laws against unlicensed sale or production of marijuana, and regulations against driving under the influence of marijuana, which remain illegal.

Here’s a practical guide for what the Seattle Police Department believes I-502 means for you, beginning December 6th, based on the department’s current understanding of the initiative Please keep in mind that this is all subject to ongoing state and local review, and that it describes the view of the Seattle Police Department only. All marijuana possession and sale remains illegal under federal law, and Seattle Police cannot predict or control the enforcement activities of federal authorities.

Can I legally carry around an ounce of marijuana?

According to the recently passed initiative, beginning December 6th, adults over the age of 21 will be able to carry up to an ounce of marijuana for personal use. Please note that the initiative says it “is unlawful to open a package containing marijuana…in view of the general public,” so there’s that. Also, you probably shouldn’t bring pot with you to the federal courthouse (or any other federal property).

Well, where can I legally buy pot, then?

The Washington State Liquor Control Board is working to establish guidelines for the sale and distribution of marijuana. The WSLCB has until December 1, 2013 to finalize those rules. In the meantime, production and distribution of non-medical marijuana remains illegal.

Does I-502 affect current medical marijuana laws?

No, medical marijuana laws in Washington remain the same as they were before I-502 passed.

Can I grow marijuana in my home and sell it to my friends, family, and co-workers?

Not right now. In the future, under state law, you may be able to get a license to grow or sell marijuana.

Can I smoke pot outside my home? Like at a park, magic show, or the Bite of Seattle?

Much like having an open container of alcohol in public, doing so could result in a civil infraction—like a ticket—but not arrest. You can certainly use marijuana in the privacy of your own home. Additionally, if smoking a cigarette isn’t allowed where you are (say, inside an apartment building or flammable chemical factory), smoking marijuana isn’t allowed there either.

Will police officers be able to smoke marijuana?

As of right now, no. This is still a very complicated issue.

If I apply for a job at the Seattle Police Department, will past (or current) marijuana use be held against me? The current standard for applicants is that they have not used marijuana in the previous three years. In light of I-502, the department will consult with the City Attorney and the State Attorney General to see if and how that standard may be revised.

What happens if I get pulled over and an officer thinks I’ve been smoking pot?

If an officer believes you’re driving under the influence of anything, they will conduct a field sobriety test and may consult with a drug recognition expert. If officers establish probable cause, they will bring you to a precinct and ask your permission to draw your blood for testing. If officers have reason to believe you’re under the influence of something, they can get a warrant for a blood draw from a judge. If you’re in a serious accident, then a blood draw will be mandatory.

What happens if I get pulled over and I’m sober, but an officer or his K9 buddy smells the ounce of Super Skunk I’ve got in my trunk?

Under state law, officers have to develop probable cause to search a closed or locked container. Each case stands on its own, but the smell of pot alone will not be reason to search a vehicle. If officers have information that you’re trafficking, producing or delivering marijuana in violation of state law, they can get a warrant to search your vehicle.

SPD seized a bunch of my marijuana before I-502 passed. Can I have it back?

No.

Will SPD assist federal law enforcement in investigations of marijuana users or marijuana-related businesses, that are allowed under I-502?

No. Officers and detectives will not participate in an investigation of anything that’s not prohibited by state law.

December 6th seems like a really long ways away. What happens if I get caught with marijuana before then? Hold your breath. Your case will be processed under current state law. However, there is already a city ordinance making marijuana enforcement the lowest law enforcement priority.

I’m under 21. What happens if I get caught smoking pot?

It’s a violation of state law. It may referred to prosecutors, just like if you were a minor in possession of alcohol.

More info here:

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...-seattle-police-produces-marijuana-guide?lite

 

[n00bPimp]

Your logic is flawed because you're confusing cause with effect.
I would say the mayority of losers smoke pot, among other drugs, but not all pot smokers are losers. Its like saying all alcoholics are losers. There are many ceo's and celebrities who have alcohol problems, and there are many accomplished people in our society who are pot smokers. Most supporters of legalization are ocassional smokers.

Losers are losers because they can't prioritize, not because they smoke pot.

I do commend you for your ability to stay away from drugs.