Look up Salvia divinorum Its a more potent "psychoactive compound" than marijuana why is it legal in majority of states. This argument is flawed because it argues the immorality of all substances that affect your mind. This argument should be about regulation of the substance. Read up on the Controlled Substances Act, and amendment to this act will determine how it is regulated (prescription only, or over the counter) I personally think marijuana can be treated the same way as any opioid substance.
WHAT IS SOFT DRUG? How can you have infinite definitions of the word drug? A Drug is a drug - a substance that is used as a medicine or narcotic. You cant argue that it is by definition different from any other drug, I am not talking about its effects, I am talking about what it is by definition!
Actually, I read every page. Yes, I know you said you are for weed being legal, and that you don't smoke. It's fairly obvious that you are the exception here. If there were a poll here, I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the people that are for drug use, already use drugs, and vice versa. That isn't going to change. Even if this thread hits 1000 pages, it will be the same pointless debate. Neither side is going to budge. I did find it funny that so many people are saying that the only reason that it is illegal in the US is a conspiracy within the government. However, its also illegal in over 190 other countries in the world. I wonder if they all conspired to ban it as well? :wanker: This thread could go for a year, and it would be the same re-hashing of opinions and one-sided views over and over.
WHAT IS AN SUV? How can you have infinite definitions of the word car? A car is a car - a vehicle that is used for transportation of goods or persons. You can't argue that it is by definition different from any other car. I am not talking about its capabilities, I am talking about what it is by definition! I could do the same thing with animals or plants, y'know. Oh, and: [LINK]
Absolutely. What's your point? Because I know his. He was simply implying that for our discussion here you can't break the word drug or substance down into different levels and then try and treat them differently. The thread title mentions Marijuana, but if you've been reading the thread you'll see this thread discusses an issue that encompasses much more than just one substance. So because he has 20 posts you're going to disregard him and not take him seriously? Not everyone practices being a post whore ya know. Post count and post content are two different concepts.
I know, I know... Maieutics hardly work, especially on newcomers. Still, I like doin' it. I have been reading this thread. Reading and posting are two different things, y'know. Anyway, my point was that human beings break things down in order to classify them. [LINK] All drugs don't involve the same risks when it comes to dependence and physical harm, ergo they are classified into more than one category.
Says who? I would like to see a study showing that long-term marijuana use in moderation has a negative net effect.
You don't understand, I don't accept your premise that legalization would increase usage by any statistically significant amount. Would a few people try it, no longer fearing punishment? Probably. Would it make a difference large scale? No freaking way. You're trying to use this "common sense" argument that doesn't hold water. Common sense would tell me no one would ever do any of these hard drugs, knowing what we know, but they do anyway. Common sense doesn't apply here. Do you really think the chance of getting arrested keeps people from buying heroin? Or do you think people don't buy heroin because they realize if you do it, you will die. As I said, all of these drugs are readily available. Where I live, it's behind the bowling alley. I can go back there tonight and pick up pot. I would tell any family members of people who died from using 'X' drug that their family member made some dumb ****ing decisions that killed him. But they were his decisions to make, not your's. What would you tell them? "I'm sorry, we've done everything we can: We branded it illegal, we stop about 5% of what comes into the country, and we told him it was bad, sorry" Because the exact same conversation would happen, legal or not. If someone wants to do heroin, they're gonna do heroin. Because people die from harder drugs, regardless of its legality. The flow into the country is barely slowed, nevermind controlled. Do you really think there are people out there that go "Man, I would really like to try heroin, but ****, it's illegal, no way I can go buy something that's illegal."? Of course no one does that, if they want it, they buy it, and then they die from it. But those are their mistakes to make. EDIT: Hell, if you really wanna make a difference, use the money that is currently used to pathetically stem the tide of drugs coming into the country and spend it on public, completely free, rehab programs. Anyone comes in, no questions asked, and gets a place to stay while they clean up. 15 billion dollars can buy rehab for a lot of people.
Yes, and history has shown that the sorts of things that should not be regulated are things that affect only the person(s) directly and intentionally involved in them. Regulating those is called legislative morality, which has been proven time and time again in america, ever since the Puritans really, to be a bad idea. Here's an example that has probably been brought up a dozen times in this thread: so alcohol can cause aggression and impairs motor skills, making driving dangerous and potentially causing fights that wouldn't otherwise happen. Do you ban alcohol? No, we tried that, with very bad results. Instead, we ban assault, and drunk driving, and domestic abuse, so that those people who want to have a glass of wine with dinner or go out and have a few drinks can do so, but those who are endangering others will face consequences. Long term moderate-heavy consumption of alcohol can indeed cause significant damage to your body, addiction, and many emotional problems but it isn't banned because damage to yourself is a personal choice (within reason, I'm not saying we should legalize meth or anything) that affects no one but you, and is thus outside the jurisdiction of the government It's the same with weed, though I would argue that weed has almost none of the above side-effects, apart from maybe motor skill impairment. I would also like to say that that **** about weed being a "gateway drug" is such bull****, it's a gateway to other drugs because it's illegal. The kinds of people that are willing to smoke weed happen to also be the kinds of people who are willing to break the law, because it's illegal. It's not about wanting a harder, stronger high, the kinds of highs you get from other drugs are completely different than the high you get from weed. So the solution is to make it legal, and it will no longer be a "gateway," any more than cigarettes or alcohol.
Dont confuse a word by definition and categories. Dont make be go mikespeed on you... First of all your SUV comment is totally irrelevant because its a category of vehicles in fact its not even a car its an SUV. If you said something like "What is a coupe or sedan?" that would have been more relevant... but even then they are categories of cars. Even if you try to argue that marijuana is in some way not a drug like heroin or etc., you are only categorizing DRUGS by type. When you address marijuana dont you call it a drug? So define Soft Drug? So back to my questions how many definitions of the word drug do have? P.S. I dont compare E.P. to the intelligence of a person, trolls do that.
I've already said my piece several times throughout this thread, but I want to bring something to light. Does anyone here watch the show intervention? I watch it weekly and find it to be a very good example of what people just like you and I are addicted to. Obviously it is no gauge over every addiction out there, but it does give you at least some perspective as to what people can become addicted to. So far I have watched I would say 80% of the episodes since it began in March 2005. What I found was that the majority of users were addicted to the following drugs: Alcohol Heroine Cocaine Mescalin Opiates such as Oxycontin Inhalants such as air duster (wtf man) and Painkillers of ALL types. Now in all this time watching this show, I have heard the word "marijuana" maybe a handful of times. Each of these times it was in answer to the question "what kind of drugs have you done". Maybe you can see where I'm going with this.. I have yet to see someone go to an intervention because "we think you smoke too much weed and its ruining your quality of life". Never have I heard "if you keep on smoking weed at this rate you will eventually suffer serious trauma and can die". Never have I heard "the only way you will come clean is if you enroll in 90+ days treatment". Again, I know its a show and cannot be used as any sort of measuring stick.. the point I'm trying to make is that people are addicted to all sorts of stuff.. mostly though, over the counter medications and alcohol, which are legal, are responsible for the bulk of addiction in North America. This is a fact so whether you want to beleive it or not is your call.. facts are facts though. If you can round up even a dozen people who have damaged their bodies and minds, who spend hundreds a day to feed their marijuana habit, who have burdened their families and friends and who cannot cut an addiction to marijuana, I will eat my hat!
Though your information is useful and I agree with it, we are not talking about marijuana addiction, and I dont think anyone tries to justify its legality due to addiction. I think most people here dont know what the argument is... Its not over a drug, its over the legality issue of the drug. We are not arguing the drug or what it does to you, we are arguing why the government should / should not make it legal, and how they should regulate it. But dont listen to me I only have 22 posts on this forum, and I cant make a valid argument according to some people
But they skip this part of the argument, which I think is the crux of it, by accepting the premise that drugs should be regulated. Once they accept that, they have to reason "why" which is why you're seeing a lot of justifications of "why" and not "that" we should regulate it, if you understand my meaning. It is as if most of the people have simply accepted that regulation is a must, and the only way to protect people from themselves, and further that people should be protected from their mistakes and choices by a governing body. The real problem is that last bit, you can give reasons for "why" you want to legislate control of marijuana, but no one has sufficiently shown me that it is reasonable for the government to legislate decision making, and by extension, regret.
A'ight, a'ight, SUV's might not be cars, but they're still vehicles, right? We got hyponyms and hypernyms no matter what language we speak... just deal with it. A soft drug is "a drug that is minimally addictive and that involves less dangers," and if my knowledge does not fail me, marijuana is less dangerous than heroin, which is categorized as a hard drug, right? As for the number of definitions... [LINK] I'll let you do the math. P.S.: You got a problem with proFits, not me.
Because of control freaks and profit. Really, what an insane world we live in where a bloody plant can get you thrown in jail...even worse are the mindless zombies that support it. Im pro legalization and regulation of ALL drugs, as long as your drug use does not cause harm to anyone i don't think the state or anyone else has the right to dictate to you on such matters, if you cross that line then they have every right to step in. There will always be idiots in the world who are not responsible or rational whether it comes to drug use or anything else.
