This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Legalizing marijuana?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Furthermore I said I'm capable of working after a night of smoking and your point was that there'd be lower productivity if marijuana was legalised. As you said: "you might avoid drinking if you know you need to go to work the next day, so you'll smoke to get your kicks instead". So if there are people who do currently go to work with hangovers who (like me) don't get them from weed, productivity could rise. N'est-ce pas?
What makes you think that people who go to work with hangovers will change their habits just because weed is available?
If you can demonstrate that, across the population, the day after a night smoking will have no ill effects on productivity, I'd believe you. But most of the (properly conducted) research studies out there suggest otherwise, and demonstrate slower cognitive processes up to 24 hours after smoking. Being 'fine' and being at 100% are two different things.
"Not refuting every point presented" != Strawman. However accusing someone of a logical fallacy as a means of avoiding addressing their rebuttal is.
You refuted individual points. The lack of rebuttal on the rest implies that you're accepting those. That's not strawman, that's me attempting to score 'debate points' for the rest.
Never experienced this from marijuana, have from other substances though.
Psych research says that this is a physiological reaction. Whether you perceive it or not from your usage doesn't take away from the fact it happens.
Seeing as marijuana is a muscle relaxant, feeling uncomfortable after an extended period of relaxation is unsurprising and is akin to ceasing a dose of an actual drug as I mentioned in the previous post. Seeing as marijuana cures headaches for me I'm tempted to say the same of that but it doesn't for everybody so I can't be sure.
See above comment on physiological reactions. The feeling after withdrawing from marijuana is a worse state than you would have been had you never taken anything for it in the first place.
* slow thinking, talking
* stoned-like abstract thinking, impatience with or annoyance at linear thinking
Not sure if you didn't get around to responding to these? Or if that's just an ironic statement :P
Oh, so all Police and federal law enforcement officers are volunteers and don't use any government funds and lawyers and judges who prosecute criminals are volunteers too? Here I was thinking that money came from the public via taxes, well I'll be damned.
So by reducing drug crime, all these people will be out of a job, and that helps the economy, amiright?
No really, what's your point?
You missed the other point: You can get it now, very simply. Making it legal only increases the availability of it.
The fact that it's illegal adds a cost to its procurement (i.e. risk that you get caught and jailed). Making it legal only reduces its cost relatively, allowing people who previously thought that going to jail is too expensive to access it.
I had a 8 month break from it in 2009 and a 4 month break over Christmas, that's plenty of time for withdrawal to kick in in both cases.
"You're not smoking enough to have withdrawal problems."
I can go without alcohol for 8 months and not have withdrawal problems. By your argument, that means alcohol isn't addictive.
If I didn't smoke enough to get addicted, I question whether anyone on my income level could.
How much did you smoke, pray tell?
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I don't think the government should have any say in what you can and can't do to your own body so long as you don't hurt anyone.
Read it in context - donny and I were discussing that earlier. I fully agree with that statement, except that the existence of welfare means that you screwing up your own life means other people have to pay for you. By definition, that means that you're 'hurting' others.
You can sum up my position as follows:
1. It's ok for people to screw up their lives as long as there's no welfare system for those who do.
2. We need to have a welfare system to be an attractive, developed nation that encourages good people to migrate and/or stay.
3. Therefore, it's not ok for people to screw up their lives, because we're required to have the welfare system.
It doesn't matter how they screw up their lives, be it through gambling, drinking, smoking cigarettes / pot or attempted suicide. If we have a welfare state, we should be aiming to reduce the damage that they can do to themselves, because it costs too much to the rest of the population otherwise.Okay, how about you put a tax on the sale of marijuana that goes directly into welfare for drug users?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
wolfeyoung
For me, I believe that pot is less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol. I believe that it is less harmful than gambling.
I feel that if you took a person that smoked pot every day of their life and compared them to a person that ate McDonalds every OTHER day of their life, the pothead would be ten-times healthier in every respect (physical and mental).
Of all the harmful stuff out there that a person can get involved in, pot ranks at the bottom end.
Edit: a comment on the withdraw issue. I feel that pot does have withdraw issues, BUT so does nearly anything else you do a lot. People that drink soda pop everyday will feel a form of withdraw if they go a while without a drink. The notion of withdraw is very subjective. However, in comparing pot "withdraw" to say, crack-cocaine withdraw, pot is nowhere even in the ball park.
Post by
Orranis
So can anybody who's got drugs destroying their life, if you think about it. Now I have a bad feeling this is going to sink into freewill vs. determinism, but I believe that anybody who doesn't have the willpower to stop them from destroying themselves could be considered mentally ill. I guess it depends on your definition.
Missed this.
When I say mentally ill, I mean has a physical condition with the brain (anorexia is shown to be connected to the brain and your genetics).
Obesity and Diabetes are VERY heavily based in your genes.
Also, every single thought that goes through your head has been shown to be connected to your brain, the desire for McRibs among them.
Post by
Monday
So can anybody who's got drugs destroying their life, if you think about it. Now I have a bad feeling this is going to sink into freewill vs. determinism, but I believe that anybody who doesn't have the willpower to stop them from destroying themselves could be considered mentally ill. I guess it depends on your definition.
Missed this.
When I say mentally ill, I mean has a physical condition with the brain (anorexia is shown to be connected to the brain and your genetics).
Obesity and Diabetes are VERY heavily based in your genes.
Also, every single thought that goes through your head has been shown to be connected to your brain, the desire for McRibs among them.
/facepalm.
---WHOOSH----->
*your head*
Post by
Orranis
So can anybody who's got drugs destroying their life, if you think about it. Now I have a bad feeling this is going to sink into freewill vs. determinism, but I believe that anybody who doesn't have the willpower to stop them from destroying themselves could be considered mentally ill. I guess it depends on your definition.
Missed this.
When I say mentally ill, I mean has a physical condition with the brain (anorexia is shown to be connected to the brain and your genetics).
Obesity and Diabetes are VERY heavily based in your genes.
Also, every single thought that goes through your head has been shown to be connected to your brain, the desire for McRibs among them.
/facepalm.
---WHOOSH----->
*your head*
The whoosh over my head just wooshed over my head. What are you trying to argue?
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Diabetes wasn't necessarily what I was getting at. I posted about Anorexia specifically because it is based on a literal physical brain defect. Obesity is in genes, however with enough willpower and the right diet one could keep their weight down.
However, once anorexia sets in, it's
hard
to get over. You might say: "Just use more willpower." Anorexia can't just be overcome like that however.
I don't even remember what I was arguing about.
Post by
HoleofArt
did the same thing with pot, it's called Super High Me and it rocks.
YES
Post by
327953
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Because I know some that would.
'Some' doesn't mean that the effect isn't going to be offset by all the others you can't speak for.
You're attempting to shift the burden of proof. You said it would lower productivity, I said it doesn't lower mine and if there are people like me, then the result will be the same. I at no point said "productivity will remain exactly the same across the board with no dips whatsoever" which is a claim suitable to your response. Furthermore I doubt you have read most of the studies on the effects of marijuana and question the source of this meta-analysis.
Fair enough, I'll concede I've only read ones which claim no effects, and have issues with their methodologies. Because of my view though, I'm somewhat biased and less likely to find errors in studies criticising the use of marijuana, so I'm not sure that I'm the best person to question them.
Cite your sources. They're going to have to be good ones to convince me that a symptom I'm able to notice when experiencing a come-down from other drugs I'm unable to notice from pot.
Citation.
It's Wikipedia, but my understanding of it comes from psychology textbooks and papers that my girlfriend runs past me every now and then. I can produce a dozen research papers on opponent processing if you really want that badly.
Please explain how you could possibly prove this seeing as pain can not be objectively measured.
It doesn't need to be. Pain is subjective, but if you can demonstrate that a collective group of people will experience pain-sensation movements in the same direction, you can argue that it increases / decreases pain.
Not sure if serious. Do you really think those people are only employed because of pot crime? Don't be silly. Do you really think all that money being redistributed wouldn't help the economy?
I'm trying to understand what you mean, to be honest. Will there be prisoner case workers being laid off if there are less prisoners? Of course there will be. Otherwise, government organisations would hire more people than they do at present.
I'm looking to you to explain why you think that less drug crimes will somehow lead to an improvement in the economy, seeing as that's your point.
I'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here. As this seems to be on the "it would reduce productivity" thread, where's the line at which the government should get involved?
No, I'm saying that some people don't buy marijuana at the moment for fear of getting caught. Not everyone is willing to break the law to smoke it now. There will be an increase in the number of people who use it / usage of it if it's legalised (think lawyers, doctors, company directors, anyone who can't work if they have a drug conviction against their name).
I don't think so Tim. By my argument when not hyperbolised if you smoked nearly every day for a year or so then went cold turkey for 8 months with no side-effects then that means it'd be extremely difficult for someone in the same monetary situation to get addicted.
Couple of grams a day, more if I wake up early or stay awake late.
How much is marijuana? $20 a gram, thereabouts? You get people in broken households spending way more than $40-50 a day on alcohol, gambling, cigarettes and/or other vices.
That being said, it's also a physical tolerance issue. There are those who can drink 12 beers and be able to operate tolerably. There are those who'll be floored after the first 4. Just because you don't suffer any ill effects (be it after going off for a while, or being able to work the next day) doesn't mean that others won't.
Funny you should mention it, remember Super Size Me where someone ate McDonalds for 30 days then compared their health before and after? Someone else modified the idea and did the same thing with pot, it's called Super High Me and it rocks. Surprise surprise he was fine. No health problems at all because of it except for a 3% drop in lung capacity and gaining 11 (I think) lbs.
I'm trying to look up how much he smoked a day, and I can't find anything on it. Do you know?
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
The whole movie budget was only $600k, he can't have smoked for that much ;)
Post by
438256
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
204878
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
However in the absence of other evidence it's all I have to rely on.
I know, and I have no experience with marijuana usage whatsoever, which is why I rely on research papers and the like.
Evidently I've been unable to communicate my points to you, here's a more eloquent summary: <snip>
So basically, the resources currently being used to police marijuana growing and criminals of marijuana growing can be deployed elsewhere. That doesn't help the economy, it just reallocates it.
That's an interesting point, don't you think it'd be a good thing for those people to be able to get jobs again and get off welfare? Because that's sure to happen to some if pot is legalised on a federal level*.
How many professionals are there who have been struck off for illicit drug usage? I think there are more who'll turn to drug usage if legalised, compared to those who would be allowed back into the workforce. If they're currently on welfare, it's because they haven't gone on to work in other jobs, meaning that they're unlikely to start working again anyway.
I pay £10 (USD$16) for 2.5g. That's about the average I smoke a day.
That's less than a pack of cigarettes. $5k a year isn't really that much, at least, not in Australia, where your dole cheques come out to around 13k a year or thereabouts.
People say I'm wrong but I'm sure size has something to do with it, if I ordered my friends by weed tolerance they'd probably be in height order too and being a very tall guy that may have something to do with it.
Alcohol tolerance is related to size, it wouldn't surprise me that weed tolerance is similar. But realistically, you have to legislate by the lowest common denominator. If there was a drug that was lethal for men under 5"6', despite being perfectly fine for people above that height, you'd have to declare it illegal, as an example.
As a side issue, that's why I think if weed were to be legalised it should still operate as clinics so there would be trained staff to make sure the customer gets the right strength.
See, that's an interesting one. That would still make it illegal to possess (without a license), but not to obtain. I believe that would probably be a good way to deal with it. Having said that, there'd still be huge community uproar over it - have you seen the sort of anti-drug publicity that heroin injecting clinics get?
It's also prone to abuse - you'd need a lot of audit requirements on it.
I don't remember it mentioned, but it looked like a lot :P
Heh, I can imagine. I do think that those sorts of things are a joke though, and nothing more than just entertainment value. There was a good comment by the Maccas CEO about Super Size Me, saying that "if someone ate spaghetti bolognese for every meal for 30 days, you'd get the same result."
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.