4 ms·

Marijuana IS a mind-altering substance. Disregarding this scientific fact is potentially irresponsible. We are not even discussing policy / politics here, it's

by Rod 18y ago

Marijuana IS a mind-altering substance. Disregarding this scientific fact is potentially irresponsible. We are not even discussing policy / politics here, it's Science. And unless you are a neurologist or a pharmacologist yourself, I really do NOT believe you are qualified to argue against this. Recalling the words of wisdom my parents' old-school doctor friend used to say: "the dose, not the substance, makes the poison" (it sounded more impressive in latin) Thus, instead of discussing the BIG questions such as whether marijuana should be legalized or not, why not discuss the details such as how much marijuana would each citizen be allowed to consume on a daily basis without endangering others. The devil is always in the details, right? It's true that the industry is there. But that fact alone does not mean it's OK to go ahead and legalize everything without any bounds and reason. Following that rationale, why not legalize prostitution, human trafficking and arms dealing? After all, these industries exist already, right?

jerf 18y ago
You missed my point. It was simply a narrow point that there's no "adding" to be discussing. It's here, and it's huge. Speaking as if there's nobody consuming marijuana and legalizing it is going to suddenly cause a huge burst in consumption is simply factually incorrect. It may cause an increase, but it can't cause a huge increase. It is a dishonest tactic that is almost always used by proponents of a law, to slip in the hidden assumption that the law already works, or will simply work if added, even when flatly contradicted by the truth. Personally, I can't hardly conceive of how marijuana prohibition could be any more of a failure than it actually is. None of the rest of what you talk about is relevant, as you simply read into my post. I'm not even claiming "it's there already so let's legalize it". I'm just saying, "it's there already and arguing implicitly as if it's not is dishonest". Arguments shouldn't be based on dishonesty. I will, however, point out that the badness that could be added is fairly sharply bounded by the ready availability of the product today. Prostitution and human trafficking have been at least reasonably well suppressed, and re-legalizing them would have an effect. I'm not convinced there's a large number of people for whom the sole reason they are not smoking is that it is illegal. So your metaphor, as is so often the case with terrible metaphors brought out to make a dubious point in an argument, is not applicable. (Note I didn't add mention "arms dealing". I don't think that has been "reasonably well suppressed" at all.) You probably think you're arguing with a pothead. Actually, I pretty much agree with everything about the nature of marijuana you said. I do not smoke it myself and have every intention of telling the truth about it to my children (which is that it isn't going to kill you but it is certainly dangerous with little compensating gain). But I don't mistake my morality for good government policy. The effects of prohibition have been a net negative, and no amount of moralizing on my part (or anybody else's) about how it just shouldn't be that way can change that.
- Rod 18y ago
  I got your point that there's no "adding". We're not talking about a small underground economy. Like you said, "it's here and it's huge". I don't know why people are so focused on the law. The fact that marijuana is illegal is stupid and arbitrary. I am strongly against prohibition. All I am trying to say is: let unbiased scientific studies (not emotional arguments based on "honesty", "morality" and "legality") dictate policies. Like I said, I am interested in knowing what would be a socially responsible dose. People drink coffee as a stimulant, but drinking 40 espressos in a row might kill you. Should we forbid coffee? No! A stupid example, I know. But replace "coffee" with "marijuana", "caffeine" with "THC" and it's just as stupid. Believing that something is "bad" because it's illegal is foolish. Once again, it's all in the dose. Ironically, evidence seems to suggest that legalization does not lead people to over-consumption. Evidence also suggests that teenagers who consume too much pot are at higher risk of schizophrenia. I don't know how reliable these are.
gnaritas 18y ago
> Marijuana IS a mind-altering substance. You say that like it's somehow relevant, it's not. Sugar is a mind altering substance, so what. Caffeine is a mind altering substance, so what. It's only relevant if alters your mind in dangerous ways like making you want to kill people, but it doesn't, so it's not relevant, at all. Dose is also not relevant, if you smoke too much pot you'll fall asleep... so again not relevant. There is no danger. Behind all of your arguments is the presumption that it being illegal is somehow a justification of it being illegal. Your position is emotional, not logical, so you're looking for arguments to support your position, there are none. People who want pot to be illegal are not basing their position on reason, but upon emotion. > But that fact alone does not mean it's OK to go ahead and legalize everything without any bounds and reason. See, this is where your bias is evident. The very idea that legalizing something should require any argument at all is simply wrong. That is not freedom. The question is why should it be illegal? If you can't find a logical reason to outlaw something, then it should be legal, period. So answer me that, why should it be illegal?
- Rod 18y ago
  Of course sugar is a mind-altering substance. It can even be lethal. Same for salt. Anything can be a poison if consumed in high enough doses. Too much caffeine and one will have a heart-attack (this upper bound is known). I couldn't disagree more that dose is NOT relevant. Dose is EVERYTHING. Water is vital for humans to survive, but if you drink too much water, you will get high. Should we ban water drinking? Of course not, we should inform people how much they should drink each day. It's a no-brainer because thirsty people will drink water when they feel like. Dude, I am ALL for legalization of marijuana (I might have given the impression that I am against it for some reason). I know there will be people who will use emotional and ignorant arguments against it and, hence, I believe that imposing certain bounds on consumption could be a good idea because it would defeat those weak arguments against legalization. What I would like to see is unbiased, reliable scientific evidence. I would like to know how much an adult should be able to consume. Yeah, too much pot and one falls asleep (I have smoked, so I know it), but if you fall asleep while driving then you might be endangering others. In my humble opinion, marijuana SHOULD be legal, people should be informed about what would be a responsible daily consumption, and politics, religion, emotion should be left out of it.
deleted 18y ago
[deleted]

by Rod 18y ago

jerf 18y ago

You missed my point. It was simply a narrow point that there's no "adding" to be discussing. It's here, and it's huge. Speaking as if there's nobody consuming marijuana and legalizing it is going to suddenly cause a huge burst in consumption is simply factually incorrect. It may cause an increase, but it can't cause a huge increase. It is a dishonest tactic that is almost always used by proponents of a law, to slip in the hidden assumption that the law already works, or will simply work if added, even when flatly contradicted by the truth. Personally, I can't hardly conceive of how marijuana prohibition could be any more of a failure than it actually is. None of the rest of what you talk about is relevant, as you simply read into my post. I'm not even claiming "it's there already so let's legalize it". I'm just saying, "it's there already and arguing implicitly as if it's not is dishonest". Arguments shouldn't be based on dishonesty. I will, however, point out that the badness that could be added is fairly sharply bounded by the ready availability of the product today. Prostitution and human trafficking have been at least reasonably well suppressed, and re-legalizing them would have an effect. I'm not convinced there's a large number of people for whom the sole reason they are not smoking is that it is illegal. So your metaphor, as is so often the case with terrible metaphors brought out to make a dubious point in an argument, is not applicable. (Note I didn't add mention "arms dealing". I don't think that has been "reasonably well suppressed" at all.) You probably think you're arguing with a pothead. Actually, I pretty much agree with everything about the nature of marijuana you said. I do not smoke it myself and have every intention of telling the truth about it to my children (which is that it isn't going to kill you but it is certainly dangerous with little compensating gain). But I don't mistake my morality for good government policy. The effects of prohibition have been a net negative, and no amount of moralizing on my part (or anybody else's) about how it just shouldn't be that way can change that.

Rod 18y ago
I got your point that there's no "adding". We're not talking about a small underground economy. Like you said, "it's here and it's huge". I don't know why people are so focused on the law. The fact that marijuana is illegal is stupid and arbitrary. I am strongly against prohibition. All I am trying to say is: let unbiased scientific studies (not emotional arguments based on "honesty", "morality" and "legality") dictate policies. Like I said, I am interested in knowing what would be a socially responsible dose. People drink coffee as a stimulant, but drinking 40 espressos in a row might kill you. Should we forbid coffee? No! A stupid example, I know. But replace "coffee" with "marijuana", "caffeine" with "THC" and it's just as stupid. Believing that something is "bad" because it's illegal is foolish. Once again, it's all in the dose. Ironically, evidence seems to suggest that legalization does not lead people to over-consumption. Evidence also suggests that teenagers who consume too much pot are at higher risk of schizophrenia. I don't know how reliable these are.

gnaritas 18y ago

> Marijuana IS a mind-altering substance. You say that like it's somehow relevant, it's not. Sugar is a mind altering substance, so what. Caffeine is a mind altering substance, so what. It's only relevant if alters your mind in dangerous ways like making you want to kill people, but it doesn't, so it's not relevant, at all. Dose is also not relevant, if you smoke too much pot you'll fall asleep... so again not relevant. There is no danger. Behind all of your arguments is the presumption that it being illegal is somehow a justification of it being illegal. Your position is emotional, not logical, so you're looking for arguments to support your position, there are none. People who want pot to be illegal are not basing their position on reason, but upon emotion. > But that fact alone does not mean it's OK to go ahead and legalize everything without any bounds and reason. See, this is where your bias is evident. The very idea that legalizing something should require any argument at all is simply wrong. That is not freedom. The question is why should it be illegal? If you can't find a logical reason to outlaw something, then it should be legal, period. So answer me that, why should it be illegal?

Rod 18y ago
Of course sugar is a mind-altering substance. It can even be lethal. Same for salt. Anything can be a poison if consumed in high enough doses. Too much caffeine and one will have a heart-attack (this upper bound is known). I couldn't disagree more that dose is NOT relevant. Dose is EVERYTHING. Water is vital for humans to survive, but if you drink too much water, you will get high. Should we ban water drinking? Of course not, we should inform people how much they should drink each day. It's a no-brainer because thirsty people will drink water when they feel like. Dude, I am ALL for legalization of marijuana (I might have given the impression that I am against it for some reason). I know there will be people who will use emotional and ignorant arguments against it and, hence, I believe that imposing certain bounds on consumption could be a good idea because it would defeat those weak arguments against legalization. What I would like to see is unbiased, reliable scientific evidence. I would like to know how much an adult should be able to consume. Yeah, too much pot and one falls asleep (I have smoked, so I know it), but if you fall asleep while driving then you might be endangering others. In my humble opinion, marijuana SHOULD be legal, people should be informed about what would be a responsible daily consumption, and politics, religion, emotion should be left out of it.

deleted 18y ago

[deleted]