My biggest issues are with his big pharma conspiracy and his general down with the government stance- and the fanatacism that not only must hemp be legalized, but we need to make everything, from pants to paper to petrol, out of it, otherwise our planet will turn into a post apocalyptic desert. Anyone know the name of that fallacy? The slippery slope?
I'm tempted to write up an essay and respond.
I don't know why, but it got me all worked up- are the pot legalizers all this loony?
McDuffie_for_Congress Newbie
Joined: Feb 04, 2008
Posts: 23
Posted:
Wed Feb 06, 2008 8:19 am
Raligan wrote:
After listening to this, I'm starting to wonder about the company I may be inadvertantly keeping. Anyone else care to comment?
My biggest issues are with his big pharma conspiracy and his general down with the government stance- and the fanatacism that not only must hemp be legalized, but we need to make everything, from pants to paper to petrol, out of it, otherwise our planet will turn into a post apocalyptic desert. Anyone know the name of that fallacy? The slippery slope?
I'm tempted to write up an essay and respond.
I don't know why, but it got me all worked up- are the pot legalizers all this loony?
the short answer: no.
The slightly longer answer: no pot RElegalizer is as looney as the policy of marijuana prohibition.
flowcool Just Arrived
Joined: Feb 07, 2008
Posts: 7
Location: Colorado, USA
Posted:
Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:33 pm
Raligan wrote:
After listening to this, I'm starting to wonder about the company I may be inadvertantly keeping. Anyone else care to comment?
My biggest issues are with his big pharma conspiracy and his general down with the government stance- and the fanatacism that not only must hemp be legalized, but we need to make everything, from pants to paper to petrol, out of it, otherwise our planet will turn into a post apocalyptic desert. Anyone know the name of that fallacy? The slippery slope?
I'm tempted to write up an essay and respond.
I don't know why, but it got me all worked up- are the pot legalizers all this loony?
If you don't believe this guy look it you for yourself. He's 100% correct.
Raligan Post Noob
Joined: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 55
Location: Almost Texas, but still Oklahoma
Posted:
Thu Feb 14, 2008 2:55 pm
flowcool wrote:
<snip>
If you don't believe this guy look it you for yourself. He's 100% correct.
Be careful of blanket statements like that, flow- 100% is pretty strong.
I did look into him before even posting, I'm pretty careful of that. Two things that stand out in my mind (it's been a few weeks since I listened to the video, so forgive me for only going in depth on these two) Yes, operation green sweep took place- it was a 200 man operation and the government couldn't keep it secret. It also happened 15 years ago, and while it may have been the first time US troops have been used in the war on drugs on american soil (I couldn't verify that), it certainly wasn't the first time that US troops have been used on american soil- that wasn't even the problem with the operation in fact. The problem that landed operation greensweep in trouble was flying helicopters around bald eagles- the EPA came up in arms. Government regulating government- sounds like checks and balances to me. I don't understand how it wasn't an issue of posse comitatus.
Another point, his big pharma conspiracy, was that "Medicine can not be patented and sold in this country unless it contains drugs." This is a huge misrepresentation of the facts. Apparently, I can't hold the patent on buttercups or dandelions and market them as medicine- I should hope so! But if I patent a specific type of dandelion tea, and make a medicinal claim, then I have to prove that claim to the satisfaction of the FDA. Then it becomes a drug. However, I can still sell my tea- as a supplement. It's done all over the place, every day. I don't see any reason to give him the benefit of the doubt- to me, he's either a kook who believes in a grand conspiracy, or he's a liar who is misrepresenting facts to support his agenda- which is supposedly marijuana
re
legalization. Since I agree with his agenda, he does himself no favors by lying when there's plenty of supported evidence for his claim, unless his agenda is just paranoid conspiracy, which seems to be fairly common among the baked (personal observation- awaits flames).
But then, the guy's named Jello. What should I expect? Couldn't resist the ad hom.
As far as marijuana prohibition, you are correct McDuffie- I hadn't looked at it as that before- and it is certainly pretty looney that something as benign as weed is illegal while cancer sticks and alcohol are legal. I'm all about turning the war on drugs into taxes on drugs- any takers?
As a staunch libertarian, I have to contend with this all the time. On the one hand, I like the case for legalizing marijuana and other drugs, legalizing prostitution and gambling (and other victimless crimes). I also like the idea that citizens should have a right - as unfettered as possible - to keep and bear arms.
But unfortunately for me, I don't smoke pot, use hookers, gamble, or like guns. But the people who generally have the loudest voice in these wars are the ones who do all of these, and if not them, then people who I consider on the lunatic fringe.
A few years ago, while living in Richmond and going to the U of R, some of the local libertarians, who knew I was a libertarian, begain asking me incessantly about passing out literature for their gun shows. As I don't really like guns, and don't like thrusting flyers into people's hands, I said no. It turns out, upon talking with them more, they were not so interested in the Second Amendment and its protection, but were mostly concerned with their fascination with guns and everything military.
And the other group of people that I support but do not like is the 'back to the earth' everything-hemp people. I like the idea of legalizing drugs, and don't see a valid argument against it. But unfortunately, that means that oftentimes, I am in close contact with guys like the one on the youtube video.
I share your discomfort.
munky99999 Graduate Thinker
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
Posts: 786
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:19 pm
Quote:
After listening to this, I'm starting to wonder about the company I may be inadvertantly keeping. Anyone else care to comment?
Yes there are 4 kinds of people in virtually all positions...
1. You have the strict... I dont care I want to be allowed to do it. There are no limits for these people.
2. You have middle ground people who think things are a bit strong... but still think government and their deal is necessary. The reality though is that this group is very much american because of the authoritarian laws that were created by the republicans.
3. the "down with the government" sort of people. different from #1 in that they believe that anything too which controls them is actually some sort of grand well designed conspiracy against the people.
4. finally you do have the people that they simply want the drug to be a prescription drug.
The issue though is that these positions share arguments and thusly skew their positions.
Quote:
I don't know why, but it got me all worked up- are the pot legalizers all this loony?
no. its just that they share arguments and make themselves loony.
munky99999 Graduate Thinker
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
Posts: 786
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Sat Feb 23, 2008 5:27 pm
Quote:
As a staunch libertarian, I have to contend with this all the time. On the one hand, I like the case for legalizing marijuana and other drugs, legalizing prostitution and gambling (and other victimless crimes). I also like the idea that citizens should have a right - as unfettered as possible - to keep and bear arms.
consented cannibalism? as for your list... Canada has much of that legalized.
Quote:
But unfortunately for me, I don't smoke pot, use hookers, gamble, or like guns.
hmm same here... except with guns... i dont use them... but I love the look and appeal of them.
Quote:
A few years ago, while living in Richmond and going to the U of R, some of the local libertarians, who knew I was a libertarian, begain asking me incessantly about passing out literature for their gun shows. As I don't really like guns, and don't like thrusting flyers into people's hands, I said no. It turns out, upon talking with them more, they were not so interested in the Second Amendment and its protection, but were mostly concerned with their fascination with guns and everything military.
well from what i read... they seem to be #1.. though they may use arguments from the other camps.
Quote:
And the other group of people that I support but do not like is the 'back to the earth' everything-hemp people.
from my expeience they are more so #3.. though strong leining into #2 and 4.
Quote:
I like the idea of legalizing drugs, and don't see a valid argument against it.
drugs are harmful? There are obvious side effects which harm you because of drug use.
Quote:
But unfortunately, that means that oftentimes, I am in close contact with guys like the one on the youtube video.
they all exist.
munky99999 Graduate Thinker
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
Posts: 786
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Sat Feb 23, 2008 6:45 pm
Oh and I dunno if you guys watch American Dad or not... but early in the series... they did a good joke with francine doing a bible class for younger kids... than one of the kids heard hayley talking and called her a harlot and wanted to stone her. The boyfriend pulled out weed and said... got that under control.
Which is kind of funny... but I've talked with a person who literally believed this to be 100% truth. In that the bible actually means that you have to get blasphemers, disobedient sons, and homsexuals high. Not really kill.
That was his argument for legalization of marijuana. That we need to legalize marijuana so he can legally do what the bible says.
like the idea of legalizing drugs, and don't see a valid argument against it.
Munky wrote:
drugs are harmful? There are obvious side effects which harm you because of drug use.
Then we should probably ban fast food, viagra, cars, alcohol, concerts that go above a certain decibal, gangsta rap and umarried sex.
All of these things can have quite bad side effects too. Many can even be called harmful (more peolpe get killed by cars than pot; concerts over a certain decibal are garaunteed to harm the concert-goer's hearing.)
But should we ban those too?
I do not see 'because they are harmful' as an argument to ban something, because, as an adult, I am expected to look after myself and am granded the right to do so.
The government should under only a select few circumstances (when I am going to harm others) have the abililty to play the role of my parent.
munky99999 Graduate Thinker
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
Posts: 786
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Sun Feb 24, 2008 1:40 am
Quote:
Then we should probably ban fast food
some places have. Its illegal to sell food with trans fat in it... in calgary.
Quote:
viagra, cars, alcohol,
these are perfect examples of the point... marijuana should not be controlled and regulated as much as say anthrax or heroin... the same saying... viagra or alcohol is not as controlled as marijuana. We do however have extensive controls over these substances. Viagra for example has sildenafil which is a chemical known to give heart problems... Viagra stays on the market while it stays within proper guidelines and regulations. Alcohol has regulations on it such that you cannot drink and drive... and the bartender is responsible for you if you drink too much. Bartenders are legally obliged to cut you off if you go to far. Cars? Ever been driving on a highway at age 6? No? how about 15? no?
Quote:
concerts that go above a certain decibal,
Not quite sure about this one... as law is different most places and I havent looked this up before...
Quote:
gangsta rap and umarried sex.
I don't see any direct link to harm. If you can show there is a direct link... perhaps we will regulate those also.
Quote:
All of these things can have quite bad side effects too. Many can even be called harmful (more peolpe get killed by cars than pot; concerts over a certain decibal are garaunteed to harm the concert-goer's hearing.)
But should we ban those too?
Nobody is saying we outright ban something because it has a side effect. We give an appropriate control over the substance or act or whatever given to the harm that is involved.
Anthrax, ricin, meth, and heroin... are always going to be highly illegal and highly fought against substances...
Marijuana and prescription drugs are something that really arent fought against... In Canada you can have marijuana smoke billowing from your car... and it's not reasonable cause to believe there is marijuana in that car. Nor do anything... if the driving is erratic... that would be reasonable cause to verify that the person is sober enough to drive... but still not cause to do anything... than lets say you have anything under 2kg of marijuana hash or resin... I dunno how much marijuana that equals... but I suspect its much... before the time in jail ever goes above 2 days... which frankly... the police can hold you for like 24 hours or something with no reason nor charges... it's basically seen to be nothing...
In Canada we have a guy with the nickname "king of pot" and he took a hit from a bong right infront of police... they let him finish the hit and than arrested him and kept him in jail for 2 days.
Quote:
I do not see 'because they are harmful' as an argument to ban something, because, as an adult, I am expected to look after myself and am granded the right to do so.
Ok so lets say we get 50 lbs of militarized anthrax. You think it should be legal because you see the argument of "because they are harmful" is not valid? As an adult I can look after myself and should have the right to use that anthrax properly...
How about meth or heroine... clearly quite harmful substances... they can be used as weapons against people...
Quote:
The government should under only a select few circumstances (when I am going to harm others) have the abililty to play the role of my parent.
So you want the right and ability to legally harm yourself in any way? Therefore... anthrax, cyanide, prescription drugs, heroin, meth, and many others should be legal... after all... if I want to commit suicide using cyanide or percocet/oxycontin... 100mg of either of those might do it.
What happens when I actually shove those substances down someone else's throat? They die... ooo bad... perhaps I'm an inept fool and I only get 40mg of percocet down their throat... they are going to get a heavy high... but if they are in good shape without a fucked liver... so it wasnt enough to kill you... but it's going to leave you with that heavy high... but a screwed liver which barely works... some people who dont drink or do anything... might not have any liver damage... but after that.. will only be a bit screwed up in some of the other ways...
Marijuana is the same... ever been offered some brownies and not been told what's in it?
Suddenly your heart rate goes crazy... you freak out with a panic attack...you are massively paranoid.. you human cognition is effected sadly. There is short term memory impairment.. and much more...
The heart rate factor alone is a valid reason to control the substance... the others compound it... and this is just from a single use... long term use and/or smoking it cause significantly more harm... which frankly... most marijuana is smoked.
In Canada we dont regulate pot as much as say meth or heroin... but it clearly is harmful... therefore we control it to an extent. That extent really isn't much honestly.
Raligan Post Noob
Joined: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 55
Location: Almost Texas, but still Oklahoma
Posted:
Wed Feb 27, 2008 1:31 pm
munky99999 wrote:
Quote:
I do not see 'because they are harmful' as an argument to ban something, because, as an adult, I am expected to look after myself and am granded the right to do so.
Ok so lets say we get 50 lbs of militarized anthrax. You think it should be legal because you see the argument of "because they are harmful" is not valid? As an adult I can look after myself and should have the right to use that anthrax properly...
Now that's just ludicrous. Just an argument to the extreme. Obviously some harmful substances should be banned- it's a question of how much harm are they capable of. Pencils can be harmful- and boards with nails in them, and hammers, and bricks. All of these things can have harmful side effects- the question is really about the ratio of desirability to risk, and in this case, I feel it should be the individuals right to choose. If a substance is primarily used for killing lots of people indiscriminately, then yeah, it should be banned. I think that's obvious.
Quote:
How about meth or heroine... clearly quite harmful substances... they can be used as weapons against people...
Yes, also quite harmful. Not quite as harmful as anthrax, and with an upside! They alter your state of mind and let you stay awake for weeks on end! If we taxed these drugs, at least we could fund decent rehabs for them, rather than them getting bought anyway and syphoning money away from our receding economy.
Quote:
The government should under only a select few circumstances (when I am going to harm others) have the abililty to play the role of my parent.
Ramen, brother.
Quote:
So you want the right and ability to legally harm yourself in any way? Therefore... anthrax, cyanide, prescription drugs, heroin, meth, and many others should be legal... after all... if I want to commit suicide using cyanide or percocet/oxycontin... 100mg of either of those might do it.
What happens when I actually shove those substances down someone else's throat? They die... ooo bad... perhaps I'm an inept fool and I only get 40mg of percocet down their throat... they are going to get a heavy high... but if they are in good shape without a fucked liver... so it wasnt enough to kill you... but it's going to leave you with that heavy high... but a screwed liver which barely works... some people who dont drink or do anything... might not have any liver damage... but after that.. will only be a bit screwed up in some of the other ways...
Yeah, much better than shooting them, or injecting air into the carotid artery. Or smashing their face with a brick. Or stabbing them in the throat with a pencil- people have died of all these things. We make laws punishing those that do it. If an individual wants to **** himself up, so be it. But don't screw up other people's lives.
Quote:
Marijuana is the same...
No, it's not.
Quote:
...ever been offered some brownies and not been told what's in it?
Ever die of eating brownies? I think shoving percocets down someone's throat or shooting heroine in them until they go into shock is considerably different than giving someone a tasty and mind altering treat.
Quote:
Suddenly your heart rate goes crazy... you freak out with a panic attack...you are massively paranoid.. you human cognition is effected sadly. There is short term memory impairment.. and much more...
Please, elaborate on much more. I haven't heard much on the negative side effects of weed- if you could include links, that would be great.
Quote:
The heart rate factor alone is a valid reason to control the substance... the others compound it... and this is just from a single use... long term use and/or smoking it cause significantly more harm... which frankly... most marijuana is smoked.
Just like we control exercise. "Only begin an exercise routine after consulting your physician."
Quote:
In Canada we dont regulate pot as much as say meth or heroin... but it clearly is harmful... therefore we control it to an extent. That extent really isn't much honestly.
I think the extent to which it is controlled is the extent to which it is harmful. But I could be wrong.
munky99999 Graduate Thinker
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
Posts: 786
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posted:
Wed Feb 27, 2008 5:44 pm
Quote:
Now that's just ludicrous. Just an argument to the extreme. Obviously some harmful substances should be banned- it's a question of how much harm are they capable of.
thx for making my point.
Quote:
Pencils can be harmful- and boards with nails in them, and hammers, and bricks. All of these things can have harmful side effects- the question is really about the ratio of desirability to risk, and in this case, I feel it should be the individuals right to choose.
yes... pencils rarely are used for harm... fertilizer in large quantities somwhat can be used as a bomb... so we lightly control that. Marijuana is more often than that is harmful... so we need to control it more than that.
Why do you propose breaking the system's balance just so you can do drugs legally.
Quote:
Yes, also quite harmful. Not quite as harmful as anthrax, and with an upside! They alter your state of mind and let you stay awake for weeks on end! If we taxed these drugs, at least we could fund decent rehabs for them, rather than them getting bought anyway and syphoning money away from our receding economy.
except if you legalize all drugs... you wont be selling nor taxing the drugs for a long time... while drug use would explode... at least trying drugs... so the need for rehab will increase. Meaning the tax argument is faulty.
Quote:
Quote:
Marijuana is the same...
No, it's not.
actually it is. I've already brought up the points of the harm marijuana has. If you dont agree... feel free to address those.
Quote:
Ever die of eating brownies? I think shoving percocets down someone's throat or shooting heroine in them until they go into shock is considerably different than giving someone a tasty and mind altering treat.
percocet and heroin dont necessarily kill. I'm not even suggesting we control marijuana to the same extent as either of those... but we still need to control the substance.
Quote:
Please, elaborate on much more. I haven't heard much on the negative side effects of weed- if you could include links, that would be great.
I think the extent to which it is controlled is the extent to which it is harmful. But I could be wrong.
yes and marijuana is harmful. Therefore it is controlled to an extent.
Raligan Post Noob
Joined: Sep 10, 2007
Posts: 55
Location: Almost Texas, but still Oklahoma
Posted:
Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:04 am
munky99999 wrote:
Why do you propose breaking the system's balance just so you can do drugs legally.
I've never smoked or eaten any illegal substance, to include marijuana, in my life. If it was legal, I still wouldn't go shooting heroine or smoking crack- though I admit, I might experiment with marijuana. I'm curious what all the fuss is about- but I don't think it's for me. I don't drink alcohol for the same reason- it's just not my style. I don't see what bearing that has on my argument however, so I suppose I should thank you for the ad hominem and move on.
As for breaking the systems balance, what I am proposing is a rebalancing. Rather than spending funds fighting drugs, we tax them.
Quote:
I wrote:
Yes, also quite harmful. Not quite as harmful as anthrax, and with an upside! They alter your state of mind and let you stay awake for weeks on end! If we taxed these drugs, at least we could fund decent rehabs for them, rather than them getting bought anyway and syphoning money away from our receding economy.
except if you legalize all drugs... you wont be selling nor taxing the drugs for a long time... while drug use would explode... at least trying drugs... so the need for rehab will increase. Meaning the tax argument is faulty.
OK, let's look at the worst case scenario- Day 1- All drugs are legalized. Day 3- half the population is dead from Overdosing, and the other half are baked off their gourd. Everyone goes to rehab, but no one is there to give them rehab because everyone is sitting at home high. Of course this would happen.
I feel that since 34% of Americans have already admitted to trying Pot according to a Gallop poll,
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6394/Who-Smoked-Pot-May-Surprised.aspx
and fewer than that currently smoke tobacco, (21%)
http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20070727/poll-fewer-americans-smoking
People would keep doing what they're doing, and rather than pulling money away from the economy, it becomes a good that's taxed like everything else. People are left with the freedom to experiment and choose what fits their lifestyle. Police wouldn't be allowed to smoke on the job, any more than they are allowed to drink alcohol. Life would go on, and while I would expect a spike in drug use, it would most likely level off. I posit that most people don't do drugs not because they are illegal, but because they are educated about the harm that they can do. Look at cigarettes- much more addictive than weed (they have an industry built on breaking the addiction!), and only smoked by the 21% of Americans who haven't quit yet.
Now, I'll admit a problem in the logic here- the first study is on how many people have ever tried it, and the second is how many currently smoke. I admit there's a flaw in using those particular studies in conjunction. My primary purpose was to indicate that 34% of people would at some point be willing to break the law- it's unfortunately mum on how many currently do, but I think everyone knows 2 or 3.
Quote:
I've already brought up the points of the harm marijuana has. If you dont agree... feel free to address those.
OK- this is a summary of the dangers of marijuana- taken from
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/references/journal/1998_hall_lancet_1/1998_hall_lancet_1.pdf
.
"•Impaired attention, memory, and psychomotor performance while
intoxicated." Sounds like alcohol. Remember prohibition, anyone? That was a fantastic idea!
"•Possibly an increased risk of accident if a person drives a motor
vehicle while intoxicated with cannabis, especially if cannabis is
used with alcohol." We already have laws for this!
"•Increased risk of psychotic symptoms among those who are
vulnerable because of personal or family history of psychosis." Consult your doctor before use- just like exercise.
"Chronic Effects (uncertain but most probable)"
"•Chronic bronchitis and histopathological changes that may be
precursors to the development of malignant disease." This is a biggie. We should let people know about this- as soon as it is substantiated.
"•A cannabis dependence syndrome characterised by an inability to
abstain from or to control cannabis use." It might be addictive! Emphasis on might- it's not determined.
"•Subtle impairments of attention and memory that persist while
the user remains chronically intoxicated, and that may or may
not be reversible after prolonged abstinence." If you smoke yourself retarded, this is what happens. Half Baked anyone? Again, I'm all for encouraging responsible use, just like we encourage it with alcohol.
"Possible adverse effects (to be confirmed)
•Increased risk of cancers of the oral cavity, pharynx, and
oesophagus; leukaemia among offspring exposed in utero." I think it's safe to say that this list is much smaller than the confirmed list for tobacco (legal).
"•Impaired educational attainment in adolescents and
underachievement in adults in occupations requiring high-level
cognitive skills." Don't use it at work or school... yes, you saw it coming (just like alcohol).
"Groups at higher risk of experiencing these adverse effects
•Adolescents with a history of poor school performance, who
initiate cannabis use in the early teens, are at increased risk of
using other illicit drugs and of becoming dependent on cannabis." Don't use cannabis until you're 18 or 21. Whichever saves more lives.
"•Women who continue to smoke cannabis during pregnancy may
increase their risk of having a low-birthweight baby."
Don't consume THC while pregnant. Sound familiar?
"•People with asthma, bronchitis, emphysema, schizophrenia, and
alcohol and other drug dependence, whose illnesses may be
exacerbated by cannabis use"
This one is interesting- but again, consult your doctor. A counselor could probably make this call.
Quote:
Quote:
Please, elaborate on much more. I haven't heard much on the negative side effects of weed- if you could include links, that would be great.
So, considering the potential harm of other drugs, let's drop them and just legalize and tax marijuana I'll concede that- though I still feel the laws are fundamentally flawed because we are outlawing victimless crimes. If I smash myself in the face with a hammer, just for giggles, what are you going to charge me with? I have the right and it shouldn't be made illegal. The difference is marijuana is desirable and smashing oneself in the face is (generally) not.. Let the puritans worry about policing what feels good- let the individual choose.
Xeon-The-Mg-Pony Graduate Thinker
Joined: May 18, 2006
Posts: 777
Posted:
Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:55 am
We really need to just flat out legalize it. Here it is quite normale and out of ALL the drugs pot is the LEAST harmfull, lot less so then alcohol or cigerets (You don't get hooked and constently smoke it through out of the day!).
Pot is an occational treat some people choose to enjoy, I personaly hate the stuff as it gives me head spliting head achs. But despite that people have a damned right to smoke it so long it does not effect un-willing persons!
Fatty2cent Just Arrived
Joined: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 1
Posted:
Tue Mar 18, 2008 7:44 am
The whole system of drug legalization is all out of whack. It has no internal consistancy nor is it intellectualy and scientificaly honest.
Basically it's like this.
Established scientific knowledge requires testable consistancy of a very high degree. Medical drugs require quiet a less stringent degree of consistancy. This is because we all can recognizes that medical drugs have the capacity to eliviate suffering, whereas nobody is suffering because of a debate whether a graviton is a particle or not. Different standards but the same process.
Marijuana is illegal to test, ergo "Medical Backing", and the government is not satisfied with the report they got during the Nixon administration. The avenue to legalize marijuana is cutoff.
People are suffering from things as mild as headaches to as severe as cancer, and marijuana eleviates their suffering.
Since the government refuses to allow the people who are suffering to have access to a testable drug, that has obvious medical use, they are taking the issue to the court system and voting booth.
Many people claim that the courts are not the place to be passing drug laws, and that it needs to be left to the scientists. But science is not able to even give its 2 cents. So the courts have been the ONLY way to do it.
Yet the same ilk that would keep marijuana illegal because of this whole catch 22 thing, are using the courts to promote Intelligent Design under the BS of "Academic Freedom".
What they dont understand is that there already IS a proper system to verify science. ITS CALLED PEER REVIEW. ID has not passed through peer review, because its bunk.
Yet the very avenue to legalize marijuana is cutoff from the scrutiny of science, thus, to help eleviate the suffering for so many people marijuana HAS to go to through the courts.
(Basically I am recognizing that they both are "backdoor" ways of pushing the issue. But one eleviates suffering, the other perpetuates ignorance. It makes a difference in my opinion.)
The only way to do it at this point is through voting (which doesnt stop the feds) or the courts (which still kinda doesnt stop the feds).
I would submit that until the government lets science do science and scraps the current system of catagorizing drugs, we will still be battling a stupid no win war.
If testing could be done on EVERY substance and put on a chart based on LEVEL OF ADDICTION and POTENTIAL FOR PHYSICAL HARM, we can all see that Meth would be at the top for both, thus highly controlled. But where would marijuana be, where would alcohol and cigarettes be? We would have to do some soul searching as a nation if on this scale many "legal" drugs are found to be more dangerous on that scale than illegal ones. The government would have some explaining to do with so many in prison because of bullshit.
This whole crapfest allows the government to still spout drug war propaganda around and feel OK about it, because the avenue that is available for all to see (Scientific peer reviewed, testable results) is cut off not only from those suffering, but EVERYONE, to prove them WRONG.
Its amazing how "right" you can be when people dont have the capabilities of proving you wrong.
Basically, let science do science, or be honest and tell everyone you dont care that drug catagories make no sense, you like that it pushes "your" type of morality on everyone, and not a morality based on limiting suffering. Thanks.
View next topic View previous topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
* You can syndicate our news and blog using the file