View Poll Results: How should Marijuana be dealt with?

Voters
120. You may not vote on this poll
  • Stricter federal laws must be made, and more money put to enforcing them

    13 10.83%
  • Give individual states the right to decide how to go about it

    39 32.50%
  • Legalize it through a federal law

    52 43.33%
  • Give states the right to decide about it as long as they abide by certain Federal guidelines

    16 13.33%
Page 38 of 41 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast
Results 371 to 380 of 409

Thread: Marijuana

  1. #371
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,923

    Re: Marijuna

    I support the decriminalization of weed. One real problem, however much smokers ignore this because they buy their weed from a neighbor or co-worker who's really nice and perfectly ordinary and otherwise a law-abiding citizen is that the weed has been sold at the point of a gun. Maybe not at your neighbor's or his bud's, but somewhere. This is a given. So is the fact that Americans are losing their lives at various "distribution points."

  2. #372
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,185

    Re: Marijuna

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    My guess is there is a great majority of Americans, parents, mostly, who would disagree with you.
    I'm a parent of a 16yo teenage boy. I am firmly aware that there is ONE way to keep him from smoking pot, and that is to PERSUADE him that it is a bad idea. There is absolutely no other avenue of action that will prevent him from smoking weed, unless I lock him in his room forever, which is impractical. It cannot be enforced away.... forty years of trying and failing miserably proves that.




    Now that's strange. I mean, we both seem like reasonable people, yet I didn't find it drama-queenish or over-dramatized. I found it to be quite well presented, complete with valid authoritative references .. and I thought the way it finished was quite insightful, and, okay, also inciteful, yet still pretty much .. right on.

    So, could you point out with linked reference to quotes from the link where you thought it was over-the-top? I'm curious.
    The studies he quoted were succinct and scholarly, but in between he kept harping on how DEADLY street-pot is, with implications that it will KILL you stone dead in short order. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. I'm a street-wise guy; I don't smoke the stuff but I've known plenty who do. It is no deadlier than booze, but his presentation sure tries to make it sound like one joint might kill you.

    It's as over the top as "Reefer Madness" was.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  3. #373
    pirate lover
    liblady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    St Thomas, VI
    Last Seen
    03-14-16 @ 03:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    16,165
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Marijuna

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I'm a parent of a 16yo teenage boy. I am firmly aware that there is ONE way to keep him from smoking pot, and that is to PERSUADE him that it is a bad idea. There is absolutely no other avenue of action that will prevent him from smoking weed, unless I lock him in his room forever, which is impractical. It cannot be enforced away.... forty years of trying and failing miserably proves that.






    The studies he quoted were succinct and scholarly, but in between he kept harping on how DEADLY street-pot is, with implications that it will KILL you stone dead in short order. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. I'm a street-wise guy; I don't smoke the stuff but I've known plenty who do. It is no deadlier than booze, but his presentation sure tries to make it sound like one joint might kill you.

    It's as over the top as "Reefer Madness" was.
    Go with the consequences angle, because it's true. Although I have to say both of my kids smoked, but both no longer do. When you don't tell them the truth, they know.

    Originally Posted by johnny_rebson:

    These are the same liberals who forgot how Iraq attacked us on 9/11.


  4. #374
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Marijuna

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I'm a parent of a 16yo teenage boy. I am firmly aware that there is ONE way to keep him from smoking pot, and that is to PERSUADE him that it is a bad idea. There is absolutely no other avenue of action that will prevent him from smoking weed, unless I lock him in his room forever, which is impractical. It cannot be enforced away.... forty years of trying and failing miserably proves that.
    Which speaks to society's position that if we were more effective in fighting the drug war, pot would be less prevalent.

    I don't have all the answers.

    I tried to be a good parent .. and my kids managed to avoid drugs. Of course, they may not have been prone to addiction. Hopefully my grandkids won't be either.

    But many, many millions are prone to unconscious compulsive drug abuse.

    Society says that, for their benefit, pot has to go, and legalization is the wrong direction on that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    The studies he quoted were succinct and scholarly, but in between he kept harping on how DEADLY street-pot is, with implications that it will KILL you stone dead in short order. I'm sorry, but that's a laugh. I'm a street-wise guy; I don't smoke the stuff but I've known plenty who do. It is no deadlier than booze, but his presentation sure tries to make it sound like one joint might kill you. It's as over the top as "Reefer Madness" was.
    Yes the presentation was accurate, succinct, even scholarly. That alone should be sufficient.

    As to the editorializing, I found it to be appropriate emphasis, as so many people simply didn't realize how damaging pot is.

    I don't think it's "harping" to reiterate the valid point and theme of the presentation.

    Nor did the presentation "imply" that pot would kill you dead in short order. The presentation described the damage to the brain and body that pot does as more along the lines of a degenerative disease, "degenerative" being the actual description used. That means "over time", clearly.

    Now sure, those who abuse large amounts of "skunk" in one sitting, well, yes, they're asking for bad things to happen to them quickly, which the presentation was correct in pointing out, that and, of course, those who drive while stoned who all too often cause instant death creating traffic accidents.

    Though for those who might be allergic, one joint could indeed kill them, and for most of those, they usually find out the hard way .. well, no, they don't "find out", 'cause they're .. dead .. .. .

    But there was simply no exageration there at all in the presentation.

    What I think, is that there was simply a lot of fact there to take in, more than most people realize exists, and that, having to take in so much that, well, after having drug abusers and their "union" -- NORML -- presenting so much false propaganda about pot not being harmful .. again, the link I presented would indeed be a shock to the system for those falsely indoctrinated.

    Also, the way it concludes sheds understandably applicable shadows on the veracity of legalization proponents.

    So I understand where those who support legalization will imagine exagerations in the presentation that simply don't exist.

    What I found in the presentation was one of the few examples of well-used redundancy, which made for effective emphasis on the well-revealed degeneratively deadly quality of pot.

    And considering all the misinformation about pot, the presentation's redundancy and emphasis was most appropriate in driving home the point to those who would otherwise have a hard time accepting the truth of of the deadly nature of pot.
    Last edited by Ontologuy; 01-16-12 at 01:46 AM.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  5. #375
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Marijuna

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post
    So .. is it also a thing about libertarians to advocate the same to be applied to kids, that kids, too, do have or should have a "right" to do with their own body whatever they want, even if it's against the wishes of their parents?



    I don't either.

    I do support locking people up who are caught drinking and driving .. or toking and driving .. and, of course, for great lengths of time when they maime or kill people as a result.

    There are some who say that drug addicts can't help themselves, though, and that the very nature of drug abuse, you know, "taking the edge off" and other euphemistic descriptions of addictive behavior, is such that those who do are DUI fatality causers waiting for their future accident time to happen.

    Most who are saying that are parents of pre-teens and teens, those who have a good sober reason to face the truth about the unconscious compulsive non-choice nature of drug abuse.

    I'm not sure where I fall in the summation of all this. I'm just pretty good at differentiating between unconsciously polly-parroted ideolgoical BS and what's really true. And that's where the fun of all this is for me, regardless of taking sides.

    But I do know this OP here -- Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly -- is a pretty powerful statement .. one that, so far, legalization advocates behave as is they're down right afraid of.
    No, I don't advocate children smoking pot at all. They are minors, and pot-smoking should be restricted to minors just as booze and cigarettes are.

    Drug use is always a choice. Some people have addictive personalities, and in that case, stopping drug use is extremely difficult, but the choice is always there. I advocate for personal responsibility and not for the blame game. Whatever people do is their own responsibility to correct if their actions are determined to be destructive.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  6. #376
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Marijuna

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    No, I don't advocate children smoking pot at all. They are minors, and pot-smoking should be restricted to minors just as booze and cigarettes are.
    Back in the fall of 2010, California had a pot legalization measure on the ballot. It was touch and go for awhile as to which way the very liberal state would go, many thinking CA might be the first to enact such a revolutionary law, despite the fact that the fed threatened it would most certainly fight it and step up arrests of those possessing controlled substances (and pot is understandably a federally controlled substance).

    Then in the fall, liberal bent Democrat Dianne Feinstein joined with the president of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers and came out publically against the measure, citing a number of studies (I recall reading the Rand study) that clearly indicated that pot prevalence on the street would greatly increase if legalization occurred, which, of course, does indeed make sense. This would lead to even more kids getting hooked on drugs and increase, the study showed, the number of traffic accidents (and thus maimings and fatalities) caused by pot DUi.

    That was enough to encourage citizens even in a non-presidential year to go to the polls and defeat that dangerous measure, in a very liberal state, mind you.

    Like you say, no one wants kids doing drugs.

    Yet studies show that nearly everyone who got hooked on drugs started as a kid, many very young.

    And, considering that it's an understandable given that legalization would make pot more plentiful, increasing the frequency of hooking more addictive kids, parents who are genuinely concerned about their kids just said "No!" ..

    .. And understandably so.


    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    Drug use is always a choice. Some people have addictive personalities, and in that case, stopping drug use is extremely difficult, but the choice is always there. I advocate for personal responsibility and not for the blame game. Whatever people do is their own responsibility to correct if their actions are determined to be destructive.
    So, is being gay a "choice", Lizzie?

    Is being a psychological/physiological addict really a "choice"?

    No, not at all.

    I realize that those who fear losing personal freedoms to an ideology opposite their own ideology will downplay the realities that work against their own ideology, that is, in this case, they might choose to ignore that certain behaviors simply aren't conscious choices in orientation they would then like to conveniently think that they are.

    Hopefully those who respect reality will continue to fight the good fight for truth. If that means pot remains illegal, then so be it, just as long as the argumentation made for either position respects the truth.

    On another though related front, street pot has no redeeming social value, none whatsoever. It isn't marinol, it isn't a pharmaceutical medicine, etc., etc. It's just a drug, for the purposes of feeding addicts, that functions as a depressant at best, and, as the link I previously posted accurately presents, damages brain and body while it dumbs the user down. Why would anyone want to do or say anything in support of that?!

    With regard to the understandable increase in prevalence of drugs legalization would inflict upon our country, well, the last thing we need is a bunch of utilitarian relativists "ignorantly" causing us to go the demising way of the Greek, Roman, and the like democracies before us, when everything became about pleasure, fun and games, and the "voters" said to hell with responsibility, accountability .. and truth.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  7. #377
    Cynical Optimist
    jambalaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Last Seen
    11-28-12 @ 05:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,481

    Re: Marijuna

    The main problem with drugs in general in this country is in the econimically disadvantaged areas. Drugs, not poverty and racism (although poverty fuels the business of selling drugs in those communities) is a very big factor in why many people living in those areas are are stuck in an endless cycle that keeps them from succeeding in life. Legalizing and/or greatly decriminalizing drugs I think would help to reduce the problem. We need to take the profitability out of the drug trade caused by prohibition. I think it is the only way to at least in part treat the problem. The only other way would be to completely cut off the supply of drugs. I don't see that happening. Once we reduce the criminal element and take away the fear for people coming forward for help with drug problems I think we can begin to solve the problem. The war on drugs has just made things worse for the disadvantaged.

    Keeping marijauna illegal does prevent more people from using it. But I believe in a free society we should allow people more of a choice while at the same time preaching the value of being drug free. We are not going to all turn into a bunch of pot heads. Most people recognize the value of being drug free or making their use minimal and casual. Drugs are here to stay. It is about time we manage the problem rather than strictly criminalize it.

  8. #378
    ˇSelah!
    Alyssa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    southern and midwestern United States where Protestant fundamentalism is dominant
    Last Seen
    05-07-14 @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    8,648
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Marijuna

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post

    .. When faced with the truth of the matter: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly.
    Another irrelevant link to the same forum. The hyperbole and emotive dramatics from the anti weed crowd further supports decriminalization or legalization. Thanks, guys.
    “In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.” -Napoleon

  9. #379
    Sage
    Ontologuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 03:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,516

    Re: Marijuna

    Quote Originally Posted by evanescence View Post
    Another irrelevant link to the same forum. The hyperbole and emotive dramatics from the anti weed crowd further supports decriminalization or legalization. Thanks, guys.
    When I read your post here, I can't help but think that the following most accurately applies to it: Street Pot Is Irrefutably Deadly

    So, yes, street pot is clearly deadly.

    Thus the matter is decided, irrefutably.

    And I say irrefutably for two reasons: 1) the qualification, competency, currency, accuracy and veracity of the medical authorities presenting the deadly nature of pot is simply not rationally, soberly questioned, and 2) those who rebut these authorities are not rationally believable due to their association with a drug and its culture that clearly prevents its users from telling the truth.

    Indeed, those who deny the obviously deadly damage pot does -- and denial is part and parcel to addiction! -- could likely be suffering symptomatically from the effects of pot!

    Brain damage, distortion, paranoia, etc., etc. -- how can one possibly rationally consider anything a pro-pot advocate has to say in defense of the drug of street pot as being truthful?!
    And street-pot-legalization advocates are no different with regard to the question of their veracity, as though they may try to argue with a bait-and-switch perspective about "the drug war", as the authorities clearly present, such divertive double-talk by drug users is part and parcel of drug use -- they don't care about issues of fighting the necessary battle to keep drugs off our streets, they just want to make it easier to get stoned.

    So in any discussion about street pot, a proponent of street-pot, according to the authorities, could likely not be playing with a full deck of mental faculties, and is likely to present distortions, false accusations against the authorities and other paranoid manifestations, links to sites that have purposely controverted reality (NORML, and other pro-pot apologetic links), links to old data that has been scientifically refuted today, nit-pick absolute nothings regarding the valid authorities' presentations, falsely minimize the drug's effect, compare street pot to anything from alcohol to walking down the street saying that "everything is dangerous", etc., etc., etc. .. all essentially non-starters completely lacking in valid truth-based argumentation against the irrefutable deadly nature of street pot.

    Thus, though the deadliness of pot is simply rationally and thus truthfully unconjecturable irrefutably, I also have to ask here how any discussion in the matter could ever, ever give credence to the pro-pot users' presentations?
    It just seems logical that, considering the rational applicable questions as to the state of mind of street pot-using proponents, 1) how can one ever trust that anything they say is the truth, and 2) how can one differentiate between a) someone who doesn't use pot and isn't brain-damaged/suffering a conflict of interest to the degree they don't tell the truth, and is thus truly only economically etc. concerned about pot legalization, and b) the brain-damaged pot user who can't be trusted to tell the truth about the deadly nature of pot and is suffering an addict-based conflict of interest in the matter?

    And, of course, the street pot proponent saying "I'm telling the truth" .. could very easily simply be an unintentional delusion or an intentional distortion, obviously.

    Only if a street-pot user exhibiting the deadly damaging effects of street pot finally admits street pot is damaging can he be rationally considered to be telling the truth, given the corroborating authorities, though one would have to question how he knows he's telling the truth at that point!

    I mean, it's a valid question isn't it? If the very instrument (the brain), by which truthful rational argumentation is made, is damaged (by street pot) to the quite possible degree it can't present the truth of the matter, how can those who are naturally suspect -- street pot proponents -- of having suffered the brain-damaging effects of street pot, be trusted not to be suffering from such brain damage and be sporting a rational argument? They simply can't -- they can't be trusted in that manner.

    I simply don't see how one can logically rationally give any street pot proponent arguing against the irrefutable deadly nature of pot any credence at all.

    For if two people are arguing in favor of street pot use and legalization, how do you differentiate between 1) the conflict of interest brain-damaged druggie who just wants to make it easier to get his fix, and 2) the economic oriented arguer who isn't suffering from street pot damage? Both their arguments sound the same!

    The valid authorities in the matter have presented the deadly nature of street pot. Their qualification and veracity is not in question.

    The qualification and veracity of street pot proponents? Obviously, always, suspect.
    The presentation makes a very valid point here: drug addicts will stump to make it easier to get their drug, and they often do it by smirking in the face of the sad truth about their addictive behavior and their very damaging drug.

    It's really quite sad.
    You don't trust Trump? Well, there's only one way to leverage him to do what's economically right for us all: Powerful American Political Alliance. Got courage?! .. and a mere $5.00?

  10. #380
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Marijuna

    Quote Originally Posted by Ontologuy View Post

    So, is being gay a "choice", Lizzie?

    Is being a psychological/physiological addict really a "choice"?

    No, not at all.
    Being gay or being addictive in nature is not a choice. The actions one enacts in response to these are in fact, choices. An addict chooses to do drugs, and he chooses to stop doing drugs when that becomes more important than the drugs themselves. As for being gay- I couldn't care less whether or not someone is gay, and whether or not it is a choice is irrelevant. Drug addiction and sexual preference are two different things altogether.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

Page 38 of 41 FirstFirst ... 283637383940 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •