Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:50 pm
 


I'm not convinced that marijuana is harmless.

andyt wrote:
If I thought prohibition would work, I would support that
Alcohol prohibition was overturned by that reasoning, but in its current status kills perhaps a hundred thousand people per year. If prohibition doesn't work, and regulated legalization after the model of alcohol doesn't work, what does? A good answer to that question can include decriminalization of marijuana and garner my support.

andyt wrote:
They've found marijuana seeds in 30,000 year old human sites. And all the other stuff that gets you off - mushrooms, peyote, what have you, have all been traditionally used.
Yes, let's return to the "good ol' days" of a 25-year life expectancy, rampant infanticide, disease, disfigurement, lawlessness, and rape.

andyt wrote:
it would make parties more fun is a pretty good reason. That's why people do that stuff
When I read this, I hear, "You don't party, Psudo, so your vote doesn't count." Pardon me if I'm not convinced.

There's a philosophical theory that says we are altered by what we take into ourselves, so that if we take in unclean things we become unclean. It's why so many people fast as a religious ritual -- by removing those outside influences, you discover your own unaltered nature. The indulgent hedonist can't stand to be without the constant screaming of outside experience to drown out their conscience, to hide their bad memories, to forget their self-doubt and self-loathing. I refuse to live a veneer of celebration stretched tight over an abyss of misery. I believe the miseries of life are to be confronted and self-destructive impulses are to be restrained. I believe that is the only possible road to self-esteem based on truth ("happiness"), and that indulgence is inherently an obstacle and distraction from that pursuit.

That does not make my opinion less relevant.


Last edited by Psudo on Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 San Jose Sharks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 42573
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:52 pm
 


Psudo wrote:
Yes, let's return to the "good ol' days" of a 25-year life expectancy, rampant infanticide, disease, disfigurement, lawlessness, and rape.


That almost sounds like a course refresher on multiculturalism. :wink:


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 24078
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:58 pm
 


Psudo wrote:
I'm not convinced that marijuana is harmless.

andyt wrote:
If I thought prohibition would work, I would support that
Alcohol prohibition was overturned by that reasoning, but in its current status kills perhaps a hundred thousand people per year. If prohibition doesn't work, and regulated legalization after the model of alcohol doesn't work, what does? A good answer to that question can include decriminalization of marijuana and garner my support.

andyt wrote:
They've found marijuana seeds in 30,000 year old human sites. And all the other stuff that gets you off - mushrooms, peyote, what have you, have all been traditionally used.
Yes, let's return to the "good ol' days" of a 25-year life expectancy, rampant infanticide, disease, disfigurement, lawlessness, and rape.

andyt wrote:
it would make parties more fun is a pretty good reason. That's why people do that stuff
When I read this, I hear, "You don't party, Psudo, so your vote doesn't count." Pardon me if I'm not convinced.

There's a philosophical theory that says we are altered by what we take into ourselves, so that if we take in unclean things we become unclean. It's why so many people fast as a religious ritual -- by removing those outside influences, you discover your own unaltered nature. The indulgent hedonist can't stand to be without the constant screaming of outside experience to drown out their conscience, to hide their bad memories, to forget their self-doubt and self-loathing. I refuse to live a veneer of celebration stretched tight over an abyss of misery. I believe the miseries of life are to be confronted and self-destructive impulses are to be restrained. I believe that is the only possible road to self-esteem based on truth ("happiness"), and that indulgence is inherently an obstacle and distraction from that pursuit.

That does not make my opinion less relevant.


I didn't say marijuana is harmless. Physically it probably does more harm than very moderate drinking. But taken as a whole, alcohol is way more harmful than pot.

Decrim is stupid - you still have the criminals producing and distributing the stuff and making their profit. It's like saying let's decrim EtOH. There's no reason to be an absolutist here. EtOh legalization/regulation seems to work better than the alternative. The same would hold true for pot.

My point about how far back drug taking goes in human history is that is seems to be a pretty strong urge and trying to outlaw it seems to just produce more misery.

You can hear what you want in what I write - doesn't make it so.

As for your philosophy of how to live - great. Don't see why people try to ram that philosophy down people's throat by making things illegal that don't harm them. Buddhism informs a lot of my philosophy. You don't see me advocating for making meat illegal because of the suffering it causes the animals.

And I learned in Biology 101 that hunter/gatherers had a complete diet, lived to ripe old age working max 20 hours a week. (Unless they were living in a very marginal environment) (The women probably had to work more hours) Early agriculturalists suffered from protein deficiencies, had to work ungodly hours in the fields and died early. Except for the newly formed elite that was able to take the fruits of all that labor, hoard it and live large. A Republican wet dream, I grant you.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:35 pm
 


I say parties are not a good reason, and you say they are. I gave an argument why I held my belief. Why do you hold yours?

andyt wrote:
[The urge for recreational drug use] seems to be a pretty strong urge and trying to outlaw it seems to just produce more misery.
Alcohol prohibition results in organized criminal activity. Alcohol legalization resulted in rampant DUIs, liver damage, and deaths. Since both of those options don't work, what's the third option that does? Any decent answer to that question would probably also apply to marijuana, but it doesn't make any sense to change recreational drug policy until there's a goal worth reaching.

andyt wrote:
Buddhism informs a lot of my philosophy.
Buddhists fast. They deprive themselves of destructive impulse. That principle of depriving oneself of impulse and distraction is very Buddhist.


Offline
Forum Junkie
Forum Junkie
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 647
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:48 pm
 


Psudo, one potential issue you might be overlooking is that when you have a basic impasse of "Person A wants the freedom to do something, person B thinks it's immoral and wants Person A not to do it," the default goes to A in the Land of the Free, with the burden of proof on B to come up with a satisfactory explanation for why it would actually somehow harm B to allow it. B can make the personal choice to abstain, of course, and that's fine too, but other than that, there's not a whole lot he or she can do aside from roll his or her eyes and mutter something about kids these days.

Unless it affects others, of course. I can't do anything about my idiot stoner neighbors on an overall lifestyle-changing level without vastly overstepping my bounds, but I can call security on them when their blaring terrible Green Day albums through the walls keeps me up at night.

Anyway, that's why I'm so strongly against the zealous social conservative strain in politics--Rick Perry's moaning about how we're all adrift in a sea of moral relativism, etc. I was sort of under the impression that moral relativism was the entire point of America.

(Aside: I've always found it mystifying that the loudest protests about how we can't allow Sharia law here because it's so scary and dogmatic and curtails the liberty on which this country was founded and etc. tend to come from the people who brought us the Book of Leviticus. I, of course, oppose both.)

I favor decriminalization for many reasons, but on the subject of relative harm level, I favor decriminalization because of the, well, criminal element it attracts otherwise. Alcohol is responsible for a ton of deaths, yes, but I would be willing to go out on a limb and guess that more of them are from self-inflicted poor choices than from the mob, at least compared to how it was during Prohibition. We don't have Al Capone to worry about today, but we do have the Mexican drug cartels causing all that horrific violence around the border.

Psudo wrote:
Alcohol prohibition results in organized criminal activity. Alcohol legalization resulted in rampant DUIs, liver damage, and deaths. Since both of those options don't work, what's the third option that does? Any decent answer to that question would probably also apply to marijuana, but it doesn't make any sense to change recreational drug policy until there's a goal worth reaching.

I would argue that the harmful effects of alcohol itself (liver disease, etc.) were still there during Prohibition, too. After all, Prohibition probably had very little, if any effect on demand, and simply gave the role of supply over to the mob. It's not an either/or problem so much as we used to have both factors and now we've marginalized one of them. I'm happy to hear suggestions and ideas for dealing with the other, but I believe that is a separate, unrelated issue.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:20 pm
 


Kjorteo wrote:
when you have a basic impasse of "Person A wants the freedom to do something, person B thinks it's immoral and wants Person A not to do it," the default goes to A in the Land of the Free,
That general principle is true. However, with drug use there is also the issue of consequences of one's actions harming others, which typically defaults the other way. That complicates the issue, as you noted. I don't think either default can be accepted by default. There's got to be an additional reason either way.

Kjorteo wrote:
I was sort of under the impression that moral relativism was the entire point of America.
Whether or not there is a freedom to sin was never explicitly decided in the founding of America. Jefferson was for it, Adams was against it. Most Republicans follow Ben Franklin's and Alexander Hamilton's examples, speaking against it while secretly indulging it.

I'm on Adams' side, but I know I can't use it as a universally accepted given.

Edit: Lincoln said, "[One] cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong." That makes it Adams and Lincoln with whom I agree.

Kjorteo wrote:
more of [alcohol-related deaths] are from self-inflicted poor choices than from the mob, at least compared to how it was during Prohibition.
I think DUI car accidents are the greatest cause of harm, but I don't have the proof in front of me.

Kjorteo wrote:
Prohibition probably had very little, if any effect on demand
That might be true of 1920s prohibition of alcohol, but I doubt it's true of modern drug prohibition generally. Even if it is, I refuse to excuse lawbreaking as irrelevant. If you're willing to break the law to get high, what is to stop you from breaking tax law to save a few bucks, or or ignore traffic law to get there faster? It goes to fundamental respect for laws as a mechanism for protecting the public's rights and safety. That disrespect for the law generally is just as much to blame as a specific bad law for the consequences of criminal behavior.

There are two responsible ways to overturn a bad law - obey it while advocating against it, or disobey it publicly and accept the legal consequences to demonstrate their injustice. Breaking it in secret is just criminal, not reformative.


Last edited by Psudo on Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 244
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 2:47 pm
 


Some remarks on the Tea Party that I posted elsewhere, which folks here may find interesting as well:

It's valuable to draw careful distinctions between the various different types of conservatives who identify with the Tea Party. Some of these have been correctly labeled bigots. A larger number are crypto- or quasi-racists -- persons who do not take umbrage with individual members of minority groups, but subscribe to racial determinism when it can be ascribed to groups, most often Arab Muslim and African American. I'd guess that this racism is largely learned in the home space, where it mostly manifests as casual, ignorant remarks about members of minority groups generally. It is exacerbated and reinforced by a hyper-vigilance toward perceived "special treatment" of minorities by society at large, and is especially agitated when those groups come together to lobby for particular reforms. Thus we get "principled" opposition to gay marriage on grounds that gays should be discouraged from "legislating public acceptance;" strident criticism of affirmative action without consideration of socio-historical considerations; and obsession with Muslim "infiltration" of American culture. It is inadvertently stoked further by an emphasis on diversity in schools, which is misunderstood as a validation of racial, rather than historical-experiential differences; by the experience of petty racisms at school and in the workplace, whereby one person's racism activates another's; and by our collective national culture, which confirms that "race matters." If therefore race matters, and Barack Obama so obviously belongs to a different race, then he must necessarily have a perspective unique to that race, and an agenda specially-suited to that race as well. Inasmuch as some have persuaded themselves that minorities are, for reasons largely of their own making, "uncomfortable" or "ill-suited" to the United States, then it is an easy leap to the conclusion that Barack Obama doesn't share the "quintessential" values held by every (white) president before him.

The dominant type of person in the Tea Party, however, seems to be the middle-aged country-dweller who identifies primarily as a "values voter;" considers police, firefighting, and other emergency services to be a function of the local community rather than of government; lacks the education to independently assess the value of various claims made by popular media; finds most politicians unapproachable and therefore untrustworthy; and believes that their sole relationship to government is as a tax-payer who consumes none of the services for which they pay. Like Bachmann, they are prone to possess fairly well-developed yet non-confirmable "world views," and have only a very small basket of "issues," most of which relate to choices of personal morality. In other words, they are disinterested in the kinds of fairly "wonkish" problems that politicians are most prone to be unqualified to address, and resistant to changing their opinion even when it is clear that the facts speak decisively.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Fri Aug 19, 2011 3:07 pm
 


Trenacker wrote:
strident criticism of affirmative action without consideration of socio-historical considerations
Boo. Hiss. When you declare that race matters and impose a race-specific rules, you make race matter. It's irrational to use effects you perpetuate as the basis for continuing their cause.

Otherwise, your post seems like a good analysis of those views and their shortcomings.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Boston Bruins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 235
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:02 pm
 


Psudo wrote:
Edit: Lincoln said, "[One] cannot logically say that anybody has a right to do wrong." That makes it Adams and Lincoln with whom I agree.

Meh -- what's wrong though? In the course of this discussion you're implying things that are potentially personally destructive, like drug use and alcohol. Do you want to throw sports in their too? I've been injured by voluntarily participating in these activities, certainly doing harm to myself. Probably should have died once while skiing -- should we ban it too?

I grant you that some idiots abuse drugs, especially alcohol with DUIs, liver disease and whatnot. There's no guarantee though that banning booze would not have these folk seeking some other self-destructive behaviour. Don't tread on my liberty to enjoy alcohol responsibly by claiming that it's damaging if abused. Of course it is -- that's why we have drinking ages and we regulate it. But considering the many, many people who consume it responsibly I don't see it as an issue statistically.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
 Boston Bruins
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 235
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:11 pm
 


Psudo wrote:
If you're willing to break the law to get high, what is to stop you from breaking tax law to save a few bucks, or or ignore traffic law to get there faster? It goes to fundamental respect for laws as a mechanism for protecting the public's rights and safety. That disrespect for the law generally is just as much to blame as a specific bad law for the consequences of criminal behavior.

Surely you see the difference between laws and morality though? I regularly jaywalk and speed while driving (assuming conditions are appropriate) -- does this make me more likely to commit arson? Murder? Burgle?

I consider jaywalking and speeding to mostly amoral activities, and thus engage in them regularly. I wouldn't moan about getting a ticket if it happened, but I doubt that would stop me the next time.

Breaking my word is not illegal, although I would not personally engage in it because I consider it wrong. No one is above the law but surely people have to act within their own conscience and ethics in addition to the law.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Los Angeles Kings
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 3951
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:20 pm
 


CKASlacker wrote:
I regularly ... speed while driving (assuming conditions are appropriate) -- does this make me more likely to commit arson? Murder? Burgle?


Image


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
Profile
Posts: 3532
PostPosted: Sat Aug 20, 2011 8:43 pm
 


CKASlacker wrote:
Meh -- what's wrong though? In the course of this discussion you're implying things that are potentially personally destructive, like drug use and alcohol. Do you want to throw sports in their too?
When it comes to drugs, things that cause a certain amount of harm to others should be banned. The exact amount is debatable, but it can't be trivial.

I don't inherently deny government the right to ban self-harm, especially if government funds end up paying for the cleanup, but I'm not enthusiastic about expanding government power generally by promoting that specific government power on principle.

CKASlacker wrote:
Surely you see the difference between laws and morality though?
Of course. I already pointed it out and (in the last paragraph of this post) advised how to correct an unjust law.

CKASlacker wrote:
I regularly jaywalk and speed while driving (assuming conditions are appropriate) -- does this make me more likely to commit arson? Murder? Burgle? [...] I wouldn't moan about getting a ticket
I speed pretty often, too. But we both admit we're wrong and submit to law. Personally, I think of it as a bad habit I should change. In that respect the law and I agree.

We don't pretend to be oppressed. We don't pretend our bad habits are responsible political activism.

There exists a culture who break laws in secret and pretend that they're rebels defying an unjust law. They are idiots. It's stupid, immature narcissism to break a law while doing nothing to change it, as if the law ought to recognize your imaginary authority solely because you're righteous in your own mind. If the law truly is unjust, they're ignoring those suffering under an unjust standard. That defies the fundamental principle of legal justice: no one is above the law. That crap deserves to be treated identically to the breaking of a reasonable and just law.

The only truly excellent reason for keeping marijuana illegal is the swarm of disrespectful punks who spit on the very concept of law while chanting "Legalize it." Study civil disobedience and try again.

I'm fine with making marijuana legal so long as the details are reasonable. Everyone knows that alcohol and tobacco policy isn't reasonable either. So when someone writes a reasonable policy for legal recreational drugs, I'll support putting marijuana on the list. Otherwise, it's not worth the effort to switch out one broken law for another.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 244
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 8:13 am
 


Quote:
Boo. Hiss. When you declare that race matters and impose a race-specific rules, you make race matter. It's irrational to use effects you perpetuate as the basis for continuing their cause.


Race does matter. It matters because merely by knowing your racial identification, I can make accurate predictions regarding your level of education and economic attainment. It matters because there is strong evidence to attest that minorities are treated very differently by the American justice system. It matters because, by ignoring questions of race, it becomes impossible to address past iniquities that now account very well for why certain minorities in this country are significantly underrepresented in our political and social life.

I am pleased to question the current system of Affirmative Action, as it stands. For instance, there is convincing data to sustain the argument that poor, rural whites need Affirmative Action as much as blacks. However, I think we kid ourselves if we buy into the argument that Affirmative Action only serves to allow minorities to "steal" billets from otherwise deserving members of the majority race, without (A) consideration of their relative merits as individuals, or (B) any larger social benefit in mind. Clearly, there is an abiding national interest in preventing the creation of a monolithic underclass in which lack of education and pervasive under-employment are mapped onto race. One should also consider that being born into relative economic deprivation reduces the likelihood that a student will receive valuable tools that seriously affect academic performance, namely parental assistance with schoolwork, school supplies, and money for tutoring, after-school programs, and/or unpaid internships.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 12036
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:13 am
 


Psudo wrote:
I haven't argued about legality or illegality at all. I've argued that the FDA's schedule classification of drugs is based on medical science rather than propaganda, that PublicAnimalNo9's view is biased and fallacious, and that people ought to personally chose to avoid recreational chemicals. I don't oppose marijuana decriminalization per ce, but I do oppose legalizing it in order to throw better parties.

The only bias my friend, is gov't studies that continue to perpetuate the bullshit regarding pot. Pot is listed as Sched.1 NOT just because it's claimed to have no medicinal value(more bullshit) but because the FDA is also claiming pot is more addictive than cocaine, amphetamines and morphine, to which I also call bullshit!!
Yet the very "studies" you posted (gov't propaganda and a blog) show that pot is actually the least addictive of the more popular substances.

As for this supposed lack of medicinal value, Dr. Lester Grinspoon M.D. is a professor emeritus of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. He is also considered to be the eminent scientist in the study of medical marijuana.
Interestingly enough, back in the 60's he was ready to write a paper on the "dangers" of marijuana use.
http://patients4medicalmarijuana.wordpr ... nspoon-md/

Well, he found it SO "dangerous" that he's been partaking for the better part of 44 years now and has recognized numerous medical uses for it. Doctors around the world are finding all kinds of medical applications for it so the FDA's stance that it has no medicinal value is pure 100% bullshit propaganda. Look up Marinol and Sativex, then read(or re-read) the link posted above.
As for the addiction factor, since you posted a blog as your back-up, I'll respond in kind, and with sources.
http://www.cannabismd.net/addiction


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Edmonton Oilers
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 4633
PostPosted: Sun Aug 21, 2011 9:45 am
 


I wonder if we can read anything into the fact that a thread about the candidates for the GOP nomination has turned into a debate about weed?

Does it mean that you need to be high to consider voting for some of those people?
Does it mean that the economy isn't the pressing issue that the pundits seem to think it is?
Does it bode well for Obama, who has admitted to trying marijuana?
Or does it just mean that people at CKA are a bunch of stoners who love this issue?


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.