Marijuana Kills

[Lestat]

Because I'm an old fart. A handful of years ago I called a doc, got bloodwork, and got my test/gh prescribed to me. Even now I have bloodwork every 6 weeks to insure my levels are non-superphysiological.

so you'd have no problem if someone was prescribed da ganja?

 

[mrplunkey]

Thanks JR, Jnev, and bino for the robust debate!

This is something I constantlly struggle with. One side of me thinks, lets outlaw anything that negatively affects society as a whole. Why do I think this? Because I do favor taxes and social programs that may cost certain people on an individual basis, but ultimately are for the great good and help the majority.

So how do I reconcile that viewpoint with the fact that I think we should allow people personal freedoms, even if they could be detrimental to themselves, which in turn could be detrimental to society (like I always say, we don't
exist in a vaccum).

I would imagine I'd struggle with this either way, lets say I was in favor of abolishing all social ills, alcohol, ciggs, juice, weed, all rec drugs. Any lets say my argument was that it would increase overall productivity and prosperity for the entire nation. Seems rational right.

The part that becomes subjective an unquantifiable for me is the personal freedom aspect. Should people be allowed to do things that could harm them? That could make them less productive? That could in generall cause the quality of life for others to go down.

Somewhere a subjective line has to be drawn, it seems like ever individual does this for themselves, and together as a society we figure out where that is. It also seems to change very frequently. So what am I doing when I argue my case? I'm stating where I draw my personal lines and where I would want those lines to be drawn as a nation.

I tend to believe that we should allow people as much personal freedom as possible in so much as it doesn't negatively affect others. This is far easier said than done because in many cases its near impossible to quantify all of the ramifications of some behaviors.


At the end of the day, I'd love sit around in person, the 4 of us, and pass the peace pipe!

Would forcing someone to work for someone else first before they can enjoy the benefits of their own labor qualify as "negatively affect others"? It boggles my mind that someone would support confiscating a major portion of someone else's income for the greater good but be unwilling to drop something as trivial as a recreational drug habit for that same greater good.

Pot disproportionately targets the downtrodden -- people who need every advantage they can muster to compensate for their initial disadvantage. Think about the sheer number of high school and college educations destroyed by pot. Instead of shoveling welfare and medical benefits into government-subsidized housing areas we should be shoveling the pot out of it. Although our "great society" hand-out initiatives chauffeured many of those people into a poverty-sticken multi-generational existence, drugs were probably the fuel that ran the limousine that drove them there.

And still yet, pot can't be dumped for the greater good. Rich suburb kids gotta have their herb! Guess the stress over whether mom and dad are going to get you a BMW or a Range Rover for graduation is just too much without a little weed to calm your nerves.

 

[mrplunkey]

so you'd have no problem if someone was prescribed da ganja?

If it were prescribed for a diagnosed medical condition, I don't see why it would be a problem.

 

[Lestat]

If it were prescribed for a diagnosed medical condition, I don't see why it would be a problem.

good bro material!

 

[enigma4dub]

W

And still yet, pot can't be dumped for the greater good. Rich suburb kids gotta have their herb! Guess the stress over whether mom and dad are going to get you a BMW or a Range Rover for graduation is just too much without a little weed to calm your nerves.

sorry man the car was a difficult choice. had to get my head straightened out first... went with the rover.

 

[Lestat]

Would forcing someone to work for someone else first before they can enjoy the benefits of their own labor qualify as "negatively affect others"? It boggles my mind that someone would support confiscating a major portion of someone else's income for the greater good but be unwilling to drop something as trivial as a recreational drug habit for that same greater good.

Pot disproportionately targets the downtrodden -- people who need every advantage they can muster to compensate for their initial disadvantage. Think about the sheer number of high school and college educations destroyed by pot. Instead of shoveling welfare and medical benefits into government-subsidized housing areas we should be shoveling the pot out of it. Although our "great society" hand-out initiatives chauffeured many of those people into a poverty-sticken multi-generational existence, drugs were probably the fuel that ran the limousine that drove them there.

And still yet, pot can't be dumped for the greater good. Rich suburb kids gotta have their herb! Guess the stress over whether mom and dad are going to get you a BMW or a Range Rover for graduation is just too much without a little weed to calm your nerves.

I see taxes as helping the greater good. Funnelling money into education and even the arts. It raises the overall level of society right? I think you and I would probably agree that living in a country where all the wealth was consolidated in the hands of a select few would suck. They have a few countries like that in Africa.

 

[mrplunkey]

you take oxy's right plunk? how is that different

I did in the past, but haven't used one recreationally in a long time. I stopped doing it because (1) My gf hated it and (2) I watched a lot of my friends crash and burn with them.

That's actually a great example. For some reason those things just don't grab me. I can use one and think: "Oh, this is really nice". But if someone wanted to do another the next day, I'd just pass. Even when I took them a few days in a row after surgery, I couldn't wait to get off them. So if I were thinking like some of the pot users on this board, I'd argue that since I enjoy them and don't have a problem with them, why shouldn't they be legalized? I'm sure taking one oxy and drinking a glass of wine can't be as hard on your body as drinking the same amount of booze alone to achieve the same effect -- that would take a ton of alcohol. But once I watched my best friend and several other friends crash hard with them, I realized even if I could use responsibly, I'd be an ongoing source of temptation for them.

 

[mrplunkey]

I see taxes as helping the greater good. Funnelling money into education and even the arts. It raises the overall level of society right? I think you and I would probably agree that living in a country where all the wealth was consolidated in the hands of a select few would suck. They have a few countries like that in Africa.

And they have a few countries where all the wealth is distributed -- like Cuba and China.

Who's going to take the most advantage of education and the arts? Unless its a bowl-packing class or a tie-dye T-shirt contest, its probably not going to be stoners. If we want to raise the overall level of society, let's get initiative and thought-inhibiting drugs like pot out of their way. Sure you can spend more money on education -- or you can clean the drugs out of schools so people who need the education the most can actually receive and retain it.

 

[Lestat]

And they have a few countries where all the wealth is distributed -- like Cuba and China.

Who's going to take the most advantage of education and the arts? Unless its a bowl-packing class or a tie-dye T-shirt contest, its probably not going to be stoners. If we want to raise the overall level of society, let's get initiative and thought-inhibiting drugs like pot out of their way. Sure you can spend more money on education -- or you can clean the drugs out of schools so people who need the education the most can actually receive and retain it.

you are generalizing though, do you admit that pot is not initiative and thought inhibiting for all?

For many it is thought INDUCING, and really allows them to create and produce. Why treat everyone the same? We don't do that with taxes.

 

[mrplunkey]

you are generalizing though, do you admit that pot is not initiative and thought inhibiting for all?

I believe for the vast, vast majority of users, pot diminishes initiative and lessens clarity of thought. Now if by "initiative" you mean playing X-box, eating a whole large pizza and watching "How High" for the 1,383th time, then you might have a point.

For many it is thought INDUCING, and really allows them to create and produce. Why treat everyone the same? We don't do that with taxes.

You're not going to make the whole "pot makes me creative" argument are you? I guess those Hollywood script writers really need all that cocaine to create too.

Guess what, a lot of recreational drugs (not just pot) make you think you are more creative or that your mind is working faster -- but they don't. Rest assured that if pot made you more creative or cocaine made you more efficient, big business would have successfully lobbied it into legal status and there would be joint and blow dispensers on the walls of every cubicle.

And then of course there's LSD, which is supposed to expand your mind overall...

And as far as taxes... yeah, you're right we don't treat everyone the same. One person can stay pot (and other drugs) free, go to school, graduate at the top of their class and go earn a great living. And another guy can become a stoner in high school, drop-out, and become a bum so he can be "creative" smoking pot full-time. Sad thing is, the wage earner will be forced to subsidize the pothead. Do they drug test the second guy before the first guy is forced to pay him? Nope. Do they cut the second guy's money off after his second or third drug conviction? Nope. Its just a systematic subsidization of one lifestyle by another lifestyle.