- All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
Forums > Social Discussion > denver leagalises weed!
Login/Join to Participatecoleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:from: http://www.cannabisculture.ca/articles/4570.html
br>
Written by: www.cannabisculture.ca
DENVER LEGALIZES MARIJUANA 53% - 46%!
by CC Magazine update (01 Nov, 2005)
Denver voters make adult possession of one ounce or less of marijuana legal.
Denver became the first city in the nation to make the private use of marijuana legal for adults 21 and older as an alternative to alcohol, a far more harmful drug. By 10.45 p.m. Tuesday night, with 100% of the votes tallied, the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative had passed 53.49% YES to 46.51% NO.
The Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative is the first local measure in the nation to draw a comparison between the harms of alcohol and marijuana.
The successful I-100 campaign focused on the vast number of health, safety and social problems associated with alcohol use, promoting marijuana use to avoid the prevalence of such problems. The campaign pointed to government reports and scholarly studies that show alcohol is a contributing factor in domestic violence, sexual assaults, and other violent crimes, as well as overdose deaths, whereas the use of marijuana has never been linked to such violent behavior and there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history.
Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
"It is time our laws reflect the facts, and it is an indisputable fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, both to the user and to society," said Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER and coordinator of the I-100 campaign. "Current laws accept and even encourage the use of alcohol over marijuana, thus pushing people toward using a more harmful substance. Why on earth would we prohibit an adult from making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol in their own home?"
By approving the I-100, the use of marijuana in public, the use of marijuana by people under 21, driving under the influence of marijuana, and the cultivation and distribution of marijuana would all remain illegal, much like with alcohol.
Cannabis Culture will update this story as more details become available.
Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) is a Colorado-based non-profit organization whose mission is to educate the public about the harmful consequences associated with alcohol, as compared to the safer yet illegal substance: marijuana.
Here is the language of the Initiative-100
Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative
WHEREAS, according to the National Institutes of Health, an average of 317 Americans die annually as the result of alcohol overdoses; and
WHEREAS, there has never been even a single fatal marijuana overdose recorded in the medical literature, as noted by the British Medical Journal in September 2003; and
WHEREAS, according to U.S. Department of Justice, About 3 million crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense. Among those victims who provided information about the offenders use of alcohol, about 35% of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking; and
WHEREAS, extensive research, documented in official reports by the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, among others, shows that -- unlike alcohol -- marijuana use is not generally a cause of violence or aggressive behavior and in fact tends to reduce violence and aggression;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to have the private adult use and possession of marijuana treated in the same manner as the private adult use and possession of alcohol;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
________________________________________________________________________
TEXT OF PROPOSED INITIATIVE
(proposed addition in all caps, underlined)
Amend Art. 5, Div. 3, Sec. 38-175 (Revised Municipal Code)
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) to possess one (1) ounce or less of marihuana. If such person is under the age of eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the offense, no jail sentence shall be imposed and any fine imposed may be supplanted by treatment as required by the court.
mind you, if you're 19 or 20 and a smoker, watch your back!
cole. x
br>
Written by: www.cannabisculture.ca
DENVER LEGALIZES MARIJUANA 53% - 46%!
by CC Magazine update (01 Nov, 2005)
Denver voters make adult possession of one ounce or less of marijuana legal.
Denver became the first city in the nation to make the private use of marijuana legal for adults 21 and older as an alternative to alcohol, a far more harmful drug. By 10.45 p.m. Tuesday night, with 100% of the votes tallied, the Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative had passed 53.49% YES to 46.51% NO.
The Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative is the first local measure in the nation to draw a comparison between the harms of alcohol and marijuana.
The successful I-100 campaign focused on the vast number of health, safety and social problems associated with alcohol use, promoting marijuana use to avoid the prevalence of such problems. The campaign pointed to government reports and scholarly studies that show alcohol is a contributing factor in domestic violence, sexual assaults, and other violent crimes, as well as overdose deaths, whereas the use of marijuana has never been linked to such violent behavior and there has never been a marijuana overdose death in history.
Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
Colorado Medical Marijuana certificate
"It is time our laws reflect the facts, and it is an indisputable fact that marijuana is safer than alcohol, both to the user and to society," said Mason Tvert, executive director of SAFER and coordinator of the I-100 campaign. "Current laws accept and even encourage the use of alcohol over marijuana, thus pushing people toward using a more harmful substance. Why on earth would we prohibit an adult from making the rational, safer choice to use marijuana instead of alcohol in their own home?"
By approving the I-100, the use of marijuana in public, the use of marijuana by people under 21, driving under the influence of marijuana, and the cultivation and distribution of marijuana would all remain illegal, much like with alcohol.
Cannabis Culture will update this story as more details become available.
Safer Alternative For Enjoyable Recreation (SAFER) is a Colorado-based non-profit organization whose mission is to educate the public about the harmful consequences associated with alcohol, as compared to the safer yet illegal substance: marijuana.
Here is the language of the Initiative-100
Alcohol-Marijuana Equalization Initiative
WHEREAS, according to the National Institutes of Health, an average of 317 Americans die annually as the result of alcohol overdoses; and
WHEREAS, there has never been even a single fatal marijuana overdose recorded in the medical literature, as noted by the British Medical Journal in September 2003; and
WHEREAS, according to U.S. Department of Justice, About 3 million crimes occur each year in which victims perceive the offender to have been drinking at the time of the offense. Among those victims who provided information about the offenders use of alcohol, about 35% of the victimizations involved an offender who had been drinking; and
WHEREAS, extensive research, documented in official reports by the British government's Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the Canadian Senate Special Committee on Illegal Drugs, among others, shows that -- unlike alcohol -- marijuana use is not generally a cause of violence or aggressive behavior and in fact tends to reduce violence and aggression;
WHEREAS, it is the intent of this ordinance to have the private adult use and possession of marijuana treated in the same manner as the private adult use and possession of alcohol;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER
________________________________________________________________________
TEXT OF PROPOSED INITIATIVE
(proposed addition in all caps, underlined)
Amend Art. 5, Div. 3, Sec. 38-175 (Revised Municipal Code)
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person UNDER THE AGE OF TWENTY-ONE (21) to possess one (1) ounce or less of marihuana. If such person is under the age of eighteen (18) years of age at the time of the offense, no jail sentence shall be imposed and any fine imposed may be supplanted by treatment as required by the court.
mind you, if you're 19 or 20 and a smoker, watch your back!
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:"Which is the point I was addressing with my first post on this thread- challenging the common view that drug laws do not serve to decrease drug use to a level lower than would be the case without drug laws."
i think a more common view among opponents of legislation is the one that we have both been stating: that laws against drugs do nothing to reduce drug use - they merely slow the uptake by making criminals of those who choose to take said drugs and bigger criminals of those who produce those drugs.
besides, there is absolutely nothing to show that your reasoning is correct in practice dave.
as i said before, there has not been a comparative case yet in this country to show that the major alternative to legislation (drug regulation and control) would not have a more 'postive effect' than the legislation prohibiting drugs we have now.
if we look for a comparison we must look towards countries that have taken the route of drug regulation (and for the third time i site the netherlands as one of the few examples where this route has been partially tested) we can immediately see that your reasoning that 'legislation has a positive effect on drug use' may well be seriously flawed.
and we must also ask ourselves, exactly what is this 'positive effect'?
your reasoning requires the prior assumption that 'recreational drug use in society is inherently wrong' and that is a very personal and subjective view.
the 'positive effect' we have been referring to in the case of legislation is that it 'reduces the rate of increase of drug usage' which i do not think is a very positive effect at all.
i believe that drug abuse is the real drug problem which is a very different thing to recreational drug use.
a more tangible 'positive effect' would be to 'reduce the number of drug abuse cases'.
the current legislation does not directly address the problem of drug abuse but rather attempts to to tackle it by reducing recreational drug use overall.
this relies wholly on the implication that recreational use leads to abuse and hence a reduction in the number of new recreational users translates to a reduction in the number of new drug abuse cases.
i do not believe that that implication is true, (otherwise everyone in this country would be an alcoholic).
i think regulation and education would serve better to reduce the problem of drug abuse than the current method of criminalising the use of drugs entirely.
going further than that, i think that the fact that drugs are illegal serves to actually invite unethical ways of producing, distributing and selling them, leading to larger problems than there would be if regulation were in place of the current legislation.
lastly, i think that comparing the legislation on taking drugs to the legislation put in place to prevent people killing each other (i.e. comparing drug use to murder) is ridiculous.
drug use and murder are crimes so far apart that your analogy becomes useless in my view.
i believe that committing murder requires a huge moral choice regarding your power over another person's life, whereas i do not believe the same moral decision process applies to taking an illegal drug.
cole. x
i think a more common view among opponents of legislation is the one that we have both been stating: that laws against drugs do nothing to reduce drug use - they merely slow the uptake by making criminals of those who choose to take said drugs and bigger criminals of those who produce those drugs.
besides, there is absolutely nothing to show that your reasoning is correct in practice dave.
as i said before, there has not been a comparative case yet in this country to show that the major alternative to legislation (drug regulation and control) would not have a more 'postive effect' than the legislation prohibiting drugs we have now.
if we look for a comparison we must look towards countries that have taken the route of drug regulation (and for the third time i site the netherlands as one of the few examples where this route has been partially tested) we can immediately see that your reasoning that 'legislation has a positive effect on drug use' may well be seriously flawed.
and we must also ask ourselves, exactly what is this 'positive effect'?
your reasoning requires the prior assumption that 'recreational drug use in society is inherently wrong' and that is a very personal and subjective view.
the 'positive effect' we have been referring to in the case of legislation is that it 'reduces the rate of increase of drug usage' which i do not think is a very positive effect at all.
i believe that drug abuse is the real drug problem which is a very different thing to recreational drug use.
a more tangible 'positive effect' would be to 'reduce the number of drug abuse cases'.
the current legislation does not directly address the problem of drug abuse but rather attempts to to tackle it by reducing recreational drug use overall.
this relies wholly on the implication that recreational use leads to abuse and hence a reduction in the number of new recreational users translates to a reduction in the number of new drug abuse cases.
i do not believe that that implication is true, (otherwise everyone in this country would be an alcoholic).
i think regulation and education would serve better to reduce the problem of drug abuse than the current method of criminalising the use of drugs entirely.
going further than that, i think that the fact that drugs are illegal serves to actually invite unethical ways of producing, distributing and selling them, leading to larger problems than there would be if regulation were in place of the current legislation.
lastly, i think that comparing the legislation on taking drugs to the legislation put in place to prevent people killing each other (i.e. comparing drug use to murder) is ridiculous.
drug use and murder are crimes so far apart that your analogy becomes useless in my view.
i believe that committing murder requires a huge moral choice regarding your power over another person's life, whereas i do not believe the same moral decision process applies to taking an illegal drug.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:The murder thing was not meant to be any kind of direct analogy; I was just pointing out that murder laws (and most laws) will never reduce the crime to zero, but may considerably reduce it.
In the same way, I don't think anyone sees drug legislation as being a way to bring about zero usage, but instead, as a way of reducing drug use.
---------------
Written by:
and we must also ask ourselves, exactly what is this 'positive effect'?
your reasoning requires the prior assumption that 'recreational drug use in society is inherently wrong' and that is a very personal and subjective view.
My reasoning (that the view that 'drug laws do not lower drug use to levels lower than they would be without such laws) in no way requires the assumption that drug use is inherently wrong. I have offered no comment whatsoever on the issue of whether drug use is wrong, neither do I need to, to try to establish the point I'm try to make.
-----------------
All interesting points above guys, but I'll just reiterate that my posts on this thread to now have been addrssing one point, and one point only i.e. challenging the previous assertion that-
drugs laws do not serve to lower useage (to rates lower than would be the case without such laws)
which was presented as pretty much self-evidently true.
What I am saying is that it is not self-evidently true, is in need of substantiation (evidence or reasoning), and may be false.
I happen to think that, in general, it is false; but am open to being persuaded otherwise.
I appreciate the view that having a substance as being perfectly legal, can lead to less abuse of it; but then I think of the examples of alcohol and tobacco.
Both are legal and openly available to adults, yet, certainly in the UK, abuse is rife. Admittedly, up till rcent years, much of the use was seen as recreational, but, its now becoming evident that the 'British friday-night drink culture' is seriously disfunctional, and causes a great deal of harm. Similarly, what was previously seen as 'recreational' use of tobacco, is now known to be the leading cause of avoidable death in the western world.
Making them illegal would certainly not lower use to zero, but I think it's likely it could reduce use (see the point below for reasons why).
Note that here, I'm not offering views on the morality of alcohol/tobacco use, simply pointing out that legalising drugs does not seem, in those cases, to lower the misery use of them causes.
It would be interesting if those that believe that drug laws do not diminish use (quotng Amsterdam as an example) would offer some thoughts as to how this fits in with my mdma example-
i.e. do you believe that use of mdma would not be even higher than it is/was (in the UK), if it were legally and openly sold in shops, pubs and clubs?
Because it seems to me that it probably would- as well as the users who take it regardless of its legality, surely you would also get users who previously wouldn't take the stuff (because they veer away from illegal substances), plus those who tend to assume that a substance being legal equates to it being safe (relatively safe), plus those for whom convenience (of supply) is a factor.
In the same way, I don't think anyone sees drug legislation as being a way to bring about zero usage, but instead, as a way of reducing drug use.
---------------
Written by:
and we must also ask ourselves, exactly what is this 'positive effect'?
your reasoning requires the prior assumption that 'recreational drug use in society is inherently wrong' and that is a very personal and subjective view.
My reasoning (that the view that 'drug laws do not lower drug use to levels lower than they would be without such laws) in no way requires the assumption that drug use is inherently wrong. I have offered no comment whatsoever on the issue of whether drug use is wrong, neither do I need to, to try to establish the point I'm try to make.
-----------------
All interesting points above guys, but I'll just reiterate that my posts on this thread to now have been addrssing one point, and one point only i.e. challenging the previous assertion that-
drugs laws do not serve to lower useage (to rates lower than would be the case without such laws)
which was presented as pretty much self-evidently true.
What I am saying is that it is not self-evidently true, is in need of substantiation (evidence or reasoning), and may be false.
I happen to think that, in general, it is false; but am open to being persuaded otherwise.
I appreciate the view that having a substance as being perfectly legal, can lead to less abuse of it; but then I think of the examples of alcohol and tobacco.
Both are legal and openly available to adults, yet, certainly in the UK, abuse is rife. Admittedly, up till rcent years, much of the use was seen as recreational, but, its now becoming evident that the 'British friday-night drink culture' is seriously disfunctional, and causes a great deal of harm. Similarly, what was previously seen as 'recreational' use of tobacco, is now known to be the leading cause of avoidable death in the western world.
Making them illegal would certainly not lower use to zero, but I think it's likely it could reduce use (see the point below for reasons why).
Note that here, I'm not offering views on the morality of alcohol/tobacco use, simply pointing out that legalising drugs does not seem, in those cases, to lower the misery use of them causes.
It would be interesting if those that believe that drug laws do not diminish use (quotng Amsterdam as an example) would offer some thoughts as to how this fits in with my mdma example-
i.e. do you believe that use of mdma would not be even higher than it is/was (in the UK), if it were legally and openly sold in shops, pubs and clubs?
Because it seems to me that it probably would- as well as the users who take it regardless of its legality, surely you would also get users who previously wouldn't take the stuff (because they veer away from illegal substances), plus those who tend to assume that a substance being legal equates to it being safe (relatively safe), plus those for whom convenience (of supply) is a factor.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:Written by: dave
do you believe that use of mdma would not be even higher than it is (in the UK), if it were legally and openly sold in shops, pubs and clubs?
i don't know - we have no way to tell what the reaction of society as a whole would be to such a massive change of tack by our leaders.
but i have not suggested what you put forward as the alternative - why make the assumption that all drugs would be dealt with in similar ways to alcohol and tobacco if they were not illegal?
the alternative i suggest is regulation and control of production, distribution and sale.
for example: the creation of a licence to sell mdma could be created.
this licence could be granted to a limited number of outlets that would operate in the same way that pharmacists do with otc medicines (advice for all customers and especially first-time buyers, limits on quantities sold etc.)
under this type of scenario, coupled with a change in the drug education system, it seems to me that the reduction in rate of new users could quite easily match that that the current drug laws have produced.
Written by: dave
My reasoning in no way requires the assumption that drug use is inherently wrong.
if drug use is not inherently wrong, what is the justification for making those drugs illegal?
are laws not at their heart moral statements for our society.
is there any act that is both illegal and inherently right?
and if drug use is wrong as the current legislation implies, i ask again, why is it not targeted at reducing overall usage rather than just at slowing the rate of new users?
Written by: dave
In the same way, I don't think anyone sees drug legislation as being a way to bring about zero usage, but instead, as a way of reducing drug use.
here you continue to insist on using the phrase "reducing drug use" an incorrect and misleading context.
i have shown several times in this thread that legislation does not do that:
it only reduces the number of new people who decide to try the drug.
drug use increases in spite of the legislation.
so what exactly is the ultimate point of slowing down an increase in use?
i do not believe you can assert that legislation is better at reducing the number of people who decide to use drugs than an alternative situation would be because there has been no chance for a situation like that to be tested.
in your own words, we cannot compare this to the treatment of alcohol and tobacco since the situations are so very different.
i am not suggesting fully legalising these substances to the same level as alcohol and tobacco.
i have repeatedly said that any production and sale should be regulated - this does not automatically mean that the drugs would be legally available in bars, pubs and clubs as you have assumed it would.
cole. x
do you believe that use of mdma would not be even higher than it is (in the UK), if it were legally and openly sold in shops, pubs and clubs?
i don't know - we have no way to tell what the reaction of society as a whole would be to such a massive change of tack by our leaders.
but i have not suggested what you put forward as the alternative - why make the assumption that all drugs would be dealt with in similar ways to alcohol and tobacco if they were not illegal?
the alternative i suggest is regulation and control of production, distribution and sale.
for example: the creation of a licence to sell mdma could be created.
this licence could be granted to a limited number of outlets that would operate in the same way that pharmacists do with otc medicines (advice for all customers and especially first-time buyers, limits on quantities sold etc.)
under this type of scenario, coupled with a change in the drug education system, it seems to me that the reduction in rate of new users could quite easily match that that the current drug laws have produced.
Written by: dave
My reasoning in no way requires the assumption that drug use is inherently wrong.
if drug use is not inherently wrong, what is the justification for making those drugs illegal?
are laws not at their heart moral statements for our society.
is there any act that is both illegal and inherently right?
and if drug use is wrong as the current legislation implies, i ask again, why is it not targeted at reducing overall usage rather than just at slowing the rate of new users?
Written by: dave
In the same way, I don't think anyone sees drug legislation as being a way to bring about zero usage, but instead, as a way of reducing drug use.
here you continue to insist on using the phrase "reducing drug use" an incorrect and misleading context.
i have shown several times in this thread that legislation does not do that:
it only reduces the number of new people who decide to try the drug.
drug use increases in spite of the legislation.
so what exactly is the ultimate point of slowing down an increase in use?
i do not believe you can assert that legislation is better at reducing the number of people who decide to use drugs than an alternative situation would be because there has been no chance for a situation like that to be tested.
in your own words, we cannot compare this to the treatment of alcohol and tobacco since the situations are so very different.
i am not suggesting fully legalising these substances to the same level as alcohol and tobacco.
i have repeatedly said that any production and sale should be regulated - this does not automatically mean that the drugs would be legally available in bars, pubs and clubs as you have assumed it would.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:Nantheos: you're weed is no better than weed anywhere else in the world. Your making the assumption that the rest of the world has only shwag, and that is not correct. Our weed over here, and in most other places, is just as good as yours, THC % wise, etc. Your "tourist" weed I wouldn't even smoke. HOWEVER the prices for the same kinds of weed here are about twice as much as it is for you over there. Meaning people pay for shwag here what you pay for nuggets there. But those of us who are willing to shell out the dough get what we want.
Dave... well we know where we stand on this issue... much respect for your views, but I disagree.
Im all for the government trying to protect me by EDUCATING me, but not by controlling me and what I chose to do to myself.
Dave... well we know where we stand on this issue... much respect for your views, but I disagree.
Im all for the government trying to protect me by EDUCATING me, but not by controlling me and what I chose to do to myself.
Delete
Posted:Coleman-
I've not assumed that mdma, if legalised, would be available in bars, pubs and clubs- I've got no idea where it would be allowed to be sold.
What I did do, was put forward a scenario in which it was allowed to be sold in those places, and asked what, in peoples opinion, that would do to the numbers using drugs.
----------
When i speak of 'reducing drug use', as previously pointed out, I'm meaning in the sense of drug use being lower than it would be if it was not illegal- generally I'm sticking that proviso in most occurances in my posts, but, as I'm sure you can appreciate, it can be a little tedious and I occasionally miss it out.
Can we assime from now on that when I speak of laws reducing drug use, I'm talking about a reduction relative to the use there would be if there were no laws?
(I'd better add on here, just to be safe, that I know it's not been established yet that laws do lead to such a reduction, simply clarifying what I mean by 'reduction').
------------
As for alcohol and tobacco, they are indeed different to mdma and weed.
I bring them up because some here are saying that making drugs legal will lead to a decrease in abuse.
I'm just pointing out that, with alcohol and tobacco, we have clear examples of drugs being legal, and said drugs being widely abused.
Now I realise that we can't claim from that, that, if alcohol and tobacco were illegal, that abuse would, or would not, be greater- we have no comparison to make that judgement.
I'm simply pointing out that we have clear examples of drugs that are legal, where there is a high level of abuse (by 'abuse' I'm referring to families ruined by alcoholism, alcohol related violence and the fact that deaths caused by use of tobacco are currently the main cause of avoidable death in the west).
While there are no scientific studies I know of that establish anything on this issue, and while there are no direct examples of societies where alcohol/tobacco are illegal, I nevertheless believe that we can ask useful 'just suppose if...' types of question, and come to tentative conclusions.
In this case, knowing that alcohol and tobacco use in our society involves-
1, ease of acquisition (openly available in shops, pubs ect)
2, legality- many get drunk and smoke who would not do so if it was illegal
3. openess of use- certainly if alcohol use was underground in hidden private establishments, the current UK 'friday night' carnage taking place in our city centers, and filling up casuality wards; would be greatly diminsihed
4. for tobacco, frequency of use; most people simply would not be able to sustain a 40/80/120 cigs-a-day habit, if smoking was illegal
So, without wanting to suggest that I consider alcohol.tobacco use as being immoral, wrong, or that it should be illegal; I am pointing out that, if it were illegal, there are good reasons, to believe that both use, and abuse, would decrease.
I've not assumed that mdma, if legalised, would be available in bars, pubs and clubs- I've got no idea where it would be allowed to be sold.
What I did do, was put forward a scenario in which it was allowed to be sold in those places, and asked what, in peoples opinion, that would do to the numbers using drugs.
----------
When i speak of 'reducing drug use', as previously pointed out, I'm meaning in the sense of drug use being lower than it would be if it was not illegal- generally I'm sticking that proviso in most occurances in my posts, but, as I'm sure you can appreciate, it can be a little tedious and I occasionally miss it out.
Can we assime from now on that when I speak of laws reducing drug use, I'm talking about a reduction relative to the use there would be if there were no laws?
(I'd better add on here, just to be safe, that I know it's not been established yet that laws do lead to such a reduction, simply clarifying what I mean by 'reduction').
------------
As for alcohol and tobacco, they are indeed different to mdma and weed.
I bring them up because some here are saying that making drugs legal will lead to a decrease in abuse.
I'm just pointing out that, with alcohol and tobacco, we have clear examples of drugs being legal, and said drugs being widely abused.
Now I realise that we can't claim from that, that, if alcohol and tobacco were illegal, that abuse would, or would not, be greater- we have no comparison to make that judgement.
I'm simply pointing out that we have clear examples of drugs that are legal, where there is a high level of abuse (by 'abuse' I'm referring to families ruined by alcoholism, alcohol related violence and the fact that deaths caused by use of tobacco are currently the main cause of avoidable death in the west).
While there are no scientific studies I know of that establish anything on this issue, and while there are no direct examples of societies where alcohol/tobacco are illegal, I nevertheless believe that we can ask useful 'just suppose if...' types of question, and come to tentative conclusions.
In this case, knowing that alcohol and tobacco use in our society involves-
1, ease of acquisition (openly available in shops, pubs ect)
2, legality- many get drunk and smoke who would not do so if it was illegal
3. openess of use- certainly if alcohol use was underground in hidden private establishments, the current UK 'friday night' carnage taking place in our city centers, and filling up casuality wards; would be greatly diminsihed
4. for tobacco, frequency of use; most people simply would not be able to sustain a 40/80/120 cigs-a-day habit, if smoking was illegal
So, without wanting to suggest that I consider alcohol.tobacco use as being immoral, wrong, or that it should be illegal; I am pointing out that, if it were illegal, there are good reasons, to believe that both use, and abuse, would decrease.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:I would throw in another point for consideration here:
Currently the legal drinking age is 18 in the UK. (21 in most of the United States?)
Many 18 year olds go out and get drunk and do stupid things, this I will call Abuse.
Many 24+ year olds go out for a meal and have a pint or two (or wine, whatever). They get drunk much less regularly, this I will call "Optimal use".
The people who drink illegally are under 18. I have yet to see any instance of them drinking with what I would call "Optimal Use". People who are under 18 drink to get drunk. Binge drinking, in other words.
This would appear to indicate that if something (drugs/alcohol etc) is illegal, then the people who break the law to use it are not going to use it responsibly or safely.
So, if there is a law against something, then the mentality seems to be "Might as well be hanged for a Pound than a Penny". Basically, because what you're doing is illegal, you might as well do as much of it as you can, because it's all illegal anyway.
I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this, and as a second point:
"Why isn't it as prevalent in the Weed-Smoking community?"
Weed is illegal to everyone, but why don't more people get absolutely smashed on it? Why are most people content with this drug to use it "Optimally"?
Currently the legal drinking age is 18 in the UK. (21 in most of the United States?)
Many 18 year olds go out and get drunk and do stupid things, this I will call Abuse.
Many 24+ year olds go out for a meal and have a pint or two (or wine, whatever). They get drunk much less regularly, this I will call "Optimal use".
The people who drink illegally are under 18. I have yet to see any instance of them drinking with what I would call "Optimal Use". People who are under 18 drink to get drunk. Binge drinking, in other words.
This would appear to indicate that if something (drugs/alcohol etc) is illegal, then the people who break the law to use it are not going to use it responsibly or safely.
So, if there is a law against something, then the mentality seems to be "Might as well be hanged for a Pound than a Penny". Basically, because what you're doing is illegal, you might as well do as much of it as you can, because it's all illegal anyway.
I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this, and as a second point:
"Why isn't it as prevalent in the Weed-Smoking community?"
Weed is illegal to everyone, but why don't more people get absolutely smashed on it? Why are most people content with this drug to use it "Optimally"?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
coleman
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
![coleman]()
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
SILVER Member since Aug 2002
big and good and broken
Location: lunn dunn, yoo kay
Total posts: 7330
Posted:cool 
on "reduction of drug usage":
i still don't care for replacing the term "a reduction in the rate of a drug's uptake" with "a reduction in the use of a drug" as i believe it is highly misleading.
however, your statement in your last post was quite explicit and as such i accept you have not been using it in its literal sense.
so continuing from there, i think your 'why alcohol/tobacco use leads to abuse list' is missing two important points:
5. alcohol use has been gradually ingrained into our society for many centuries and as such, short-lived or mild forms of abuse have become socially acceptable.
6. tobacco use was encouraged for many, many years before the truth about its effect on the body was admitted and as such, it has a huge advantage in terms of its current user-base.
i disagree with point 4 but on a technicality and that is that i personally don't see how tobacco use can be classed as anything other than abuse - there are no recreational effects to tobacco that i can see so any habit (no matter if its 5/20/40/120 cigs a day) is abuse in my eyes.
i agree that changing alcohol and/or tobacco's legal status would (in the beginning) vastly reduce their use.
but i do not think that it would be a trend that continued for very long and, looking to the increase in people using illegal other recreational drugs, we could expect after a short time to see the number of people using those drugs to begin to rise again.
i again assert that a new approach to recreational drug use (like for example, the system employed by the dutch in relation to weed or the approach i set out in the post above in relation to mdma) would invite a new kind of attitude to a drug's production, distribution, sale and most importantly, use.
i believe that measured approaches to recreational drug use that rely on an individual's own informed decision would be more successful at stemming the problem of abuse that alcohol (and to a lesser extent many illegal drugs) suffer from than the current theme of legislating against use outright does.
cole. x
on "reduction of drug usage":
i still don't care for replacing the term "a reduction in the rate of a drug's uptake" with "a reduction in the use of a drug" as i believe it is highly misleading.
however, your statement in your last post was quite explicit and as such i accept you have not been using it in its literal sense.
so continuing from there, i think your 'why alcohol/tobacco use leads to abuse list' is missing two important points:
5. alcohol use has been gradually ingrained into our society for many centuries and as such, short-lived or mild forms of abuse have become socially acceptable.
6. tobacco use was encouraged for many, many years before the truth about its effect on the body was admitted and as such, it has a huge advantage in terms of its current user-base.
i disagree with point 4 but on a technicality and that is that i personally don't see how tobacco use can be classed as anything other than abuse - there are no recreational effects to tobacco that i can see so any habit (no matter if its 5/20/40/120 cigs a day) is abuse in my eyes.
i agree that changing alcohol and/or tobacco's legal status would (in the beginning) vastly reduce their use.
but i do not think that it would be a trend that continued for very long and, looking to the increase in people using illegal other recreational drugs, we could expect after a short time to see the number of people using those drugs to begin to rise again.
i again assert that a new approach to recreational drug use (like for example, the system employed by the dutch in relation to weed or the approach i set out in the post above in relation to mdma) would invite a new kind of attitude to a drug's production, distribution, sale and most importantly, use.
i believe that measured approaches to recreational drug use that rely on an individual's own informed decision would be more successful at stemming the problem of abuse that alcohol (and to a lesser extent many illegal drugs) suffer from than the current theme of legislating against use outright does.
cole. x
"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood
Posted:I think it may be to do with the more you smoke... the less you want to.. ie .. it gets to that point where that one toke will cause that unpleasant feeling in your stomach, when the insides of your stomach, will shortly become the outside.
Delete
Posted:wow that never hapened to me. usually ione toke makes me think of hobnobs and custard
"is optimism in austria just a lack of information?"
-Alfred Dorfer
Posted:Written by: coleman
...so continuing from there, i think your 'why alcohol/tobacco use leads to abuse list' is missing two important points:
5. alcohol use has been gradually ingrained into our society for many centuries and as such, short-lived or mild forms of abuse have become socially acceptable.
6. tobacco use was encouraged for many, many years before the truth about its effect on the body was admitted and as such, it has a huge advantage in terms of its current user-base.
This is true, in fact I'd go further and say, that in some segments of society, such as the UK working class culture I grew up in, out-and-out alcoholism would be seen as normal and acceptable.
I will say that, concerning tobacco use, those days of ignorance are long gone, yet young people still take up the smoking habit, so there's something to reflect upon there.
--------------
Some people are painting quite a rosy image of an approach to drug issues in society based purely on a non-legislative, purely educational approach, where people are free to use what they want, but, because they know the true facts, tend not to abuse the drugs.
I'm all up for education- I myself refrain from drugs not because they are illegal, but because I know the facts about them, and, realising the consequences, choose not to take them.
However, to me, education involves facing up to the truth, even if it goes against long-held opinions, and rooting out any false myths, and unwarranted/knee-jerk assumptions.
So, when it comes to 'Legislation is ineffective against cutting down drug abuse'- I like to see that debated, because it is not as cut-and-dry as it appears to be (as is evident from reading mine and Coles previous posts on the subject).
And, when it comes to education, i feel that some issues are in need of addressing that currently tend not to be.
One of these is the nature of human choice, because it seems to me that often the educational approach promotes the 'try-it-and-see, then make your choices', as if all human beings have the capability to sample, and then walk away.
Fact is, that many humans do not, realistically speaking, have that option.
This is most clear with cigarettes, where, despite choosing to sample initially, the fact is that the majority of long-term users, find themselves unable to quit (they chose, but were unable to walk away, and found their choice gone).
This is a hard lesson to convey to a young person; I know that I certainly found it inconceivable, that a person of my intelligence could possibly become addicted to something so pointless as nicotine.
And yet, I ended up, like many others, on a 30-a-day habit for over ten years, and, despite hating smoking at that point, with no illusions that it was in any way pleasurable, could not quit.
The fact that I did ultimately find a way out, was as much down to luck, and a combination of factors that, for many, do not occur.
So, as part of education, I'd like to see some solid stats presented, along the lines of numbers of drug users who end up in a mess; and I'd like to see the issue of choice (and possible lack of it), realistically addressed.
And, that it addressess the myth that weed is harmless- certainly, the fact that, in the UK, it is almost invariably cut with tobacco when smoked, means that it is definitly a 'gateway' drug to nicotine addiction.
---------------
But, if I'm being honest, I think the educational approach has serious limitations- currently a significant percentage of our school leavers don't even learn to read and write- how much harder to convey to them that, by following a certain course of action, they may find themselves unable to choose not to use.
-----------------------
My feelings on this issue are that a pure legislative approach is not the way; equally, a pure educative approach will also fail.
As in most difficult issues of this kind, the answer is not black-and-white, but a blend of the two.
I don't want to live in a society where there are no rules and laws; neither do I want to live in a world where everything is controlled.
And this applies to drugs as much as anything else.
No-one here (I think) wants zero drug laws- surely everyone agrees that there must be at least age-limits and laws limiting driving whilst under the influence.
If so, then you're already drawing a line. So it's no surprise that others, in an attempt to address some of the issues mentioned in previous posts, will draw lines concerning weed and mdma use.
If, adult drug users kept their consequences purely in their own lives, then, as far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to get on with it.
However, currently, my city-centre (along with every city center in the UK) becomes a cattle-market of drunken yobbery at night, where people are beaten and raped, with alcohol being the main causal factor- and this is presented to the next generation as a normal way to behave (obviously not the rape/violence part, but the general 'friday night, therefore get wrecked' attitude).
As previously mentioned, cigarette addiction is currently the main cause of avoidable death in the west- I'd argue that the current generation, contrary to opinion, did not choose, in any meaningful sense of the word, to be in that situation.
Regardless of that, I certainly don't want to live in a world where the next generation is similarly culled by that addiction.
Finally, because this is HOP (pardon my presumption if you are in a segment of the community where smoking is not the norm- in the UK, the majority of spinners seem to smoke), I'd ask you to look around you, at the people who make up the spinning community- why do most of them smoke?
Do you really believe that every one of them has chosen, for educated reasons, to use a drug that has no obvious benefits whatsoever, and that will lead to the deaths (probably a fairly lingering drawn out one, preceeded by disability and large amounts of pain) of over 50%?
Does anyone believe that? Or is it actually the case that, for the majority, choosing is a long forgotten ghost, and that they smoke only because they are addicts?
And these are the individuals who seem most want to promote use of other drugs like mdma and weed, or at least to belittle the views of any who believe that legislation does have a part to play in trying to ensure that future generations do not end up in the same state.
Again, let me make clear that I'm not here necessarily advocating legislation- I fully realise that it has unfortunate consequences, that it is flawed and that education is just as important; I simply want to stress that truth and honesty are important when coming to conclusions.
Addicts, are generally not the best qualified people when it comes to being ruthlessly honest about their motivations for taking drugs.
Certainly I, when a full on nicotine addict, was in no position to speak any sense on my true motivations for smoking It would be true to say that, at that time, I had no real grasp of why I smoked.
-------------------
(Apologies if anything in this post offends- I have no problem with people who use drugs, most of my past friends did, and many of my current friends do so; however, because they are my friends, i do talk about these things, and I don't hide my belief that, for example, long term smokers are invariably addicts.
As they are my friends, they recognise that my views are well-thought out, the result of personal experience, and are in no way a reflection on them as people or intended as insulting.
It can be difficult on an online forum to convey that sentiment, so I state it clearly here- I do not see the term 'addict', where smoking is concerned, as offensive or insulting- as previously mentioned, I myself was once one, and fully understand how easy it is to fall into, and also understand the level of denail and delusion that invariably accompanies it.
I have no problem with smokers- I do have a problem with the thought that future generations of youngsters end up in the same state.)
...so continuing from there, i think your 'why alcohol/tobacco use leads to abuse list' is missing two important points:
5. alcohol use has been gradually ingrained into our society for many centuries and as such, short-lived or mild forms of abuse have become socially acceptable.
6. tobacco use was encouraged for many, many years before the truth about its effect on the body was admitted and as such, it has a huge advantage in terms of its current user-base.
This is true, in fact I'd go further and say, that in some segments of society, such as the UK working class culture I grew up in, out-and-out alcoholism would be seen as normal and acceptable.
I will say that, concerning tobacco use, those days of ignorance are long gone, yet young people still take up the smoking habit, so there's something to reflect upon there.
--------------
Some people are painting quite a rosy image of an approach to drug issues in society based purely on a non-legislative, purely educational approach, where people are free to use what they want, but, because they know the true facts, tend not to abuse the drugs.
I'm all up for education- I myself refrain from drugs not because they are illegal, but because I know the facts about them, and, realising the consequences, choose not to take them.
However, to me, education involves facing up to the truth, even if it goes against long-held opinions, and rooting out any false myths, and unwarranted/knee-jerk assumptions.
So, when it comes to 'Legislation is ineffective against cutting down drug abuse'- I like to see that debated, because it is not as cut-and-dry as it appears to be (as is evident from reading mine and Coles previous posts on the subject).
And, when it comes to education, i feel that some issues are in need of addressing that currently tend not to be.
One of these is the nature of human choice, because it seems to me that often the educational approach promotes the 'try-it-and-see, then make your choices', as if all human beings have the capability to sample, and then walk away.
Fact is, that many humans do not, realistically speaking, have that option.
This is most clear with cigarettes, where, despite choosing to sample initially, the fact is that the majority of long-term users, find themselves unable to quit (they chose, but were unable to walk away, and found their choice gone).
This is a hard lesson to convey to a young person; I know that I certainly found it inconceivable, that a person of my intelligence could possibly become addicted to something so pointless as nicotine.
And yet, I ended up, like many others, on a 30-a-day habit for over ten years, and, despite hating smoking at that point, with no illusions that it was in any way pleasurable, could not quit.
The fact that I did ultimately find a way out, was as much down to luck, and a combination of factors that, for many, do not occur.
So, as part of education, I'd like to see some solid stats presented, along the lines of numbers of drug users who end up in a mess; and I'd like to see the issue of choice (and possible lack of it), realistically addressed.
And, that it addressess the myth that weed is harmless- certainly, the fact that, in the UK, it is almost invariably cut with tobacco when smoked, means that it is definitly a 'gateway' drug to nicotine addiction.
---------------
But, if I'm being honest, I think the educational approach has serious limitations- currently a significant percentage of our school leavers don't even learn to read and write- how much harder to convey to them that, by following a certain course of action, they may find themselves unable to choose not to use.
-----------------------
My feelings on this issue are that a pure legislative approach is not the way; equally, a pure educative approach will also fail.
As in most difficult issues of this kind, the answer is not black-and-white, but a blend of the two.
I don't want to live in a society where there are no rules and laws; neither do I want to live in a world where everything is controlled.
And this applies to drugs as much as anything else.
No-one here (I think) wants zero drug laws- surely everyone agrees that there must be at least age-limits and laws limiting driving whilst under the influence.
If so, then you're already drawing a line. So it's no surprise that others, in an attempt to address some of the issues mentioned in previous posts, will draw lines concerning weed and mdma use.
If, adult drug users kept their consequences purely in their own lives, then, as far as I'm concerned, they're welcome to get on with it.
However, currently, my city-centre (along with every city center in the UK) becomes a cattle-market of drunken yobbery at night, where people are beaten and raped, with alcohol being the main causal factor- and this is presented to the next generation as a normal way to behave (obviously not the rape/violence part, but the general 'friday night, therefore get wrecked' attitude).
As previously mentioned, cigarette addiction is currently the main cause of avoidable death in the west- I'd argue that the current generation, contrary to opinion, did not choose, in any meaningful sense of the word, to be in that situation.
Regardless of that, I certainly don't want to live in a world where the next generation is similarly culled by that addiction.
Finally, because this is HOP (pardon my presumption if you are in a segment of the community where smoking is not the norm- in the UK, the majority of spinners seem to smoke), I'd ask you to look around you, at the people who make up the spinning community- why do most of them smoke?
Do you really believe that every one of them has chosen, for educated reasons, to use a drug that has no obvious benefits whatsoever, and that will lead to the deaths (probably a fairly lingering drawn out one, preceeded by disability and large amounts of pain) of over 50%?
Does anyone believe that? Or is it actually the case that, for the majority, choosing is a long forgotten ghost, and that they smoke only because they are addicts?
And these are the individuals who seem most want to promote use of other drugs like mdma and weed, or at least to belittle the views of any who believe that legislation does have a part to play in trying to ensure that future generations do not end up in the same state.
Again, let me make clear that I'm not here necessarily advocating legislation- I fully realise that it has unfortunate consequences, that it is flawed and that education is just as important; I simply want to stress that truth and honesty are important when coming to conclusions.
Addicts, are generally not the best qualified people when it comes to being ruthlessly honest about their motivations for taking drugs.
Certainly I, when a full on nicotine addict, was in no position to speak any sense on my true motivations for smoking
It would be true to say that, at that time, I had no real grasp of why I smoked.-------------------
(Apologies if anything in this post offends- I have no problem with people who use drugs, most of my past friends did, and many of my current friends do so; however, because they are my friends, i do talk about these things, and I don't hide my belief that, for example, long term smokers are invariably addicts.
As they are my friends, they recognise that my views are well-thought out, the result of personal experience, and are in no way a reflection on them as people or intended as insulting.
It can be difficult on an online forum to convey that sentiment, so I state it clearly here- I do not see the term 'addict', where smoking is concerned, as offensive or insulting- as previously mentioned, I myself was once one, and fully understand how easy it is to fall into, and also understand the level of denail and delusion that invariably accompanies it.
I have no problem with smokers- I do have a problem with the thought that future generations of youngsters end up in the same state.)
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Moka
GOLD Member since Jul 2005
![Moka]()
is a medium/large scary man
Location: Victoria, Australia, Earth, Mi...
Total posts: 420
GOLD Member since Jul 2005
is a medium/large scary man
Location: Victoria, Australia, Earth, Mi...
Total posts: 420
Posted:I know wherer I'm going for holidays... And now I can support my Avalanche whilst I'm high!!! w00t!
Cheers, Moka
Cheers, Moka
Contact juggling was invented by dung beetles.
Deletepounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003
![pounce]()
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Total posts: 9831
SILVER Member since Jan 2003
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Total posts: 9831
Posted:Written by: Sethis
I would throw in another point for consideration here:
...This would appear to indicate that if something (drugs/alcohol etc) is illegal, then the people who break the law to use it are not going to use it responsibly or safely.
i disagree. i think the use/abuse under the ages of legality applies more to maturity than it does to legality. at age 21 i was getting smash drunk with my friends because it was the "fun" thing to do. i didn't drink a drop before my college graduation because of a personal choice that i made to put my education first and knowing i needed to figure out my life before succumbing to a potentially dangerous party lifestyle that many of my friends were going down. but ironically, it didn't stop me from doing the binge-drinking thing at age 21. even though it was legal for me to drink, i still used recklessly at times. once i got older though, and i matured and settled into my life and career, drinking lost its appeal. so i don't think the legality of a substance equates to the responsibility of its use. i think it's a combination of personal maturity, addiction factor, social influence, and a number of other factors on each person's personal level
I would throw in another point for consideration here:
...This would appear to indicate that if something (drugs/alcohol etc) is illegal, then the people who break the law to use it are not going to use it responsibly or safely.
i disagree. i think the use/abuse under the ages of legality applies more to maturity than it does to legality. at age 21 i was getting smash drunk with my friends because it was the "fun" thing to do. i didn't drink a drop before my college graduation because of a personal choice that i made to put my education first and knowing i needed to figure out my life before succumbing to a potentially dangerous party lifestyle that many of my friends were going down. but ironically, it didn't stop me from doing the binge-drinking thing at age 21. even though it was legal for me to drink, i still used recklessly at times. once i got older though, and i matured and settled into my life and career, drinking lost its appeal. so i don't think the legality of a substance equates to the responsibility of its use. i think it's a combination of personal maturity, addiction factor, social influence, and a number of other factors on each person's personal level
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
Posted:pounce: I agree that Maturity has a great deal to do with it, but in my experience, the mature people are the ones who don't drink at all? Or at least drink optimally?
I think if you total the number of 15-16 year olds who go drinking abusively (as a percentage of that age range) then they will outnumber the 18-19 year old percentage of people who go and get drunk.
That said, it always puzzled me how people can keep going out, every weekend, from age 14 to age 20. I mean, doesn't it get so sodding boring??
I think if you total the number of 15-16 year olds who go drinking abusively (as a percentage of that age range) then they will outnumber the 18-19 year old percentage of people who go and get drunk.
That said, it always puzzled me how people can keep going out, every weekend, from age 14 to age 20. I mean, doesn't it get so sodding boring??
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003
![pounce]()
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Total posts: 9831
SILVER Member since Jan 2003
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Total posts: 9831
Posted:that's my point though. i think as you get older, it just loses its appeal. i don't think it has anything to do with the legality of it. if you looked at the progession of age and the percentage of people who drink abusively, my guess is that it would go down. and if you ask them why they stopped binge drinking, i think the answers would reflect a maturity issue and NOT in relation to abusing drinking because it was illegal.
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
Posted:But if there was no age limit on Alcohol ,then do you think that more or less young people would do so? IMO people drink young because it's something you do to fit in. As you get older, you care less.
I think if the drinking age was revoked, one generation would basically get screwed over, because everyone would drink themselves stupid. But then the next generation would see their parents dying of liver failure and wouldn't drink so much.
Maybe...
I think if the drinking age was revoked, one generation would basically get screwed over, because everyone would drink themselves stupid. But then the next generation would see their parents dying of liver failure and wouldn't drink so much.
Maybe...
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003
![pounce]()
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Total posts: 9831
SILVER Member since Jan 2003
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...
Total posts: 9831
Posted:yes i think plenty of young people drink because it's "forbidden." but i think the young people who binge drink do it because they are young, not because it is illegal.
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
Posted:I disagree Dave, and we've discussed why on other threads, with the sentiment that addiction is something we need to protect people from by making something illegal. Despite everything you have presented me with in terms of addicts not being able to stop, I still maintain that it is a willpower issue. People are creatures of habit, so yes, if they do something for so long it becomes engrained in them, but habits can be changed they same way they were aquired: slowly and painfully (because its something you don't really want to do). I'm not going to make presumptions about your habits about the time you were quitting... most of my friends hate the fact that they smoke cigarettes and say they need to quit, but that they can't. And every time I ask, it isn't because it isn't possible, its because on a deeper level they don't want to (say a subconscious habitual level). Perhaps that is why hypnosis works so good to make people stop smoking (I've seen four cases personally), because it involves a reporgramming at the subconscious level, not at the level of consciousness where you know better.
Your view DOES suggest that perhaps we should have age limits, I agree, because children are less able to make intelligent descisions. Heck, Im 22 and I can barely make responsible descisions sometimes... but I digress. The socially exceptable age for audulthood is 18 now-a-days, 21 for some more touchy stuff. It wasn't always so, but then life expectancies weren't as long back then. So yes, age limits are a good thing. I might question how effective they are, as everyone I know was using things before they were technically allowed to anyway, though.
Where I'm going though is here: I don't feel the government has any responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. Or rather, it doesn't have the RIGHT to CONTROL our stupidity when it doesn't violate the social contract. I know alcohol is involved in a lot of crime, but just because someone get's stupider when under the influence, that doesn't mean its the drugs fault. The person knows perfectly well that its probably not a good idea legally to do something illegal, and if they can't control themselves while drinking, hey, that's cool, go ahead and lock them up for doing whatever stupid criminal activity they did. But that doesn't mean that alcohol or whatever drug should be made illegal.
REGARDLESS of whether or not something is addictive, people go into usage in full knowledge that that is a possible outcome. If someone wants to be stupid, it's perfectly ok to try and educate them (as you are trying to do, and that is commendable), but we're talking about whether or not criminalization of users is correct, and THAT I disagree with from the personal freedoms level.
Note: I'm not chastising you for always posting these warnings and admonitions about smoking and drinking and drugs... go for it. There are far too many uneducated people in the world for that to ever be a bad thing.
I was going to draw a parallel to guns and the right to bear arms, and then realized that a good number of you are from across the pond so that analogy probably wouldn't work well...
As for youngsters getting into it because it's illegal... I don't know about that. I think its more a general curiosiy. They KNOW it's out there, they KNOW that there are people who use things and don't have problems, and so they try it. We drank a lot in highschool, did drugs, smoked, etc. There comes a point where sitting on your couch all day smoking pot and playing video games becomes boring and you begin to feel like a loser and start seeking other avenues of expression. Just like it get's old puking your guts out, especially after you just spent so much money putting all of it in in the first place. MOST people grow out of it, except for people who go on to be habitual smokers and alcoholics, and crackheads, etc.
Why?
Smoking: coughing, not being able to run, always outside, always out of breath, realizing the real health detriments... etc.
Drinking: because puking up what you just spent so much money putting in is expensive and not really all that fun
Pot: from my experience, it's usually because once you pass a certain age if you don't have a regular dealer, no one will sell to you because you might be a cop... a little built in plus for the illegal camp. But also because the last thing you are when you smoke pot is motivated or enhanced. Oh colors and sounds sure, but from a primitive drive standpoint, not at all.
We got into it because it was there and we enjoyed it... because let's face it, its fun to be messed up for a lot of people, especially when its new. Like anything though, novelty wears off and then its not so fun, and most people mature out of habitual use. Dave, you wouldn't happen to have statistics around about the actual rate of addiction of recreational users would you? Might be interesting to see how many people who drank and smoked heavily really did stop, or later got addicted.
And hey if they want to sit on their couch and smoke and eat Dorritos all day, be my guest. Less competition when I go out looking for a job.
Your view DOES suggest that perhaps we should have age limits, I agree, because children are less able to make intelligent descisions. Heck, Im 22 and I can barely make responsible descisions sometimes... but I digress. The socially exceptable age for audulthood is 18 now-a-days, 21 for some more touchy stuff. It wasn't always so, but then life expectancies weren't as long back then. So yes, age limits are a good thing. I might question how effective they are, as everyone I know was using things before they were technically allowed to anyway, though.
Where I'm going though is here: I don't feel the government has any responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. Or rather, it doesn't have the RIGHT to CONTROL our stupidity when it doesn't violate the social contract. I know alcohol is involved in a lot of crime, but just because someone get's stupider when under the influence, that doesn't mean its the drugs fault. The person knows perfectly well that its probably not a good idea legally to do something illegal, and if they can't control themselves while drinking, hey, that's cool, go ahead and lock them up for doing whatever stupid criminal activity they did. But that doesn't mean that alcohol or whatever drug should be made illegal.
REGARDLESS of whether or not something is addictive, people go into usage in full knowledge that that is a possible outcome. If someone wants to be stupid, it's perfectly ok to try and educate them (as you are trying to do, and that is commendable), but we're talking about whether or not criminalization of users is correct, and THAT I disagree with from the personal freedoms level.
Note: I'm not chastising you for always posting these warnings and admonitions about smoking and drinking and drugs... go for it. There are far too many uneducated people in the world for that to ever be a bad thing.
I was going to draw a parallel to guns and the right to bear arms, and then realized that a good number of you are from across the pond so that analogy probably wouldn't work well...
As for youngsters getting into it because it's illegal... I don't know about that. I think its more a general curiosiy. They KNOW it's out there, they KNOW that there are people who use things and don't have problems, and so they try it. We drank a lot in highschool, did drugs, smoked, etc. There comes a point where sitting on your couch all day smoking pot and playing video games becomes boring and you begin to feel like a loser and start seeking other avenues of expression. Just like it get's old puking your guts out, especially after you just spent so much money putting all of it in in the first place. MOST people grow out of it, except for people who go on to be habitual smokers and alcoholics, and crackheads, etc.
Why?
Smoking: coughing, not being able to run, always outside, always out of breath, realizing the real health detriments... etc.
Drinking: because puking up what you just spent so much money putting in is expensive and not really all that fun
Pot: from my experience, it's usually because once you pass a certain age if you don't have a regular dealer, no one will sell to you because you might be a cop... a little built in plus for the illegal camp. But also because the last thing you are when you smoke pot is motivated or enhanced. Oh colors and sounds sure, but from a primitive drive standpoint, not at all.
We got into it because it was there and we enjoyed it... because let's face it, its fun to be messed up for a lot of people, especially when its new. Like anything though, novelty wears off and then its not so fun, and most people mature out of habitual use. Dave, you wouldn't happen to have statistics around about the actual rate of addiction of recreational users would you? Might be interesting to see how many people who drank and smoked heavily really did stop, or later got addicted.
And hey if they want to sit on their couch and smoke and eat Dorritos all day, be my guest. Less competition when I go out looking for a job.
Delete
Posted:Written by: i8beefy2
I disagree Dave, and we've discussed why on other threads, with the sentiment that addiction is something we need to protect people from by making something illegal. Despite everything you have presented me with in terms of addicts not being able to stop, I still maintain that it is a willpower issue. People are creatures of habit, so yes, if they do something for so long it becomes engrained in them, but habits can be changed they same way they were aquired: slowly and painfully (because its something you don't really want to do).
1. Bear in mind that in the majority of threads, I am not advocating legislative control of substances- rather I'm arguing against what I consider to be invalid arguments claiming that legislation is ineffective.
2. As someone who's considered themselves addicted, yet overcome it using what you considerd to be willpower, you seem to think that everyone can do as you did.
I dispute that assumption, partly because-
a. I could not escape my nicotine addiction by using willpower (I used a different method that specifically avoided relying on willpower), so that would seem to be a counter-example to the proposition that everyone can escape using will.
b. the fact that most long-term smokers, despite wanting not to smoke, believe they cannot quit, and often fail over many attempts, would seem to suggest there are other factors here.
Written by: i8beefy2
Where I'm going though is here: I don't feel the government has any responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. Or rather, it doesn't have the RIGHT to CONTROL our stupidity when it doesn't violate the social contract. I know alcohol is involved in a lot of crime, but just because someone get's stupider when under the influence, that doesn't mean its the drugs fault.
Fair enough; but, the individuals who make up society have the right to determine what kind of world they live in, and the way this is done is via government. You yourself agree that substance control where age is concerned, is acceptable. similarly, whether it is acceptable for shops to stock cannabis is something that has to be decided by society.
Written by:
REGARDLESS of whether or not something is addictive, people go into usage in full knowledge that that is a possible outcome.
No. No smoker dying a long drawn out cancerous death in front of his/her children, had the remotest concept when lighting their first cigarette. of what it would lead to. Particularly those many smokers who did so at age 14, or 10, or whatever.
I disagree Dave, and we've discussed why on other threads, with the sentiment that addiction is something we need to protect people from by making something illegal. Despite everything you have presented me with in terms of addicts not being able to stop, I still maintain that it is a willpower issue. People are creatures of habit, so yes, if they do something for so long it becomes engrained in them, but habits can be changed they same way they were aquired: slowly and painfully (because its something you don't really want to do).
1. Bear in mind that in the majority of threads, I am not advocating legislative control of substances- rather I'm arguing against what I consider to be invalid arguments claiming that legislation is ineffective.
2. As someone who's considered themselves addicted, yet overcome it using what you considerd to be willpower, you seem to think that everyone can do as you did.
I dispute that assumption, partly because-
a. I could not escape my nicotine addiction by using willpower (I used a different method that specifically avoided relying on willpower), so that would seem to be a counter-example to the proposition that everyone can escape using will.
b. the fact that most long-term smokers, despite wanting not to smoke, believe they cannot quit, and often fail over many attempts, would seem to suggest there are other factors here.
Written by: i8beefy2
Where I'm going though is here: I don't feel the government has any responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. Or rather, it doesn't have the RIGHT to CONTROL our stupidity when it doesn't violate the social contract. I know alcohol is involved in a lot of crime, but just because someone get's stupider when under the influence, that doesn't mean its the drugs fault.
Fair enough; but, the individuals who make up society have the right to determine what kind of world they live in, and the way this is done is via government. You yourself agree that substance control where age is concerned, is acceptable. similarly, whether it is acceptable for shops to stock cannabis is something that has to be decided by society.
Written by:
REGARDLESS of whether or not something is addictive, people go into usage in full knowledge that that is a possible outcome.
No. No smoker dying a long drawn out cancerous death in front of his/her children, had the remotest concept when lighting their first cigarette. of what it would lead to. Particularly those many smokers who did so at age 14, or 10, or whatever.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:Written by: i8beefy2
I disagree Dave, and we've discussed why on other threads, with the sentiment that addiction is something we need to protect people from by making something illegal. Despite everything you have presented me with in terms of addicts not being able to stop, I still maintain that it is a willpower issue. People are creatures of habit, so yes, if they do something for so long it becomes engrained in them, but habits can be changed they same way they were aquired: slowly and painfully (because its something you don't really want to do).
1. Bear in mind that in the majority of threads, I am not advocating legislative control of substances- rather I'm arguing against what I consider to be invalid arguments claiming that legislation is ineffective.
2. As someone who's considered themselves addicted, yet overcome it using what you considerd to be willpower, you seem to think that everyone can do as you did.
I dispute that assumption, partly because-
a. I could not escape my nicotine addiction by using willpower (I used a different method that specifically avoided relying on willpower), so that would seem to be a counter-example to the proposition that everyone can escape using will.
b. the fact that most long-term smokers, despite wanting not to smoke, believe they cannot quit, and often fail over many attempts, would seem to suggest there are other factors here.
Written by: i8beefy2
Where I'm going though is here: I don't feel the government has any responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. Or rather, it doesn't have the RIGHT to CONTROL our stupidity when it doesn't violate the social contract. I know alcohol is involved in a lot of crime, but just because someone get's stupider when under the influence, that doesn't mean its the drugs fault.
Fair enough; but, the individuals who make up society have the right to determine what kind of world they live in, and the way this is done is via government. You yourself agree that substance control where age is concerned, is acceptable. similarly, whether it is acceptable for shops to stock cannabis is something that has to be decided by society.
Written by:
REGARDLESS of whether or not something is addictive, people go into usage in full knowledge that that is a possible outcome.
No. No smoker dying a long drawn out cancerous death in front of his/her children, had the remotest concept when lighting their first cigarette. of what it would lead to. Particularly those many smokers who did so at age 14, or 10, or whatever.
Written by: i8beefy2
Note: I'm not chastising you for always posting these warnings and admonitions about smoking and drinking and drugs... go for it. There are far too many uneducated people in the world for that to ever be a bad thing.
Thank you
Written by: i8beefy2
I was going to draw a parallel to guns and the right to bear arms, and then realized that a good number of you are from across the pond so that analogy probably wouldn't work well...
Probably a good move
I disagree Dave, and we've discussed why on other threads, with the sentiment that addiction is something we need to protect people from by making something illegal. Despite everything you have presented me with in terms of addicts not being able to stop, I still maintain that it is a willpower issue. People are creatures of habit, so yes, if they do something for so long it becomes engrained in them, but habits can be changed they same way they were aquired: slowly and painfully (because its something you don't really want to do).
1. Bear in mind that in the majority of threads, I am not advocating legislative control of substances- rather I'm arguing against what I consider to be invalid arguments claiming that legislation is ineffective.
2. As someone who's considered themselves addicted, yet overcome it using what you considerd to be willpower, you seem to think that everyone can do as you did.
I dispute that assumption, partly because-
a. I could not escape my nicotine addiction by using willpower (I used a different method that specifically avoided relying on willpower), so that would seem to be a counter-example to the proposition that everyone can escape using will.
b. the fact that most long-term smokers, despite wanting not to smoke, believe they cannot quit, and often fail over many attempts, would seem to suggest there are other factors here.
Written by: i8beefy2
Where I'm going though is here: I don't feel the government has any responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. Or rather, it doesn't have the RIGHT to CONTROL our stupidity when it doesn't violate the social contract. I know alcohol is involved in a lot of crime, but just because someone get's stupider when under the influence, that doesn't mean its the drugs fault.
Fair enough; but, the individuals who make up society have the right to determine what kind of world they live in, and the way this is done is via government. You yourself agree that substance control where age is concerned, is acceptable. similarly, whether it is acceptable for shops to stock cannabis is something that has to be decided by society.
Written by:
REGARDLESS of whether or not something is addictive, people go into usage in full knowledge that that is a possible outcome.
No. No smoker dying a long drawn out cancerous death in front of his/her children, had the remotest concept when lighting their first cigarette. of what it would lead to. Particularly those many smokers who did so at age 14, or 10, or whatever.
Written by: i8beefy2
Note: I'm not chastising you for always posting these warnings and admonitions about smoking and drinking and drugs... go for it. There are far too many uneducated people in the world for that to ever be a bad thing.
Thank you
Written by: i8beefy2
I was going to draw a parallel to guns and the right to bear arms, and then realized that a good number of you are from across the pond so that analogy probably wouldn't work well...
Probably a good move
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:Written by: i8beefy2
Where I'm going though is here: I don't feel the government has any responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. Or rather, it doesn't have the RIGHT to CONTROL our stupidity when it doesn't violate the social contract. I know alcohol is involved in a lot of crime, but just because someone get's stupider when under the influence, that doesn't mean its the drugs fault.
but when a substance has *no positive effects* then shouldn't it be outlawed? Can anyone name me 3 benefits of drinking? Can someone name me 3 benefits of smoking? Weed? Crack? And please don't insult anyone's intelligence by making "it feels good at the time" because that is outweighed so badly by the health problems that all of the above can cause.
Where I'm going though is here: I don't feel the government has any responsibility to protect us from our own stupidity. Or rather, it doesn't have the RIGHT to CONTROL our stupidity when it doesn't violate the social contract. I know alcohol is involved in a lot of crime, but just because someone get's stupider when under the influence, that doesn't mean its the drugs fault.
but when a substance has *no positive effects* then shouldn't it be outlawed? Can anyone name me 3 benefits of drinking? Can someone name me 3 benefits of smoking? Weed? Crack? And please don't insult anyone's intelligence by making "it feels good at the time" because that is outweighed so badly by the health problems that all of the above can cause.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:I understand that we have a conflict of view on the point of addiction, Dave. I actually want to read up on this fellow you always cite who helped you quit, as I really don't understand your viewpoint, as addiction was always a matter of will power for me and those around me. However, you are talking about addiction to CIGARETTES, which ARE physically addicting, etc. There are other real, physical elements there. Same for alcohol. However, marijuana is NOT physically addicting, so I feel I can safely maintain my view, so long as the physically addicting element is the deciding factor, and I'd be happy to discuss that more.
I see your point about government. But I am somewhat... libertarian, I guess, in my viewpoint, and so would rather no one have a right to tell me what to do so long as I am not hurting them. And further, I reject the "social problems" argument, which we have gone over before I believe...
Should something be outlawed because it has no positive effects? Who chooses what are possitive and negetive effects? I don't feel that recreation is so small a good that it is trumped by problems that only arrise from abuse. Should government be outlawed because when it is abused it is bad? No. Because when used responsibly it makes life better for most people. Just because these things might not make your life better, because you prize health so much (and I do to, but Im making a point here...), doesn't mean someone else shouldn't be capable of choosing to use them because they LIKE to do these things. And we're not talking about something that hurts YOU, just that individual (as I reject the social problems argument).
In essence, it may have no possitive benefits to you because your looking at it from a health standpoint, but to lots of people I know, it has a great number of benefits that are hard to quantify, or maybe Im just too tired to try. By this argument, alcohol should be illegal, and for a similar reasoning, I feel that is silly too.
==
This is a very complicated issue, all wrapped up in social policy, individual rights, health care, etc. etc. so I'm not expecting us to really come to an agreement as we all value certain aspects of those things more than others. I am very individualistic, so individual rights are going to trump most everything for me as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. But to outlaw a PLANT (for that matter anything, with few exceptions, but we're focusing in on one thing here) I feel is a bit overzealous.
I see your point about government. But I am somewhat... libertarian, I guess, in my viewpoint, and so would rather no one have a right to tell me what to do so long as I am not hurting them. And further, I reject the "social problems" argument, which we have gone over before I believe...
Should something be outlawed because it has no positive effects? Who chooses what are possitive and negetive effects? I don't feel that recreation is so small a good that it is trumped by problems that only arrise from abuse. Should government be outlawed because when it is abused it is bad? No. Because when used responsibly it makes life better for most people. Just because these things might not make your life better, because you prize health so much (and I do to, but Im making a point here...), doesn't mean someone else shouldn't be capable of choosing to use them because they LIKE to do these things. And we're not talking about something that hurts YOU, just that individual (as I reject the social problems argument).
In essence, it may have no possitive benefits to you because your looking at it from a health standpoint, but to lots of people I know, it has a great number of benefits that are hard to quantify, or maybe Im just too tired to try. By this argument, alcohol should be illegal, and for a similar reasoning, I feel that is silly too.
==
This is a very complicated issue, all wrapped up in social policy, individual rights, health care, etc. etc. so I'm not expecting us to really come to an agreement as we all value certain aspects of those things more than others. I am very individualistic, so individual rights are going to trump most everything for me as long as it doesn't hurt someone else. But to outlaw a PLANT (for that matter anything, with few exceptions, but we're focusing in on one thing here) I feel is a bit overzealous.
Delete
Posted:Why don't we ban alcohol? It makes a lot more sense than banning Marijuana. Almost every single study has found that weed is less damaging (both personally and socially) than Alcohol. Binge drinking yobs are far more of a danger than stoners. Do you agree with that?
The answer to your question is that in this case, the positive and negative effects can be readily examined.
Positive effects of Weed abuse include: Err... feeling good at the time? *shoots self*
Negative effects of Weed abuse: Schizophrenia, if you smoke joints then the carcinogens in the baccy, all the other medical problems.
Positive effects of alcohol abuse include: Oh, wait! They DON'T.
Negative effects of Alcohol abuse: I can't frankly be bothered to list them all. Here are a few. Health damage (liver especially). Hospital resources used. Violence. Domestic Abuse. Alcoholism. Rape. Crime. So many more...
So give me a good argument why alcohol should be legal? And why there isn't a daily cap to stop binging? Would it hurt so much to have a limit of 3 units a day, then fine someone 50 for every unit they are over that? That punishes the abusers, while leaving everyone else to enjoy a glass of wine in peace.
I guess my point is that the law should punish the people who abuse things, not those who use various substances "responsibly". At the moment there is no distinction. I won't be arrested for being so drunk I fall over, vomit on people, try and grope a woman, and maybe piss on someone's car. But if I try to buy an 1/8th for use in my own living room then I'll get a custodial sentence. Idiocy.
The answer to your question is that in this case, the positive and negative effects can be readily examined.
Positive effects of Weed abuse include: Err... feeling good at the time? *shoots self*
Negative effects of Weed abuse: Schizophrenia, if you smoke joints then the carcinogens in the baccy, all the other medical problems.
Positive effects of alcohol abuse include: Oh, wait! They DON'T.
Negative effects of Alcohol abuse: I can't frankly be bothered to list them all. Here are a few. Health damage (liver especially). Hospital resources used. Violence. Domestic Abuse. Alcoholism. Rape. Crime. So many more...
So give me a good argument why alcohol should be legal? And why there isn't a daily cap to stop binging? Would it hurt so much to have a limit of 3 units a day, then fine someone 50 for every unit they are over that? That punishes the abusers, while leaving everyone else to enjoy a glass of wine in peace.
I guess my point is that the law should punish the people who abuse things, not those who use various substances "responsibly". At the moment there is no distinction. I won't be arrested for being so drunk I fall over, vomit on people, try and grope a woman, and maybe piss on someone's car. But if I try to buy an 1/8th for use in my own living room then I'll get a custodial sentence. Idiocy.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:The crux of my argument against that, Sethis, is that recreational enjoyment IS a high enough good to outweigh the health dangers, etc.
If that argument alone is to be used to make something illegal, alcohol is just the tip of the iceberg. Should I be allowed to spin fire, since it just realeases harmful chemicals, burns, bruises, and doesn't really have any measurable advantages other than "it feels good to do it" (assuming you don't do it for a job).
Your pointing to only health benefits and disadvantages, and claiming they trump recreational enjoyment of life. I disagree. Quality of life comes first for me, and health is an element OF that, not the deciding factor in it.
=
But I agree there is a vast discrepancy between how we treat these two (alcohol and marijuana), that doesn't make sense.
If that argument alone is to be used to make something illegal, alcohol is just the tip of the iceberg. Should I be allowed to spin fire, since it just realeases harmful chemicals, burns, bruises, and doesn't really have any measurable advantages other than "it feels good to do it" (assuming you don't do it for a job).
Your pointing to only health benefits and disadvantages, and claiming they trump recreational enjoyment of life. I disagree. Quality of life comes first for me, and health is an element OF that, not the deciding factor in it.
=
But I agree there is a vast discrepancy between how we treat these two (alcohol and marijuana), that doesn't make sense.
Delete
Posted:Written by: i8beefy2
I understand that we have a conflict of view on the point of addiction, Dave. I actually want to read up on this fellow you always ......
Allen Carr, title of book-'The Easy Way to Give up Smoking'
Written by: i8beefy2
However, you are talking about addiction to CIGARETTES, which ARE physically addicting, etc. There are other real, physical elements there. Same for alcohol. However, marijuana is NOT physically addicting, so I feel I can safely maintain my view, so long as the physically addicting element is the deciding factor, and I'd be happy to discuss that more.
In the UK, weed is invariably smoked in spliffs containing tobacco, which are therefore addictive.
If the user quits weed, they are often left with an addiction to cigarettes. I consider weed to be a 'gateway' drug to cigarette addiction and feel that, in a culture where cigarettes are more and more being seen as a pointless drug used by losers, that weed is instrumental in pulling in more victims to tobacco addiction (as weed is often seen as 'cool' by those who may see cigarettes as 'uncool')
Written by: i8beefy2
Who chooses what are possitive and negetive effects?
......In essence, it may have no possitive benefits to you because your looking at it from a health standpoint, but to lots of people I know, it has a great number of benefits that are hard to quantify, or maybe Im just too tired to try. By this argument, alcohol should be illegal, and for a similar reasoning, I feel that is silly too.
Drug users often suffer from self-deception when it comes to assessing their true motives for using.
For example, alcoholics deny they have a problem, and insist that they drink for enjoyment, and that they have control over their drinking; when, to the impartial outsider, this is clearly not the case.
IMO, no long term smoker of 40+ cigs a day enjoys smoking. They may enjoy relieving the nicotine withdrawal symptoms they suffer when going without a cigarette for any length of time, but they do not get enjoyment, or any other benefit, from smoking.
I'm not actually coming at this from a health perspective (though clearly drugs damage health); if anything I'm coming at it from a freedom perspective.
As a smoker I was not free- I couldn't for example choose not to smoke.
As a non-smoker i am free of the compulsion to smoke, and I'm free of the delusions I experienced as a smoker (the delusion that I enjoyed cigarettes, or that I had any control or choice in the matter).
Alcoholics and long-term smokers are either not free, or deluded.
Much of what I experienced as a weed smoker, and from what I've observed in other weed smokers, during, and since; leads me to believe that, admittedly to a lesser extent, that the same factor is evident in their drug use.
There are no benefits to using nicotine, alcohol or weed, that cannot be experienced without using them.
Most percieved benefits from drug use are simply that, during regular use, not consuming them leads to anxiety/distress, which is temporarily removed when they are consumed.
A similar effect can be obtained by wearing shoes a couple of sizes too small, so, at the end of the day you can experience the 'bliss' of taking them off.
It does indeed feel wonderful, but those who are wiser, know that that feeling can be better obtained by simply not wearing tight shoes in the first place
As for who is to decide what are positve and negative effects; at the risk of sounding arrogant- me.
Just like habitual drug users, I've personally experienced the life of a user; in addition, I've got the benefits of the perspective of one use has escaped from addiction, and can look back on it from an objective position that was not possible as a user (and that applies both to addictive nicotine, and to, supposedly non-addictive, weed).
I understand that we have a conflict of view on the point of addiction, Dave. I actually want to read up on this fellow you always ......
Allen Carr, title of book-'The Easy Way to Give up Smoking'
Written by: i8beefy2
However, you are talking about addiction to CIGARETTES, which ARE physically addicting, etc. There are other real, physical elements there. Same for alcohol. However, marijuana is NOT physically addicting, so I feel I can safely maintain my view, so long as the physically addicting element is the deciding factor, and I'd be happy to discuss that more.
In the UK, weed is invariably smoked in spliffs containing tobacco, which are therefore addictive.
If the user quits weed, they are often left with an addiction to cigarettes. I consider weed to be a 'gateway' drug to cigarette addiction and feel that, in a culture where cigarettes are more and more being seen as a pointless drug used by losers, that weed is instrumental in pulling in more victims to tobacco addiction (as weed is often seen as 'cool' by those who may see cigarettes as 'uncool')
Written by: i8beefy2
Who chooses what are possitive and negetive effects?
......In essence, it may have no possitive benefits to you because your looking at it from a health standpoint, but to lots of people I know, it has a great number of benefits that are hard to quantify, or maybe Im just too tired to try. By this argument, alcohol should be illegal, and for a similar reasoning, I feel that is silly too.
Drug users often suffer from self-deception when it comes to assessing their true motives for using.
For example, alcoholics deny they have a problem, and insist that they drink for enjoyment, and that they have control over their drinking; when, to the impartial outsider, this is clearly not the case.
IMO, no long term smoker of 40+ cigs a day enjoys smoking. They may enjoy relieving the nicotine withdrawal symptoms they suffer when going without a cigarette for any length of time, but they do not get enjoyment, or any other benefit, from smoking.
I'm not actually coming at this from a health perspective (though clearly drugs damage health); if anything I'm coming at it from a freedom perspective.
As a smoker I was not free- I couldn't for example choose not to smoke.
As a non-smoker i am free of the compulsion to smoke, and I'm free of the delusions I experienced as a smoker (the delusion that I enjoyed cigarettes, or that I had any control or choice in the matter).
Alcoholics and long-term smokers are either not free, or deluded.
Much of what I experienced as a weed smoker, and from what I've observed in other weed smokers, during, and since; leads me to believe that, admittedly to a lesser extent, that the same factor is evident in their drug use.
There are no benefits to using nicotine, alcohol or weed, that cannot be experienced without using them.
Most percieved benefits from drug use are simply that, during regular use, not consuming them leads to anxiety/distress, which is temporarily removed when they are consumed.
A similar effect can be obtained by wearing shoes a couple of sizes too small, so, at the end of the day you can experience the 'bliss' of taking them off.
It does indeed feel wonderful, but those who are wiser, know that that feeling can be better obtained by simply not wearing tight shoes in the first place
As for who is to decide what are positve and negative effects; at the risk of sounding arrogant- me.
Just like habitual drug users, I've personally experienced the life of a user; in addition, I've got the benefits of the perspective of one use has escaped from addiction, and can look back on it from an objective position that was not possible as a user (and that applies both to addictive nicotine, and to, supposedly non-addictive, weed).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
JauntyJames
SILVER Member since Dec 2004
![JauntyJames]()
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Total posts: 3533
SILVER Member since Dec 2004
Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA
Total posts: 3533
Posted:It should probably be pointed out at some point that weed isn't actually legal in Denver or in any other city in the US. It's the federal government that makes that decision, and that trumps local governments. Of course, this also means that only law enforcment that works on the national level would arrest you for possesion, the local police wouldn't mind.
-James
"How do you know if you're happy or sad without a mask? Or angry? Or ready for dessert?"
Posted:I forgot you wierdo's smoke those nasty things... why anyone would want to mix their tobacco and weed is beyond me. That is certainly NOT the case here in the US, at least not around me. One of those cultural differences you spoke of I guess.
Again I want to stress that marijuana is NOT addictive in the same way as tobacco though. The "withdrawl" symptoms do not happen litterally, because there is no physical addiction. Psychological addiction is another matter.
Second, you paint us with quite a broad brush. Many of the people I know who smoke weed do so because they really do like it. Not all, there is invariably those people who truly are deluded, or using for a different reason they don't want to admit (psychological dependence). But just because you found in your experience that you didn't like it doesn't mean someone else shouldn't be able to like it. I don't like brussel sprouts but I don't want them illegal (making a point, not a literal analogy obviously). It doesn't mean that you are right for EVERYONE and that everyone is deluded just because you feel you were.
I smoke because I like it. I don't smoke all the time, because I don't like to be high all the time, but sometimes I just want to come home and veg out and watch a movie and get high. Can I do the same thing without it? Of course, but I LIKE doing it. You may call me deluded if you wish, but I truly feel you are wrong in not only my case, but a good number of other cases that I know personally.
You bloody arrogant [censored]! Just kidding of course, I welcome your opinion and you've always been a much needed voice for the other side of these discussions. Always learn the most from opposition. I'll check out that book. Ive heard you mention it enough that its gotten my interest.
Again I want to stress that marijuana is NOT addictive in the same way as tobacco though. The "withdrawl" symptoms do not happen litterally, because there is no physical addiction. Psychological addiction is another matter.
Second, you paint us with quite a broad brush. Many of the people I know who smoke weed do so because they really do like it. Not all, there is invariably those people who truly are deluded, or using for a different reason they don't want to admit (psychological dependence). But just because you found in your experience that you didn't like it doesn't mean someone else shouldn't be able to like it. I don't like brussel sprouts but I don't want them illegal (making a point, not a literal analogy obviously). It doesn't mean that you are right for EVERYONE and that everyone is deluded just because you feel you were.
I smoke because I like it. I don't smoke all the time, because I don't like to be high all the time, but sometimes I just want to come home and veg out and watch a movie and get high. Can I do the same thing without it? Of course, but I LIKE doing it. You may call me deluded if you wish, but I truly feel you are wrong in not only my case, but a good number of other cases that I know personally.
You bloody arrogant [censored]!
Just kidding of course, I welcome your opinion and you've always been a much needed voice for the other side of these discussions. Always learn the most from opposition. I'll check out that book. Ive heard you mention it enough that its gotten my interest.Delete
Posted:Slight difference between Fire Spinning and Smoking: Spinning is a benefit to you, it gives you exercise, flexibility, stamina and rythmn (damn, never could spell that ) It is also amazingly nice to watch from the audience perspective.
Smoking does none of these things.
I like Dave's analogy of small shoes... it's a good one.
) It is also amazingly nice to watch from the audience perspective.Smoking does none of these things.
I like Dave's analogy of small shoes... it's a good one.
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted:It's not actually my analogy, it's one Carr uses with regard to cigarettes in his book ('Easy Way to Give up Smoking'); I should have mentioned that at the time.
---------------------------------
Beefy-
What I'm saying about people being deluded as to their motivations for using applies to cigarettes and abuse of alcohol. I've always considered pure weed use (ie without tobacco) to be less problematic than those drugs.
Personally, from what I've observed, I've never met a weed user who I'd consider to be getting real benefit from their use- I've met users who were surprisingly capable of getting on with their lives despite it (along with many who clearly weren't); but none who, IMO, would not do better if they ceased to use it.
However, this is the UK, where weed is invariably mixed with tobacco, so I've got no experience of those who do smoke it pure.
---------------------------------
Beefy-
What I'm saying about people being deluded as to their motivations for using applies to cigarettes and abuse of alcohol. I've always considered pure weed use (ie without tobacco) to be less problematic than those drugs.
Personally, from what I've observed, I've never met a weed user who I'd consider to be getting real benefit from their use- I've met users who were surprisingly capable of getting on with their lives despite it (along with many who clearly weren't); but none who, IMO, would not do better if they ceased to use it.
However, this is the UK, where weed is invariably mixed with tobacco, so I've got no experience of those who do smoke it pure.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
Posted:Not invariably Dave, or have you never seen a bong?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [denver leagalise* weed] we found the following similar topics.1. Forums > denver leagalises weed! [156 replies]
2. Forums > Fire in Denver [3 replies]
3. Forums > poi gathering in denver Colorado [1 reply]
4. Forums > Springs / Denver Area
5. Forums > new in Denver
Show more..
© 1998 - 2017 Home of Poi Ltd,
New Zealand unless otherwise stated.
All rights reserved
*All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com.