Decriminalizing marijuana

[The Gaffer]

I don't know if we can say that the harm debate has been won by anybody, since it is still far less harmful (to say nothing of addictiveness) than, say, tobacco, alcohol or maybe even cheeseburgers. Most of the serious evidence is in the area of people with a predisposition to mental health problems.

What's needed is a bit more science IN the harm debate, not for science itself to "win".

I think that would actually serve the legalisation lobby better in the long run, because the risks would be seen to be far lower than other, more addictive, legal drugs. No-one claims that everything that's harmful should be banned. To my mind, however, because they seem to disregard the evidence in a rather glib fashion it's hard to take their contribution seriously.

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

(sends an "improper use of apostrophe" ticket to the poster maker - it should be "its", not "it's"!)

Maybe the second-hand smoke caused them to miss this?

[sun-star]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

I don't know if we can say that the harm debate has been won by anybody, since it is still far less harmful (to say nothing of addictiveness) than, say, tobacco, alcohol or maybe even cheeseburgers. Most of the serious evidence is in the area of people with a predisposition to mental health problems.

Well, I know nothing about the harm debate, so as far as I'm concerned, it consists of "does cannabis cause harm?" If the answer's yes, then science won the debate. It doesn't matter what substances you compare it to, or whether you use whatever answer you come to in order to talk about legalisation or not.

Please, feel free to call me simplistic. I take it as a compliment.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

Whatever. Maybe you just don't appreciate moderation. Maybe you would be okay with everyone saying whatever they wish. When you buy Entmoot, or run it, you can make the rules IR, til then, live with it.

Oh but i DO appreciate moderation. I appreciate good fair even handed moderation that doesnt show clear bias. Is that ok or not?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Oh but i DO appreciate moderation. I appreciate good fair even handed moderation that doesnt show clear bias. Is that ok or not?

That's absolutely okay, but I sense you are implying that's not what is happening here. Making a federal issue out of a small moderating call, and being sarcastic by spilling it over into other threads, doesn't exactly make moderators sympathetic to posters that do that and then expect fairness, even handed and unbiased moderating.

[Insidious Rex]

Have you read this whole thread? I stand by my assertion that if you cant mention how bad taking drugs are in another thread how can you possibly justify the celebration of them in many posts in this thread exactly? Just pointing that out... Im not saying you should actually censor this thread too. Im just saying what does that say about uneven approach to moderating. And theres probably hundreds of posts and dozens of threads going way back that would be considered inapropriate by the same measure as was used in the venting thread.

And anyway sgh havent you learned yet to just ignore me when I complain about this stuff by now? Guaranteed that shuts me up faster.

EDIT: and by the way yer supposed to be fair and even no matter if im being an ass or not.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Have you read this whole thread? I stand by my assertion that if you cant mention how bad taking drugs are in another thread how can you possibly justify the celebration of them in many posts in this thread exactly? Just pointing that out... Im not saying you should actually censor this thread too. Im just saying what does that say about uneven approach to moderating. And theres probably hundreds of posts and dozens of threads going way back that would be considered inapropriate by the same measure as was used in the venting thread.

And anyway sgh havent you learned yet to just ignore me when I complain about this stuff by now? Guaranteed that shuts me up faster.

EDIT: and by the way yer supposed to be fair and even no matter if im being an ass or not.

You are making me dizzy going between these two threads. I have read this thread, but it has been a long time ago. It is old and it was only bumped because of what happened in the venting thread. Also, see my last post in the "venting" thread.

My dear Insidious Rex, you have got to be kidding me. I would never ignore you when you complain. Afterall, I love a good argument. Getting the last word is always a challenge.

Now to comment on your edit: Just because you don't think it's fair and even, doesn't mean it isn't. It's just that being an ass doesn't make it easier

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

It is old and it was only bumped because of what happened in the venting thread. Also, see my last post in the "venting" thread.

Actually I bumped it because I saw I didn't tell LC of U thanks.

And because a discussion is old doesn't necessarily mean the topic is dead. If someone had started a new one, surely someone would post that a thread already exists on the subject, provide a link, and slap a padlock on it.

Now, both this and the Venting thread had moved on, but it seems to be brought back to that little issue of a couple days ago. As for the edit... of course its fair and even according to the powers that be. Thats the way it works in messageboarddom. *waves at the hidden forum*

Anyway, enough of that... back on topic.

The trouble with decriminalization is its still illegal, and the trouble with controlling it by legalization, like tobacco and alcohol, is taxation, quality control, and distribution. The issue is not really whether its good or bad for you.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

Actually I bumped it because I saw I didn't tell LC of U thanks.

And because a discussion is old doesn't necessarily mean the topic is dead. If someone had started a new one, surely someone would post that a thread already exists on the subject, provide a link, and slap a padlock on it.

Now, both this and the Venting thread had moved on, but it seems to be brought back to that little issue of a couple days ago. As for the edit... of course its fair and even according to the powers that be. Thats the way it works in messageboarddom. *waves at the hidden forum*

Yes, who keeps bringing that issue back and wanting the last word on it?

Um, I didn't say "that because it was old, the topic was dead."

Actually, this is so minor and even a little silly now, that the hidden forum hasn't had anything to say on it.

Now, yes, back on topic...

[Snowdog]

Originally Posted by Sister Golden Hair

Yes, who keeps bringing that issue back and wanting the last word on it?

Not me

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

the main reason for legalisation could be because i am a progressive libertarian

in other wodrs, live your life, it is your life, if you cock it up, that's your choice, if you make a success of it that is also your choice

words we can all live by

[Snowdog]

... and they are very good words indeed.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

in other wodrs, live your life, it is your life, if you cock it up, that's your choice, if you make a success of it that is also your choice

Just be sure to not drive when you're high (or do anything else where your impaired judgement might harm someone), and don't use publically-funded health services for complications caused by your choice to use the drug.

(IOW, it's not that simple, IMO)

[Halbarad of the Dunedain]

(Just a crazy A$$ rant.... pay no attention and dont be offended)

Weed is no more harmful than a ciggarette! Perhaps even less so by means of actual "poisoning". As for the helucinating effects causing hazards, the consumption of alcohol causes more accidents and hazardes situations than Weed ever has. Two things that are 100% legal in the United States, Ciggarettes and Alcohol are more dangerous then Weed ever could be. If the only reason for making weed outlawd is for the safty of the potential users, i call BullSh*T on anyone who uses that lame cop-out, especially the lame U.S. government(who's U.S. government weed I have smoked on many occasion... damn hypocrites). Furthermore, it is to the individual to decide what he ort she will do with his/her body! This is not 1984, no thought police is gonna tell me I can't kill myself with cancer causing UV rays, or AIDs causing sex, or helucinegenic Weed! The government is not trying to help anyone... they do not have the monopoly on the weed and so they want to keep it out... its all about money and polotics... not about health.

However, I feel that weed should remain outlaw'd! I would much rather blow smoke in the governments face by saying I would break any law you throw at me then follow your misguided rules. It tastes so much sweeter when far enough back there is an underlying F U to the government.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Just be sure to not drive when you're high (or do anything else where your impaired judgement might harm someone), and don't use publically-funded health services for complications caused by your choice to use the drug.

(IOW, it's not that simple, IMO)

well you could transpose all of that onto alcohol, something you can legally take in britain from the age of 5 years (in your own home) or 18 in public

[Lotesse]

Halbarad, Bravo! My sentiments EXACTLY!!!!

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

well you could transpose all of that onto alcohol, something you can legally take in britain from the age of 5 years (in your own home) or 18 in public

People do, especially with cigarettes, but are told it's an incursion on civil liberties.

[The Gaffer]

Halbarad is absolutely right. Well said.

The question of whether society should pick up the tab for our lawbreaking would, to my mind, be a powerful argument in favour of legalisation (with associated regulation and taxation). Why else do you think that tabs and booze are legal?

The tax taken from tabs in the UK is greater than the health costs. These people are also killing themselves younger so they're not taking out their pensions or hanging on for years in some care home, so they indirectly save the state money too.

Meanwhile, the health costs of dope would be negligible, but the tax revenue would be substantial.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

well you could transpose all of that onto alcohol, something you can legally take in britain from the age of 5 years (in your own home) or 18 in public

You certainly could! I'm not saying that pot is the only thing around that's harmful; I'm just saying that IMO it's not as simple as saying "It's their own life, let them do what they want to!" We need to consider each case separately.

[Snowdog]

...its my life and I'll do what I want
its my mind and i'll think what I want
show me I'm wrong, hurt me sometime
but someday I'll treat you real fine...


The trouble is you don't want to affect others.
But why bother a guy who grows and smokes in his own home?
If you are going to use the argument of the public health and money in treatment for an accident that occures while one is high, then it too will apply to you who eat fast food and have health problems, or motorcycle riders who don't wear helmets, etc. Why single out just this one substance?