Weed has quite a few benefits (see medical cannabis) and LSD can be used in therapy to help deal with repressed memories and addiction Which is, of course, why high school kids buy acid... to deal w/ repressed memories. I may not agree, but I can at least respect people who bring the truth... the general push for legal drugs is not for things like repressed memories and glaucoma. People want to get high. That's the truth. They want to get H-I-G-H. Don't obfuscate with disingenuous medical arguments that quite frankly apply to only a fraction of a fraction of those who take recreational drugs.:lol: It's rare that I agree with dsm.....but this made me laugh...and he's right. Only reason drugs are used recreationally....which is the reason people want legalization is to get high.
Drugs should be legalized. It would defund organized crime, free up tax money that could be used for more productive purposes, and greatly reduce the incarceration rate. Drug prohibition creates a ton of problems and really doesn't solve anything.
You seem to be very confused. Alcohol has a number of proven medicinal benefits, and drugs have saved the lives of millions over the years.
thegerg
Still using that confused line, huh? You seem to be incredibly disingenuous. The medical benefits are pretty small when compared with the catastrophic damage that alcohol does to millions, and the collateral damage to others by drinkers. The medical benefits only come to those who drink in moderation, which a) sadly alcohol itself impedes one's ability to do that very thing, that is be moderate; and b) the disease of alcoholism doesn't allow for any possible health benefit. 17.6 million Americans suffer from alcoholism and alcohol related problems. You seem to be confused. I am not disingenuous. Simply because some abuse alcohol does not mean that there are proven health benefits from its use. Using your line of logic we should campaign against the use of cars. They are beneficial to some, but catastrophic to others. Give me a break. You seem to be disingenuous. A bit more than "some" abuse alcohol. 17.6 million in America alone constitute more than "some." For your second "point", that would only be my line of logic if cars caused rampant addiction, and chemically impeded one's ability to know when to stop. Stop drinking, stop drinking and driving, stop beating, stop... well, you get the point. And btw, you have been misinformed: there is no prize for using poor analogies in GS.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Weed has quite a few benefits (see medical cannabis) and LSD can be used in therapy to help deal with repressed memories and addiction
thegerg
Which is, of course, why high school kids buy acid... to deal w/ repressed memories. I may not agree, but I can at least respect people who bring the truth... the general push for legal drugs is not for things like repressed memories and glaucoma. People want to get high. That's the truth. They want to get H-I-G-H. Don't obfuscate with disingenuous medical arguments that quite frankly apply to only a fraction of a fraction of those who take recreational drugs. Do you have anything to back up those statistics? Even if some do just want to get high, so what? Why not let them smoke a little weed? Why do you have such an issue with others using drugs? Maybe it's time for you to grow up and stop worrying so much about what others do, and start thinking about yourself. You... want me to provide statistics to prove that all legalize proponents don't want pot to deal with repressed memories. No, you're right. I don't have non-existent statistics to prove a negative. I also don't have statistics to show that every obese person in America uses Dr. Pepper and Twinkies to deal with their dangerously low blood sugar. You did make me laugh, though. First time I've heard someone who want legal access to their fix telling someone else (sanctimoniously) to grow up. Awesome.
I don't just mean marijuana, I mean ALL (cocaine, heroin etc.). I say yes, the war on drugs doesn't do anything it just distracts police officers from doing police work that matters. People are going to do drugs no matter what and this shouldn't mean they should be placed on the same level of rapists and robbers. Also if we move all drug trafficing to certain areas of a city we can attempt to sanitize drug use and help the users instead of throwing them away as "scum of society." But hey that's just me.
lex_in_the_moon
lol are you ******* serious? as if society isnt bad enough these days when the **** is illegal..just imagine what it would be like if it was legalised.
and also mate the drug users who you say shouldnt be compared to rapist and robbers actually are rapist,robbers and murderers who have an addiction to drugs.
Drugs should be legalized. It would defund organized crime, free up tax money that could be used for more productive purposes, and greatly reduce the incarceration rate. Drug prohibition creates a ton of problems and really doesn't solve anything. -Sun_Tzu-
Crime will never go away. When Prohibition ended the criminals didn't go away. They just switched to different crimes.
Do you have anything to back up those statistics? Even if some do just want to get high, so what? Why not let them smoke a little weed? Why do you have such an issue with others using drugs? Maybe it's time for you to grow up and stop worrying so much about what others do, and start thinking about yourself.thegerg
You... want me to provide statistics to prove that all legalize proponents don't want pot to deal with repressed memories. No, you're right. I don't have non-existent statistics to prove a negative. I also don't have statistics to show that every obese person in America uses Dr. Pepper and Twinkies to deal with their dangerously low blood sugar. You did make me laugh, though. First time I've heard someone who want legal access to their fix telling someone else (sanctimoniously) to grow up. Awesome. No, I am simply asking you to support your claim about "medical arguments that quite frankly apply to only a fraction of a fraction of those who take recreational drugs." I am just curious about where you got that "fraction of a fraction" figure. Tell me, is this a debating excercise for you, or do you actually believe that most marijuana users do so for medical reasons? And do you have studies to prove THAT?
[QUOTE="thegerg"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] You... want me to provide statistics to prove that all legalize proponents don't want pot to deal with repressed memories. No, you're right. I don't have non-existent statistics to prove a negative. I also don't have statistics to show that every obese person in America uses Dr. Pepper and Twinkies to deal with their dangerously low blood sugar. You did make me laugh, though. First time I've heard someone who want legal access to their fix telling someone else (sanctimoniously) to grow up. Awesome.
dsmccracken
No, I am simply asking you to support your claim about "medical arguments that quite frankly apply to only a fraction of a fraction of those who take recreational drugs." I am just curious about where you got that "fraction of a fraction" figure. Tell me, is this a debating excercise for you, or do you actually believe that most marijuana users do so for medical reasons? And do you have studies to prove THAT? Yeah, all users do it for medical purposes. To feel medically good, that is.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="thegerg"] No, I am simply asking you to support your claim about "medical arguments that quite frankly apply to only a fraction of a fraction of those who take recreational drugs." I am just curious about where you got that "fraction of a fraction" figure.Diophage
Tell me, is this a debating excercise for you, or do you actually believe that most marijuana users do so for medical reasons? And do you have studies to prove THAT? Yeah, all users do it for medical purposes. To feel medically good, that is.Define medically good.....cause I'd imagine that means healthy.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Drugs should be legalized. It would defund organized crime, free up tax money that could be used for more productive purposes, and greatly reduce the incarceration rate. Drug prohibition creates a ton of problems and really doesn't solve anything. LJS9502_basic
Crime will never go away. When Prohibition ended the criminals didn't go away. They just switched to different crimes.He never said it would end crime :|
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Drugs should be legalized. It would defund organized crime, free up tax money that could be used for more productive purposes, and greatly reduce the incarceration rate. Drug prohibition creates a ton of problems and really doesn't solve anything. toast_burner
Crime will never go away. When Prohibition ended the criminals didn't go away. They just switched to different crimes.He never said it would end crime :|Uh huh.....he's implying positive benefits will definitely occur. History has not shown that to be the case. But for the record.....I never restated his post. I merely pointed out that crime will continue and those ideas will not come to pass. Because I disagree with the assessment he gave does not mean I credited him with statements he did not make. I made a counter to the idea of rainbows and sunshine. :|
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Tell me, is this a debating excercise for you, or do you actually believe that most marijuana users do so for medical reasons? And do you have studies to prove THAT?LJS9502_basic
Yeah, all users do it for medical purposes. To feel medically good, that is.Define medically good.....cause I'd imagine that means healthy. Well, like, medically high. In a good way, though.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="thegerg"] No, I am simply asking you to support your claim about "medical arguments that quite frankly apply to only a fraction of a fraction of those who take recreational drugs." I am just curious about where you got that "fraction of a fraction" figure.thegerg
Tell me, is this a debating excercise for you, or do you actually believe that most marijuana users do so for medical reasons? And do you have studies to prove THAT? At what point have I said anything that would lead you to believe that I think most marijuana users do so for medical reasons?
Again: Do you have anything to back up those statistics?
You must be very confused. You don't dispute, but want stats. What reason would you possibly want stats, unless you dispute it? Do you normally assign people homework for no reason? If I made the following comment: "people who eat candies enjoy sweets", would you demand proof of that to?
Here's what I think. I think that you are asking, NOT because you don't agree, but because you think you're scoring some kind of point. Don't be that guy. Don't be the guy that won't stipulate something evident on it's face in order to be interwebs-clever.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Drugs should be legalized. It would defund organized crime, free up tax money that could be used for more productive purposes, and greatly reduce the incarceration rate. Drug prohibition creates a ton of problems and really doesn't solve anything. LJS9502_basic
Crime will never go away. When Prohibition ended the criminals didn't go away. They just switched to different crimes. using a substance that harms no one else should not be a "crime" that you can be punished for
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Drugs should be legalized. It would defund organized crime, free up tax money that could be used for more productive purposes, and greatly reduce the incarceration rate. Drug prohibition creates a ton of problems and really doesn't solve anything. mingmao3046
Crime will never go away. When Prohibition ended the criminals didn't go away. They just switched to different crimes. using a substance that harms no one else should not be a "crime" that you can be punished for So you're good with banning it, as long as users don't get arrested?
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Crime will never go away. When Prohibition ended the criminals didn't go away. They just switched to different crimes. using a substance that harms no one else should not be a "crime" that you can be punished for So you're good with banning it, as long as users don't get arrested? better than nothing, but it should all be legal ideally.
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"]so what if they want to get high? getting high is a victimless crimedsmccracken
You mean except for the long term side effects on the user? same could be said for fast food...and your implying that they are a chronic user. there are plenty of weekend warrior drug users in this country.
[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]Drugs should be legalized. It would defund organized crime, free up tax money that could be used for more productive purposes, and greatly reduce the incarceration rate. Drug prohibition creates a ton of problems and really doesn't solve anything. LJS9502_basic
Crime will never go away. When Prohibition ended the criminals didn't go away. They just switched to different crimes. Bingo. We just need to exterminate the riff raff.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"]so what if they want to get high? getting high is a victimless crimemingmao3046
You mean except for the long term side effects on the user? same could be said for fast food...and your implying that they are a chronic user. there are plenty of weekend warrior drug users in this country. So they should be banned for all but weekend warriors. How do we enforce that?
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] You mean except for the long term side effects on the user? same could be said for fast food...and your implying that they are a chronic user. there are plenty of weekend warrior drug users in this country. So they should be banned for all but weekend warriors. How do we enforce that? we dont, you cant and shouldnt try and protect people from themselves. its a ridiculous concept that never works and goes against personal freedom
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] same could be said for fast food...and your implying that they are a chronic user. there are plenty of weekend warrior drug users in this country. So they should be banned for all but weekend warriors. How do we enforce that? we dont, you cant and shouldnt try and protect people from themselves. its a ridiculous concept that never works and goes against personal freedom People are stupid and need protection from themselves. Its a concept that will bring peace
[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] So they should be banned for all but weekend warriors. How do we enforce that? we dont, you cant and shouldnt try and protect people from themselves. its a ridiculous concept that never works and goes against personal freedom People are stupid and need protection from themselves. Its a concept that will bring peace not sure if serious or not
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] we dont, you cant and shouldnt try and protect people from themselves. its a ridiculous concept that never works and goes against personal freedom People are stupid and need protection from themselves. Its a concept that will bring peace not sure if serious or not Dead serious. There are a lot of morons. Someones gotta watch their backs
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] same could be said for fast food...and your implying that they are a chronic user. there are plenty of weekend warrior drug users in this country.mingmao3046
So they should be banned for all but weekend warriors. How do we enforce that? we dont, you cant and shouldnt try and protect people from themselves. its a ridiculous concept that never works and goes against personal freedom Let me try repeating that, but either stating the opposite or at least drastically changing it:
"We do, can and should protect people from themselves. It is an obvious concept that saves lives and goes towards a sensible society."
[QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="Capitan_Kid"] People are stupid and need protection from themselves. Its a concept that will bring peace not sure if serious or not Dead serious. There are a lot of morons. Someones gotta watch their backs uhh no. if people arent responsible for themselves then they are going to screw up one way or another. we cant take away freedoms from responsibles just because some dumbasses ruin it for everyone
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] So they should be banned for all but weekend warriors. How do we enforce that?dsmccracken
we dont, you cant and shouldnt try and protect people from themselves. its a ridiculous concept that never works and goes against personal freedom Let me try repeating that, but either stating the opposite or at least drastically changing it:
"We do, can and should protect people from themselves. It is an obvious concept that saves lives and goes towards a sensible society."
Yup, that sounds about right.
again, this goes against personal responsibility. you have to be responsible for yourself. if you cant understand this then im done. cant argue with ignorant people.
[QUOTE="thegerg"] At what point have I said anything that would lead you to believe that I think most marijuana users do so for medical reasons?
Again: Do you have anything to back up those statistics?
thegerg
You must be very confused. You don't dispute, but want stats. What reason would you possibly want stats, unless you dispute it? Do you normally assign people homework for no reason? If I made the following comment: "people who eat candies enjoy sweets", would you demand proof of that to?
Here's what I think. I think that you are asking, NOT because you don't agree, but because you think you're scoring some kind of point. Don't be that guy. Don't be the guy that won't stipulate something evident on it's face in order to be interwebs-clever.
You seem to be confused. At no point have I said I don't dispute your unsupported "fraction of a fraction" figure. Are you able to support such a claim or not? You seem to be deeply, desperately confused. You don't dispute and you don't not dispute. What exactly do you believe? Is the sentence fraction of a fraction actually a figure? Is this demand an attempt to avoid real discussion by focusing on semantics?
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"] we dont, you cant and shouldnt try and protect people from themselves. its a ridiculous concept that never works and goes against personal freedommingmao3046
Let me try repeating that, but either stating the opposite or at least drastically changing it:
"We do, can and should protect people from themselves. It is an obvious concept that saves lives and goes towards a sensible society."
Yup, that sounds about right.
again, this goes against personal responsibility. you have to be responsible for yourself. if you cant understand this then im done. cant argue with ignorant people. I don't feel very ignorant. I'm certainly not ignorant of the fact that people often aren't very responsible, and using personal responsibility as the basis of an argument ignores the fundamental flaws in human nature, and the realities of the human experience. Are you ignorant of that?
[QUOTE="mingmao3046"][QUOTE="dsmccracken"] Let me try repeating that, but either stating the opposite or at least drastically changing it:
"We do, can and should protect people from themselves. It is an obvious concept that saves lives and goes towards a sensible society."
Yup, that sounds about right.
dsmccracken
again, this goes against personal responsibility. you have to be responsible for yourself. if you cant understand this then im done. cant argue with ignorant people. I don't feel very ignorant. I'm certainly not ignorant of the fact that people often aren't very responsible, and using personal responsibility as the basis of an argument ignores the fundamental flaws in human nature, and the realities of the human experience. Are you ignorant of that? the government isnt there to protect everyone from cradle to grave. its there to establish freedom and security. but when you take away freedoms because some people might abuse them, that is just out of line. im done here. have fun with your ignorance. if you live in america i suggest you leave, as this is supposed to be land of the free. maybe you'll find china more to your liking.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="thegerg"]You seem to be confused. At no point have I said I don't dispute your unsupported "fraction of a fraction" figure. Are you able to support such a claim or not?thegerg
You seem to be deeply, desperately confused. You don't dispute and you don't not dispute. What exactly do you believe? Is the sentence fraction of a fraction actually a figure? Is this demand an attempt to avoid real discussion by focusing on semantics? You seem to be confused. You've made a number of different claims in this thread. One was that only a fraction of a fraction of marijuana users do so for medical reasons. Another claim was that a majority of useres do so for nonmedical reacons. I have disputed one, not the other. Go back and reread the thread if you need to. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. As for what I believe, I believe that adults should have legal access to mariuana for recreational and medicinal uses, just as they have access to other drugs likealcohol and aspirin (both of which kill more people every year than marijuana has ever killed). I'm a fan of freedom and accountability. You seem to be genuinely confused. In fact, your confusion has reached a new level. You have never disputed the fraction comment, only asked for evidence of a number.... very confused, since a number was never given. If you believe that most users are recreational as opposed to medical, then by definition you believe that they constitute a fraction. You suggest I reread the thread, but it seems that your reading and comprehension skills could use a bit of a refresher themselves. You say that I don't know what I'm talking about directly after agreeing with me... which by definition would necessarily mean that you don't know what you're talking about. You seem to be very confused indeed. Saying you're a fan of freedom is easy, Americans will always give you a pat on the back. Admitting that accountability is in rare supply and that human nature requires some constraint is less popular, but obviously necessary.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="mingmao3046"] again, this goes against personal responsibility. you have to be responsible for yourself. if you cant understand this then im done. cant argue with ignorant people.mingmao3046
I don't feel very ignorant. I'm certainly not ignorant of the fact that people often aren't very responsible, and using personal responsibility as the basis of an argument ignores the fundamental flaws in human nature, and the realities of the human experience. Are you ignorant of that? the government isnt there to protect everyone from cradle to grave. its there to establish freedom and security. but when you take away freedoms because some people might abuse them, that is just out of line. im done here. have fun with your ignorance. if you live in america i suggest you leave, as this is supposed to be land of the free. maybe you'll find china more to your liking. The government isn't there to protect you? What do you call the military? If the government didn't protect you, maybe you'd be under Chinese rule right now!
The war on drugs is a huge failure. Some drugs destroy lives, other are less harmful than boozebut still illegal. By legalizing drugs you one gain revenue through taxation and secondly take money out of the pockets of the drug cartels.
[QUOTE="dsmccracken"][QUOTE="thegerg"] You seem to be confused. You've made a number of different claims in this thread. One was that only a fraction of a fraction of marijuana users do so for medical reasons. Another claim was that a majority of useres do so for nonmedical reacons. I have disputed one, not the other. Go back and reread the thread if you need to. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about. As for what I believe, I believe that adults should have legal access to mariuana for recreational and medicinal uses, just as they have access to other drugs likealcohol and aspirin (both of which kill more people every year than marijuana has ever killed). I'm a fan of freedom and accountability.
thegerg
You seem to be genuinely confused. In fact, your confusion has reached a new level. You have never disputed the fraction comment, only asked for evidence of a number.... very confused, since a number was never given. If you believe that most users are recreational as opposed to medical, then by definition you believe that they constitute a fraction. You suggest I reread the thread, but it seems that your reading and comprehension skills could use a bit of a refresher themselves. You say that I don't know what I'm talking about directly after agreeing with me... which by definition would necessarily mean that you don't know what you're talking about. You seem to be very confused indeed. Saying you're a fan of freedom is easy, Americans will always give you a pat on the back. Admitting that accountability is in rare supply and that human nature requires some constraint is less popular, but obviously necessary. TheYou seem to be confused. The "fraction of a fraction" term is used to imply a very small portion, not a lieral fraction. If that were the case then I would be correct in saying a fraction of a fraction of marijuana users use it just for recreation and not medicinal reasons. What you still seem to be confused about is that simply because I am disputing one of your unsupported statements (because you still have yet to provide any evidence) does not mean that I may not agree with you on other statements or that I agree with all your statements. You really do have no clue what you're talking about, huh? I certainly do agree that human nature requires restraint and we must, at times, hold others accountable if they wont do so themselves. This doesn't mean, though, that it is reasonable to disallow adults from smoking marijuana any more than it is reasonable to disallow those adults from eating hamburgers or taking aspirin.
Your confusion is baffling. Your first sentence means that you agree with me, yet here we are three pages later after consistently implying that you don't. Time well spent.
Your second sentence renews your point that I have provided no evidence that a recreational drug is mainly used recreationally. Congratulations? "I agree with you, but please provide evidence that sugar is sweet." Well done, on perfecting the art of being "that guy."
I don't know anything about the dangers of aspirin. Perhaps it should be banned. I don't know why you've raised this twice... perhaps you think I'm a big aspirin defender. Weird. These don't equate in any but the most disconnected of ways. And burgers... perhaps you mean because burgers can be unhealthy? Maybe. But they differ in one fundamental way that ruins any true comparison: burgers give us something we absolutely require (protein), while pot gives us nothing we can't live without.
.
Log in to comment