Legalizing Marijuana

[Anbesol]

I'd like to see the response to this:

The primary industry that funded and created the campaign to outlaw cannabis in the early 20th century, is none other than the lumber industry. The industry that would be the most easily replaced by Cannabis crops. The campaign, of course, was based on serious misinformation and used Freudian style propagandistic techniques to achieve a cultural response. Many of the products and consumables produced by the lumber industry would be more effectively grown and exponentially more harvestable in the very unique cannabis crop. 1 acre of cannabis produces at minimum what 4 acres of controlled forests produce. There is absolutely no doubt that legalizing and growing cannabis crops would take a large chunk of the lumber industries market.

In years prior to cannabis' prohibition, the industry and its private and political allies banded together in creating one of the most scientifically void, terrorizing propoganda campaigns in the history of mankind. 'Reefer Madness' being the crux and epitome of such a campaign, a movie which profoundly influenced early prohibition, and a movie which even by todays standards is void of sound, empirical reasoning. Since then, the rhetoric has changed - but its still just as empty.

Heres the 1930's rhetoric, courtesy of reefer madness, it was sensationalized nonsense then, and its sensationalized nonsense now.



Keep in mind, now not even the most anti-drug campaign would try to paint cannabis as a violence inducing susbtance. With the cultures greater awareness of its effects, they realize it is nonsense, but back then - people were still ready to believe it. The lies have since then changed, but the emptiness of the rhetoric is still ever present.

Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda. - Wiki

[racedraper]

I was told that the reason it was illegal because the government was loosing money due to the sales of hemp and they could not control it from small farmers growing it. The strongest ropes were made from this.

[JSPhoto]

Prepare for wind, sorry....



JS, I am sorry to say, but that sounds like some of the most sensationalized nonsense arguments I've yet heard. For all the reasons its nonsense, add on that to the fact that the way pot affects judgment is significantly different from the way Alcohol impairs judgment. Pot creates heightened visual and audible sensation, if anything, it will actually make the driver more cognitively aware of his surroundings. Most importantly, this all comes down to personal responsibility. A person has the right to purchase a butter knife, but it is their responsibility not to stab anybody with it. Essentially, what I hear in your argument is the same argument against the butter knife. "If we legalize butter knifes, how will you feel if you or a loved one gets stabbed with it?". Its empty rhetoric that misses the point.



Okay, I smoke pot, I am not ashamed of it, and I appreciate the experience. I have a great driving record, I maintain a full time job, and I am a great father with the happiest 3 year old boy on the planet. Responsible users do exist, in fact, they are the vast majority of users.

Sensationalized???? No, the truth, which obviously your drug induced mind wants to ignor the facts that smoking pot and driving is just as dangerous as drinking and driving. Your spout is the same as the achoholic who doesn't admit they have a drinking problem. That is something I know about first hand btw, been there done that, somehow I was lucky, I didn't have any wrecks (that I know of) and didn't get caught, but I should have on both accounts. I haven't had a drink in 15 years now, in fact the smell of beer makes me sick now.
BTW, tell the kids family that this is sensationalized.....

JS

[Anbesol]

been there done that

If I had a nickel every time some pseudo-alpha tries to justify his positioning with this arrogant remark... Sure you know about it first hand. Every time some jerk has some vague familiarity with someone who has smoked pot, they all of a sudden know everything about it, and spout crap like 'been there done that'? Clearly you havent 'been there' and clearly you haven't 'done that' or your knowledge would run just a smidgen deeper than the lowest common denominator of pop-cultural fear-minded bullspit. It takes quite the ego to carry such blind confidence. Truth is, you're just a pawn, a self-righteous pawn of cultural stigma, brainwashing and propaganda. There is no science, rationality, reason, basis, or foundation in any ideas you think you have about pot, and this is illustrated by a very serious distance you have from the science of pot and drug laws.

JS, I responded to your post with an actual argument, and you responded with personal insults and attacks. You have not made one single valid statement, just a bunch of 'I experienced this and I think this', all of which has no basis in any empirical assessment. You are also being a real judgmental ahole.

"Your drug induced mind." - Oh boy, another holier than thou. You too are better than me, oh mighty sober one - oh wondrous man of wonders, oh perfect being of light, I am not worthy! And to just think, we didn't even need to meet each other for you to discover how much better you are than I! All you needed to know was that I smoked pot, just by that admission, you know you are so much better than me. Good thing your perceptive ego lets you know how wonderful you are.

BTW, tell the kids family that this is sensationalized.....

Ah now you want to insult me as a father? What a sensibly minded remark! Look pal - you may know cameras and imaging, you may know a lot and you may have a diverse spread of knowledge - but when it comes to Cannabis, drugs, the drug wars and laws, youre a ****ing idiot. You are also incredibly rude and judgmental, for a moderator, you sure don't have any qualms with throwing out a dozen personal attacks. Sit and spin, pal, sit and spin.

[Jimmy B]

My off the wall comment is this Pink Floyd sounds a lot better now than a long time ago:-)
JB

[Anbesol]

lol - thats a good off the wall comment. Its almost like some music artists actually use pot for creative inspiration. *gasp* ;)

Yeah Pink Floyd is very good.

[Lori11]

They call it dope for a reason :mad2: .............anyway Jay clear a space in your PM for me lol

[another view]

AV - you made rude and very judgmental comments. I was simply responding to your offensiveness with a little sass. I'm just trying to fuel the fire, nothing personal.

Nothing personal? That's not how I read it. You might also want to re-read what you posted to JS in post #29. Here's one thing: "youre a ****ing idiot". Again, nothing personal?

[SkipT]

If it effects your mind then its not safe, maybe if they had a way to test for its use on the spot it might happen. Myself tho if feel its still a drug and has been proven to be just as bad to use as any other drug.

I vote no, and I agree Lori, they call it dope for a reason.

[drg]

I think a lot of people forgot to exhale!

[brmill26]

Anbesol, all you do is come to this board and provoke our productive members with your controversial (kindly) viewpoints. Instead of having a mature, grown up discussion, the moment anyone challenge your view, you insult them. If you cannot objectively consider an opposing view on a subject, then do not bring it up for debate, because there is no debate here. This thread is a series of people offering various reasons and beliefs as to why they think legalizing MJ would be bad, each followed by your quoting their responses with insults and no consideration of their actual statements. That is a complete waste of time for everyone involved. If you consider all viewpoints not your own implausible, treat them as ridiculous, and treat the posters as ignorant, then do everyone a favor and don't bring it up!

My suggestion to you would be to sit in on some debate team competitions at the institution at which you claim to work. The skills you would learn there would prove invaluable in life, in your classroom, and on this board.

[Anbesol]

Br, take another look and realize that I wasn't the one who initiated the hostility.

the moment anyone challenge your view

They weren't challenging my views, they were insulting users and insulting me. There is a difference there. "They call it dope for a reason", "Pot smokers are the same as alcoholics", "Your drug induced mind", etc etc.

If you cannot objectively consider an opposing view on a subject

JS posted at first a civil response to the subject, I then posted another civil rebuttal - to which he decided to launch an attack on me, even going as far as to insult me as a father. Br, honestly, you talk about objectivity, then you show very lopsided judgment when viewing these insult wars and fantasize that I was the one who provoked them... Sure, I didn't refrain from personal attacks, but I also didnt initiate nor provoke them either.

My suggestion to you is to cultivate some better reading comprehension skills. I do not respond well to insults and I am not in the least bit bashful about confrontation. I am surprised that you can actually have the nerve to lecture me, when any sort of cursory glance at the direction this thread took would clearly demonstrate myself as the one who was provoked.

Oh yeah, also, work on your choice of words - you stated "All you do", and yet, I have only been involved in these heated attack debates twice. Clearly, with 625 posts, I must have done something besides that. Hopefully this is the last time I have to read another lecture from you - maybe you should lecture the ones who actually initiated the attacks.

[Anbesol]

And, for the record - Alcohol and its unique effects on mind and judgment make it the most dangerous drug to be under the influence of behind the wheel. I would feel safer riding with someone on crack, speed, and heroine than someone whos falling over drunk. Then people on here want to pretend and insist that pot, of all things, is the same thing as alcohol behind the wheel, its not.

[ciddog91]

I have been reading with much interest and I have to say that the argument is timeless and never winnable for either side.

I was raised in an area that borders Detroit and had and still has a drug problem. I have known many users that have been responsible. I have known more that pot/weed/dope/marijuana or whatever you want to call it, lead to harder drugs. It CAN be a gateway drug. If someone does jump from weed to crack (drug of choice around here) it is always going to be a gateway drug for them. If they eventually kick the crack habit and they smoke some weed, it will l lead them back to crack easier. This is different for everyone, but weed does lead to harder drugs for some, therefore I think it should be kept outlawed.

Lori... Congrats... Keep up the work....

Anbesol,
your arguments sound just like the people I deal with every night. Not necessarily flawed, but argumentative and grossly wide spread. I do disagree with you, but that is why we have a society that can debate things.

[QUOTE]Then people on here want to pretend and insist that pot, of all things, is the same thing as alcohol behind the wheel, its not./QUOTE]

This I very much disagree with you on. I have seen to many accidents and fatalities due to people who have smoked and drove. It may have a different effect on your body, but reactions slow and time/space perceptions skew. It is not seen by those who are under the influence, but it is there. I do not think that John sensationalized anything, it is the plain truth that most do not want to see. Until you have had someone die in your arms due to someone else's drinking or smoking, you cannot and hopefully will not understand this. I work midnights and have had this happen to many times. Maybe not by "responsible" smokers, but by smokers or drinker anyway. I am glad that you keep it responsible, but like alcohol, it will not be used responsibly by alot of people and I PERSONALLY feel that bad situations will increase. And I understand the law, the drug and the drug wars about as well as anyone can

This is just my opinion....

Good luck sorting this all out..

Phil

[ciddog91]

They just passed a law in Ontario that makes it illegal to drive while stoned on Marijuana. Problem is they have no way of enforcing it without a judges order since the only valid test is a blood test and that is considered too intrusive a procedure to be done under normal consent rules. The cops are saying that they simply cannot enforce the law since none of them want to see a good bust get washed out in court.

Personally I think that is should be dealt with like alcohol. Find a decent roadside test that is non intrusive (some kind of breathalyser, mouth swap, etc) and tax it. Look at all the tax money lost on pot sales in Canada alone. If they legalized it we could fix the deficit easily within a few years (provided the government doesn't just find another way of spending it as per usual).

There are field tests that can determine "sobriety" of marijuana users. It is nearly 100%. It is how police here can determine if they should arrest someone. After arrest, Michigan law requires drivers to submit to a blood or urine test. It is called Implied Consent. By signing for your drivers license you agree to this. If you do not submit, a police officer can contact a judge and get a search warrant signed for a blood test if you have probable cause for the warrant. This is done by articulating your probable cause to a judge and swearing to the warrant. This is no different than any other warrant (drunk driving, rape, ect).

Tests can be done easily and accurately.

Phil

[Anbesol]

I was raised in an area that borders Detroit and had and still has a drug problem. I have known many users that have been responsible. I have known more that pot/weed/dope/marijuana or whatever you want to call it, lead to harder drugs. It CAN be a gateway drug. If someone does jump from weed to crack (drug of choice around here) it is always going to be a gateway drug for them. If they eventually kick the crack habit and they smoke some weed, it will l lead them back to crack easier. This is different for everyone, but weed does lead to harder drugs for some, therefore I think it should be kept outlawed.

I have heard this a lot as well. The 'gateway drug' theory is majorly flawed - though their may be a slight sliver of truth in it, it is again irrelevant. The situation which makes it more 'gateway' than anything else, is that the users are already involved in the black market. Ultimately though, again, I think its entirely irrelevant. The argument has no place in discourse of cannabis legality. Simply because arguments like this fail freedom of personal liberties. Our television/hollywood pop culture is famous for encouraging poor sexual and violent behavior, when will we outlaw their right to create? You could even use this argument to rationalize prohibition of potatos, its equivocal and irrelevant.

This I very much disagree with you on. I have seen to many accidents and fatalities due to people who have smoked and drove.

I know a plethora of smokers, a ridiculously high number, and I have never known anybody who has so much as gotten in a fender bender while stoned and driving. Admittedly - pot effects different people very differently, some people may be perfectly fine to drive on it, others it may be a horrendously terrible idea. Again, boils down to responsibility. I wasn't trying to justify that anybody can just smoke a bowl and hop in the drivers seat, but to insinuate that cannabis' impairs ability to drive on the scale of alcohol is a gross exaggeration.

I am glad that you keep it responsible, but like alcohol, it will not be used responsibly by alot of people and I PERSONALLY feel that bad situations will increase

You know that drug abuse in Holland is one of the lowest in the western world, where Cannabis is legal. Drug use in the united states, is by a significant margin the very worst in the entire world. Look at the immediate contrast - America has the very harshest drug enforcement policies in the world, and Holland has legal cannabis. If cannabis became legal, the market safety would improve incredibly, users wont have to hide under the radar of employers and law enforcement, and responsible models of use will be more well practiced. Looking at all drug laws in EU, US/Canada, I think this point is vividly illustrated.

We can also examine the 1920's use of drinking, easily where alcohol abuse, alcohol related accidents and crime hit its climax. The prohibition only worsened the situation in every way it could.

CIDog - thank you for not making any snotty or rude remarks! Much appreciated.

[photophorous]

This is such an old argument...I can't believe it still goes on.

The reasons pot was made illegal in the first place were because of racism induced claims of crazed people doing horrible things while stoned, which were wildly innaccurate at best and suspiciously malicious at worst. Since that time we've been fed propaganda and outright lies and many people believe them. The facts are:

Pot causes far less impairment than alcohol. I've never heard of a teenage girl who did something regrettable with a guy at a party, or didn't remember what happened the night before, or ended up somewhere with out knowing how she got there, or passed out and flipped her car, because she smoked pot. Alcohol is almost always to blame, and don't think that's because teenage girls don't smoke pot. [I don't mean to single out the girls...just trying to make a point. And I'm not advocating teenagers smoking pot either.]

Nobody has ever died from smoking too much pot. Unlike alcohol, it's impossible to over dose. There is no evidence that smoking pot causes lung cancer either, despite what they say about having more tar and there being no filters. There have actually been a few recent studies that indicate it likely does not, but because of the government restrictions on doing scientific studies there really is no conclusive evidence. On the other hand, cigarettes are commonly known to cause slow painful deaths and you only need to know a high school senior to get them.

Claims of stoned drivers causing accidents are wildly exagerated. Give me an example where the so-called stoned driver was not also impaired by alcohol and/or much stronger drugs? It's extremely rare. Unfortunately, pointing out this fact means that I also have to clarify myself and state the obvious, that driving under the influence of pot should not be tolerated. It does impair you. And so does talking on a cell phone.

Claims of pot being a gateway drug are not supported by fact. The gateway factor, if there is one, probably has a lot more to do with alcohol or the fact that the user has already broken the law and they start to think, "Well this isn't so crazy like the PSA said, so maybe I shouldn't believe what they said about LSD either." Exaggerating the dangers does more harm than good. It is dangerously easy to avoid life's problems if you're stoned all the time. That's not something most kids will understand if adults keep underestimating them with stupid frying pan analogies.

What it comes down to for me, is that a lot of people are being made criminals that we could be helping instead of shunning. I certainly don't think alcoholics would be better off in jail than AA, and I don't see how pot is any different in that respect. Likewise, I don't think I should be put in jail for drinking a couple of brewskies while I watch the Longhorn game, so it seems hypocritical to permanently mar someone's criminal record for peacefully smoking a joint in the privacy of their own home.

Paul

[adina]

Hey guy, can I refer you to the post at the top of this forum regarding do's and don't of off-topic ettiquite?

And if that's to subtle, try this one. Personal attacks are not allowed. Period.

[adina]

In case you need a refresher...

The Off-Topic forum has been a boon to this photography community for quite a while now. We have had heated discussions on everything from religion to politics and everything in between. Typically these have been very civil conversations with everyone arguing passionately for their point of view but pulling up shy of making personal attacks.

Recently this has been changing.

This website will not tolerate personal attacks of any nature on any person. The site manager and moderators are poised with their fingers on the delete button and anyone who breaks the rules is in danger of having their posts deleted.

We love having an Off-Topic forum. But we're not willing to compromise the overall good nature of the site for it. So please play nice or we may consider closing the Off-Topic forum.

Here is a guideline to help you understand what a personal attack is and whether the comments you are posting are personal in nature:

If you are writing about the person and not about the topic, then you are making a personal comment.

If that comment is deemed to be aggressive, mean-spirited, demeaning, or insulting by any of the moderators you best watch out. Yes, that means the judgment call is in our hands. So it is best to err on the side of caution.

Here are some words that might be considered aggressive, mean-spirited, demeaning, or insulting:
childish
stupid
ignorant

Oh and there are more! Many more... you never know when one of the moderators might decide you are being mean.

So to be safe it might be wise to make all of your comments be about the topic and not about the person you are replying to.

Examples of comments about a person:
"You are stupid for thinking that."
"Anyone who thinks that is stupid."
"Anyone who would say that is stupid."
"Anyone who believes in ______ is stupid."
"Anyone who would vote for ______ is stupid."
"Anyone who owns a _____ is stupid."
"Anyone who would eat a _____ is stupid."

Notice how the personal comment doesn't even need to be directly about the person! Wow we are making this hard!

So keep the discussions about the topics. You'll be safer that way. And trust me, having lots of members makes this site look good, so we hate deleting members.
So do it for us, not for you.

Behave.
Rick

[ciddog91]

Again, boils down to responsibilityThis is the most true statement I have heard for anything discussed here....

Phil

[ciddog91]

Claims of stoned drivers causing accidents are wildly exagerated. Give me an example where the so-called stoned driver was not also impaired by alcohol and/or much stronger drugs? It's extremely rare

I would beg to differ on this one. Although most of the people I see in accidents that have smoked also drank (around 55-60% of what I see), the rest are high and not drunk. Granted less than 50% but still it is out there with no exaggeration. I also think that the penalties should be extremely harsh for drunks or for smokers who are on the road. But this is my opinion.

It is as simple as this for me, I hope it does not become legalized, but my opinion is just that, mine. If it came to a vote, I would vote no and others would vote yes. That is the beauty of our country, differing opinions and debate, but still able to be friends.

Phil

[photophorous]

...It CAN be a gateway drug. If someone does jump from weed to crack (drug of choice around here) it is always going to be a gateway drug for them. If they eventually kick the crack habit and they smoke some weed, it will l lead them back to crack easier. This is different for everyone, but weed does lead to harder drugs for some, therefore I think it should be kept outlawed.

Just because someone smokes pot before they try smoking crack does not mean pot "lead" them to crack. Sequence of events does not equal causality. I've known many pot smokers and I can't think of a single one that was ever tempted to smoke crack. If someone does go on to be a hard drug user, is it not logical to think they would try a less dangerous and far more common drug first? They probably also tried cigarettes or alcohol. The problem that needs to be addressed is why these people are seeking escape from reality. A lot of them have mental illnesses that are untreated and they're seeking some sort of relief. We should do more to help these people and stop putting them in jail, which is far more likely to lead to a life of crime than the actual drug use. It would be to everyone's benefit.

I have seen to many accidents and fatalities due to people who have smoked and drove. It may have a different effect on your body, but reactions slow and time/space perceptions skew. It is not seen by those who are under the influence, but it is there. I do not think that John sensationalized anything, it is the plain truth that most do not want to see. Until you have had someone die in your arms due to someone else's drinking or smoking, you cannot and hopefully will not understand this. I work midnights and have had this happen to many times. Maybe not by "responsible" smokers, but by smokers or drinker anyway. I am glad that you keep it responsible, but like alcohol, it will not be used responsibly by alot of people and I PERSONALLY feel that bad situations will increase. And I understand the law, the drug and the drug wars about as well as anyone can

Do you work in a hospital or something? I'm curious about your first hand knowledge. When you google this topic you find nothing but information to the contrary. Here's one example...skip to the conclusions if you don't want to read it all...http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/...g/dot78_1c.htm. I tend to believe the studies that show stoned drivers don't cause many accidents, because it jibes with what I saw growing up and going to more parties than I probably should have. I heard many stories about people I knew, or friends of friends, having accidents while drunk. A few of them were even killed. There are stories in the newspaper every day about drunk drivers, but I never hear about stoned drivers having accidents or killing someone. There are probably just as many stoned drivers on the roads as drunk drivers and yet I never hear about them causing problems. Why isn't it all over the newspapers, if it's such a big problem? Make no mistake, I don't think people should be allowed to drive under the influence of any mind altering substances, including pot and many prescription drugs. I just think this threat is exaggerated and being used as an excuse.

I don't think there would be a big increase in the number of pot smokers if it were legalized. There are already a lot of pot smokers because it's not that hard to get. There might be a small number of people who stopped drinking because they preferred pot but couldn't get it, and those people would be better off for it. When I was in high school pot was easier to get than alcohol, because drug dealers don't card. If you had to go to a store to buy it, the drug dealers would be out of business. Since pot is by far the most commonly used illegal drug, putting pot dealers out of business would mean putting most of the drug dealers out of business. That means if kids were getting pot, they'd be getting it from someone older who bought it from a store, like their big brother. Drug dealers who are pushing the harder stuff would be a whole lot harder to find, and people would be less tempted to try other drugs because they would have no contact with the criminal element.

Paul

[Anbesol]

Hey guy, can I refer you to the post at the top of this forum regarding do's and don't of off-topic ettiquite?

And if that's to subtle, try this one. Personal attacks are not allowed. Period.

Fair enough, Adina, but what if its a moderator whos making the personal attacks? As was the case, twice, in this thread. You would expect them to be the first to avoid personal attacks, rather than initiating them...

"enough to worry about than a bunch of idiots smoking pot as they drive down the road"
"I can't believe I'm taking the time to reply again in this thread... Legalize pot? Lame."
"obviously your drug induced mind wants to ignor the facts"
"Your spout is the same as the achoholic who doesn't admit they have a drinking problem"
"They call it dope for a reason"

"Anbesol, all you do is come to this board and provoke"

[adina]

I mean "hey guys" refering to everyone. Personal attacks are not tolorated. (did I spell that right?)