87 replies to this topic

[Redezra]

Mmm, nah, I disagree. I agree with the people who have scientific knowledge in the field, like doctors, psychologists, you know.... learned people. They tell me, nah, it's a bad. So it's a bad. And then I crack down on it in my favourite way.

Er... by cracking down.

Even if the "learned people" you mention agree that some substances are bad, it doesn't follow that the solution is simple, wouldn't you say? Moreover, it requires a multi-area approach, not just medical, but also e.g. social and political. If we are to be of any help, we should not try to ignore the complexity of the world to match it with our own moral standards (it's been tried before, with catastrophic results), and always beware of wishful thinking...

 

True, the trick is that risk minimisation is also a strategy, and how do you do that? By keeping everything illegal and going after suppliers.

 

The opposition is not clear cut, either. In fact, much of it is based on old cultural prejudices. If you're interested, read Dr. Sanjay Gupta's piece on why he (formerly one of the most outspoken critics of medical marijuana) changed his mind.

 

And no, it's not a mix of "eh don't worry about it" and "no we should not be doing this". Sometimes, Red, you can be a little rigid and dogmatic in your thinking.

 

But we still love you.

 

Medical marijuana. I don't have a problem with medical anything. I have a problem with recreational everything.

Edited by Redezra, 28 July 2015 - 10:08 AM.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

There are plenty of good arguments in favor of recreational marijuana (and alcohol too, for that matter). Happiness and pleasure are good for the soul as well as the body. You have to balance any potential harmful effects against the benefits. I used to think along much the same lines as you, Red. Having grown up in a house full of substance abusers, I was dead set against all of it. It took a long time for me to change my mind. Which is a shame, because there were times in my life when a little marijuana might have helped. Live and learn.

[Redezra]

Given my distinct lack of belief in the "soul", those arguments don't work on me. I'm also strongly against things just for the sake of happiness or pleasure. We have far better things to do with our limited lifespan.

 

Maybe you can see why the benefits are non-existent as far as I'm concerned

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Happiness and pleasure are necessary for our psychological well-being. Psychological well-being is necessary for physical health, productivity, etc. That's all I meant by "soul."

[lennybronx]

why would you not want to drug test cops?

[Redezra]

Happiness and pleasure are necessary for our psychological well-being. Psychological well-being is necessary for physical health, productivity, etc. That's all I meant by "soul."

 

And there are many ways to do that without getting high

[Lord Draculea]

And there are many ways to do that without getting high

I agree. Also, I have some serious doubts about the "productivity" part (except maybe for art). But that's for everyone to find out on his own skin, moral advice won't help too much, even when offered with the best intentions. Like the HIV, the moral values and life experience are not transmittable through verbal communication. And the Prohibition in the 30's didn't work so well either, did it?

[Colt1945]

Cops in NYC where I'm from get hair tested, so they need to quit for a long time just to join. Medicinal is totally okay, I think they should be DT'ed if they'll still arrest people for enjoying it. I believe it should be legal recreationally. We've been raised in a generation of scare tactics. The reality of it is, Alcohol is worse for you in every way. That's a drug that we don't try to control. Even with Marijuana being illegal, it's incredibly easy to get, and the wrong people are making money from it. If the government started taxing and regulating it, there'd be a huge industry and wealth from that.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Happiness and pleasure are necessary for our psychological well-being. Psychological well-being is necessary for physical health, productivity, etc. That's all I meant by "soul."

 

And there are many ways to do that without getting high

 

But that's not what you said. You said you are against things just for the sake of happiness or pleasure. Now you're just making circular arguments.

 

We have far better things to do with our limited lifespan

 

Then why are you wasting your time here? If I didn't know better I'd say you were deriving happiness or pleasure from it. 

[Haflinger]

I do not define it, I leave that up to the medical profession.

It's not a medical term, except insofar as doctors use the term from physics.

It's used in legal contexts in order to purposely be as vague as possible, e.g. "The suspect was arrested, and a noxious substance on his body was impounded for possible use as evidence." What's this noxious substance you say? Well - could be a whole lot of things. That's the point.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

The word "substance" has taken on a vague dual meaning in English, similar to the word "drink." If you ask someone "do you drink?" the answer should always be yes, because everyone drinks something, otherwise they would die. But native English speakers understand that question to mean "do you drink alcohol?" By the same token, "substance," in certain contexts, is taken to mean illegal substances, specifically drugs. It's one of those subtleties of the English language that makes it so hard for non-native speakers to master.

[Haflinger]

Yep, and you can pretty much lay the whole blame for why that is at the feet of cops & lawyers. Mostly lawyers.

[Redezra]

I do not define it, I leave that up to the medical profession.

It's not a medical term, except insofar as doctors use the term from physics.

It's used in legal contexts in order to purposely be as vague as possible, e.g. "The suspect was arrested, and a noxious substance on his body was impounded for possible use as evidence." What's this noxious substance you say? Well - could be a whole lot of things. That's the point.

Well, isn't that interesting.

 

Redezra's plan step 1: Get medical people to define what needs regulating.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

They have defined it. I don't know how it works in Australia, but in the United States there is a detailed schedule of controlled substances. The problem is that a lot of things were put on that list in the 1950s and 1960s and haven't been re-examined since. It is woefully in need of updating.

[slimshadyinc]

Also about the whole research thing you where saying needed to be done to prove the medical benefits.

The problem with the US government is that they are reluctant to change its scheduling from a Class one drug because they demand more research to prove its medical benefits, but yet that same classification makes it very hard to research since its considered completely illegal.

I have to say that the argument that marijuana would be easier for underage people to get if it was legalized recreationally is well, completely stupid. I for one can speak from experience, ask anyone on the street where you can buy some "bud" and they'll give you the number of the local dealer ( if you know how to choose the right person) and when was the last time a drug dealer asked for ID? Dealers also tend to sell harder stuff then weed too, and that's a problem.

Whether you like it or not Redezra people are gonna smoke, people are gonna drink, people will do pot and some people will do harder drugs then that. Wouldn't you prefer that people can obtain it in a safe manner and be able to do it in the safety of their homes? Collect taxes from it and offer people help if they need it? It sounds much better then getting it on the streets where the money will only go to cartels who use it to inflict violence.

Edited by slimshadyinc, 30 July 2015 - 04:42 PM.

[Redezra]

Also about the whole research thing you where saying needed to be done to prove the medical benefits.

The problem with the US government is that they are reluctant to change its scheduling from a Class one drug because they demand more research to prove its medical benefits, but yet that same classification makes it very hard to research since its considered completely illegal.

I have to say that the argument that marijuana would be easier for underage people to get if it was legalized recreationally is well, completely stupid. I for one can speak from experience, ask anyone on the street where you can buy some "bud" and they'll give you the number of the local dealer ( if you know how to choose the right person) and when was the last time a drug dealer asked for ID? Dealers also tend to sell harder stuff then weed too, and that's a problem.

Whether you like it or not Redezra people are gonna smoke, people are gonna drink, people will do pot and some people will do harder drugs then that. Wouldn't you prefer that people can obtain it in a safe manner and be able to do it in the safety of their homes? Collect taxes from it and offer people help if they need it? It sounds much better then getting it on the streets where the money will only go to cartels who use it to inflict violence.

 

Nope, I'd prefer it is risky, more often than not dangerous, and that dealers are hunted like the criminal scum they are. Pretty much like we are now, minus the legalisation of mj for you guys.

 

Because that makes it far less glamorous and minimises the risks involved for people that aren't users

 

Oh also, the fact that anyone can get access to a dealer with ease proves to me that our system isn't trying hard enough. No we don't have to stomp it down completely, but we do need to make it a scary and risky proposition. It's one of the reasons I find it very hard to completely discard mass surveillance as a legitimate strategy out of hand.

[Haflinger]

Yep, the legal term is usually controlled substance. However while there is kind of a definition for it... well the definition can be rather arguable. However the list of things that are deemed to match the definition is not arguable, in court anyway, which is where you get all the politics getting into ti.

 

Actually several lists usually. For example, in the U.S., you have Schedule I, II, III, IV and V substances, each with a different definition and different rules applying to it. And some really wacky decisions about what goes where.
 
For example, marijuana is on Schedule I along with DMT, heroin and LSD. These are defined as drugs with no medical use which cannot be prescribed by a doctor or used in medical research.
 
Meanwhile, cocaine, morphine and Adderall are on Schedule II. So they can be prescribed.
 
That's right, kids: Mary Jane is worse than cocaine. These people are dumb.
 
US Controlled Substances Act information from wikipedia.

[slimshadyinc]

Redezra your idea of mass surveillance is truly what is scary to me. I don't need no government up my butt!

[Redezra]

Yep, the legal term is usually controlled substance. However while there is kind of a definition for it... well the definition can be rather arguable. However the list of things that are deemed to match the definition is not arguable, in court anyway, which is where you get all the politics getting into ti.

 

Actually several lists usually. For example, in the U.S., you have Schedule I, II, III, IV and V substances, each with a different definition and different rules applying to it. And some really wacky decisions about what goes where.
 
For example, marijuana is on Schedule I along with DMT, heroin and LSD. These are defined as drugs with no medical use which cannot be prescribed by a doctor or used in medical research.
 
Meanwhile, cocaine, morphine and Adderall are on Schedule II. So they can be prescribed.
 
That's right, kids: Mary Jane is worse than cocaine. These people are dumb.
 
US Controlled Substances Act information from wikipedia.

 

Okay I can agree with that. That is a dumb policy.

 

Redezra your idea of mass surveillance is truly what is scary to me. I don't need no government up my butt!

 

I don't like it either, but people refuse to just be good little boys and girls

The generally selfish, greed based decisions people tend to make mandates that something else be up your butt. If everyone stopped that, we wouldn't even need a government.

[slimshadyinc]

But what do you do when the government itself is selfish and greedy?