DeletedUser
It's an interesting idea, but can you support this?
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
DeletedUser
Alcohol is a contributing factor in some 75,000 deaths each year in the US. Just to clarify, those arguing that marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, you are fine legalising anything so long as it results in no more than 74,999 additional fatalities each year?
DeletedUser
Most of the illegal drug trade in other countries is almost a form of slavery. At the barrel of a gun and the promise of better money, growers change from their daily crops to drugs. This keeps them poor and unable to grow (economicaly). Once there is no market (American # 1, Europe #2) they will be forced to grow their own food, thus contributing to trade. It doesn't resolve itself quickly, but like the animal of economics, the demand would plummet if it was grow-able, even in your back yard. Judgementalism is what keeps it illegal. :hmph:
DeletedUser
I'm not disagreeing, but if you can cite a source for this, I'd love to look into it myself.
DeletedUser
Watch Marijuana : A Chronic History... There you learn of the report on the attack on the migrant workers.
Look at the information regarding the Bureau, (kikipedia has a nice linear info page on it (excerpt pulled from it)) and the time that it took place in. That's just common knowledge of American history during the depression years, which followed the roaring 20's. Also, You need to keep the compartments separate up there to read up on the forces at hand at the time. Remember, many other things were taking place and that research may be difficult to identify. I have gathered much of the information over the years from Tidbits and tads from other compelling reports. Most on film now. (since much more can be gathered from the conjectures they make)... There are other sources of information that may help you understand the validity of the argument. Research american tax licensing on marijuana. You will find that they can actually issue licenses a year for the growth and collections of taxes. Why isn't this common knowledge? Well, for one, you have to be a grower. Catch 22... go figure.
Also, If you look at the decline of local farming in many of the nations that send the drugs to this country, they seem to coincide with the rise of the demand in this country and correlate that with the advent of the cartels. A sequence of numbers or in my case, linear graphs (i'm very visual) seem to rise and fall together.
Much of what I pressed on about the legality is a conjecture, which in my case, is a draw from various sources of information that I have gained over the years. So to "site" an individual report or venue is kind of hard.
You might say, I could be that source If I chose and got paid for it. Placing all those in a bibliography would be very time consuming and non-profit unless I receive compensation. I did, however, the best I could to allow you to reach your own conclusion on some of the data I have churned over the years.
Peace
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
I know about the attack on migrant workers; I'm aware of how that works. But as for farming and drugs, you did your research and props for looking at all that data, but correlation is not causation. They could very well both be influenced by a common factor, but that does not mean they necessarily influence each other.
One of my mom's college professors presented this example: Some time ago, like in the sixties or seventies, a study was done in Japan that found a correlation between toaster ownership and the use of birth control. These would both be affected by affluence, thus the correlation, but I don't think anyone would try to argue that once caused the other. Another example would be the correlation the Pastafarians observe between pirates and global warming.
A less ridiculous example would be if someone made the observation that many people that have played Skyrim have also played Mass Effect 3. The mutual cause here is obvious: these people enjoy this sort of video game and have the necessary equipment to play them. But they don't play one because they play the other.
I'm not saying there is definitely no causation, because there very well might be. I don't actively doubt it; it's just that correlation all by itself is interesting but ultimately not sufficient evidence.
One of my mom's college professors presented this example: Some time ago, like in the sixties or seventies, a study was done in Japan that found a correlation between toaster ownership and the use of birth control. These would both be affected by affluence, thus the correlation, but I don't think anyone would try to argue that once caused the other. Another example would be the correlation the Pastafarians observe between pirates and global warming.
A less ridiculous example would be if someone made the observation that many people that have played Skyrim have also played Mass Effect 3. The mutual cause here is obvious: these people enjoy this sort of video game and have the necessary equipment to play them. But they don't play one because they play the other.
I'm not saying there is definitely no causation, because there very well might be. I don't actively doubt it; it's just that correlation all by itself is interesting but ultimately not sufficient evidence.
DeletedUser
Correlation is not causation. Interesting.
Yes, it very well be that that statement could be correct or not...
First hand. the professor did not go to Japan and sat with a toaster owning woman and ask her," why did you decide not to have more children? Did the toaster influence your decision?" He may have done further questioning and found that the education, recent commercials, and the availability of toasters was prominent only on those Japanese people whom valued and understood the nature of giving birth in a world that could be destroyed.
I actually have been with farmers in south america, 25 yars ago, during MY pot years and discovered that they were desperate and considering growing drugs for sale to buyers (cartels), but the fear of being caught prevented them so. Now be aware that these farmers were not actually in such a bad condition or regime, like that of drug growing countries, that he was one plate of food away from his children starving. He was, in fact, coveting more. Now if a farmer, poor by our standard, rich by Buddha's, would consider this, can you not make a draw some sort of ration inference that a more desperate one would actually commit to that? Using reason, can you not multiply that action by thousands? (also, don't forget to subtract the lack of food now being grown locally)
Correlation may not be the cause of causation. Causation, however, can deliver numbers and graphs that may create conjectures in someone's mind, were they unaware of the reason for the event. That being said, it becomes a circular analysis which could be applied in other things.
No, not always, causation is not alone.
This is why we correlate, to draw our own conclusions.
Yes, it very well be that that statement could be correct or not...
First hand. the professor did not go to Japan and sat with a toaster owning woman and ask her," why did you decide not to have more children? Did the toaster influence your decision?" He may have done further questioning and found that the education, recent commercials, and the availability of toasters was prominent only on those Japanese people whom valued and understood the nature of giving birth in a world that could be destroyed.
I actually have been with farmers in south america, 25 yars ago, during MY pot years and discovered that they were desperate and considering growing drugs for sale to buyers (cartels), but the fear of being caught prevented them so. Now be aware that these farmers were not actually in such a bad condition or regime, like that of drug growing countries, that he was one plate of food away from his children starving. He was, in fact, coveting more. Now if a farmer, poor by our standard, rich by Buddha's, would consider this, can you not make a draw some sort of ration inference that a more desperate one would actually commit to that? Using reason, can you not multiply that action by thousands? (also, don't forget to subtract the lack of food now being grown locally)
Correlation may not be the cause of causation. Causation, however, can deliver numbers and graphs that may create conjectures in someone's mind, were they unaware of the reason for the event. That being said, it becomes a circular analysis which could be applied in other things.
No, not always, causation is not alone.
This is why we correlate, to draw our own conclusions.
DeletedUser
Yes it should 
DeletedUser
I find it saddening that you can get a prescription for an opioid, made from opium, for pain and yet in many states you can't smoke pot for pain. Fact is, Opium is not grown in the USA so we have to import it. Where as Marijuana got the nickname weed because it grows like a weed. It can be easily grown here and would be far more profitable for our country. I'm not saying we wouldn't still need Opioids for severe pain, I am just saying Marijuana could not only create more jobs and boost the economy, but also help to lessen the number of people that have to go to rehab for Opioid addiction. I make no argument for hard drugs to be legal, they ruined my life at one point that I'd rather not get into.. However let me just state that a child who gets prescribed a synthetic amphetamine, such as adderal, is far more likely to become a meth addict along with other uppers like cocaine (powdered and crack) and bath salts. We push these drugs on society, Amphetamines and Opioids, and then wonder why we have a high drug addiction rate. Allowing a medical as well as recreational use of marijuana could drastically reduce this. I might also add, Amsterdam has one of the lowest crime rates by percentage of the population of anywhere in the world. The fact is; and if you don't already know this just ask and I'll take the time to look up an article for you, the majority of our drug laws were created do to racism of one race or another.... Germany and the United States both gave soldiers Amphetamines during world war 2 to create supper soldiers who where unafraid and felt little pain, but yet we give a drug we used in war to children so they can hold a pencil?? Let the kid smoke some pot I bet hes not that hyper anymore.. granted that still wont make him focus .... Peanuts kill more people a year than Marijuana... ITS A FACT
.... Peanuts kill more people a year than Marijuana... ITS A FACTDeletedUser
Fact is you're beginning by assuming apples are oranges. It would only be a fair comparison if you began by saying:
Oh wait, fact is we already use it (or synthesised versions) in approved medicines, eg Dronabinol/Marinol. Oops!
DeletedUser
We are getting into the more general topic of drugs in general, and this thread was originally only about marijuana, but the relation is close enough, I suppose.
*
Something I haven't seen in this post (but some of you have hinted at): what do you mean by "legal"?
Does "legal" mean "unregulated"? "available under certain conditions"? "available up to certain quantities"? "available only through licensed providers"? By some of these definitions, only a very small number of drugs are currently illegal, and most of them have legalized cousins (herion and morphine, for example).
*
Separate thought on general drug use: I would like to play the devil's advocate, as most people here seem to be of the opinion that the restrictions on drugs are currently too great (with which I would agree). But consider the following scenario: a scientist develops a drug that enduces extreme euphoria, but several hours after use a fairly large percentage of users experience temporary psychotic episodes in which they go into a rage and attack other people and property. Also, suppose that a way to cheaply make this drug on the street became known. Now, when the users experience these psychoses, they may be driving on the highway, working on a construction site, etc., and so many other people will be endangered by these episodes. Just for kicks, make this drug to be highly psychologically addicting (due to the intense euphoria it creates). What rules would you want in place involving this drug?
*
Something I haven't seen in this post (but some of you have hinted at): what do you mean by "legal"?
Does "legal" mean "unregulated"? "available under certain conditions"? "available up to certain quantities"? "available only through licensed providers"? By some of these definitions, only a very small number of drugs are currently illegal, and most of them have legalized cousins (herion and morphine, for example).
*
Separate thought on general drug use: I would like to play the devil's advocate, as most people here seem to be of the opinion that the restrictions on drugs are currently too great (with which I would agree). But consider the following scenario: a scientist develops a drug that enduces extreme euphoria, but several hours after use a fairly large percentage of users experience temporary psychotic episodes in which they go into a rage and attack other people and property. Also, suppose that a way to cheaply make this drug on the street became known. Now, when the users experience these psychoses, they may be driving on the highway, working on a construction site, etc., and so many other people will be endangered by these episodes. Just for kicks, make this drug to be highly psychologically addicting (due to the intense euphoria it creates). What rules would you want in place involving this drug?
DeletedUser
Diggo I would like to point out the side effects of the pill version of Marijuana.. Nausea and upset stomach... these symptoms cause problems for AIDS patients who are on the drug to increase their appetite... read this article here : http://www.marijuana-as-medicine.org/Overview - Part IV.htm Btw i have tried the pills as well, back in the day, and they are no where near the same as smoking. To me it seems way more advisable for medical marijuana to be eaten, or smoked in a vapor form through a vaporizer there by cutting down on the harmful carcinogens the patient would intake. Let me also state that I don't think marijuana should be legal for only medical uses. If regulated, much like alcohol, I believe there would be little to no harm in allowing the public to "take a hit" if they wanted to. Granted I do think you should have to have a license to produce over a certain amount and another license to retail the product. But allowing the average American to produce say a quarter pound at a time, or rather one plant at a time, would not stop them from having to but the product as well and therefor not hurt the tax side of it. Also, I believe a person should only be allowed to carry less than 7 grams of that production at a time outside their household. Restrictions like these could very well lesson the pressure on our tax payers who have to pay for harmless marijuana possession charged offenders to be housed and fed in state and local facilities.
DeletedUser
Well, if a drug did that and caused people to be aggressive, clearly it should be illegal. It's a similar situation with drinking while driving; it's illegal because you can cause serious harm to others.
But I'm not sure why this pertains to the legalization of marijuana, since that is a drug that does no harm to others and may bring a little (if at all) harm to the user.
DeletedUser
This is not an issue nor, in my opinion, very debatable. Their are drugs similar to the one you describe and they're called "Designer Drugs". These drugs, for the most part, are made from legal over the counter items. When mixed they cause a wide range of euphoria. States have taken action on these drugs and some have even decided to charge dealers and those who give this drug freely with felony charges like murder, if the person dies, attempted murder and manslaughter etc...
The newest in this line is a designer drug called 'Smiles'. It's been linked with several Teen deaths and states have cracked down on the possession, sales and use of this drug. It's for this reason that 'Bathtub' drugs should be considered extremely dangerous and be outlawed and people associated should be punished to the fullest the law allows. In my opinion we should go Texas Justice on individuals who produce and distribute this crap.
As far as Marijuana is concerned, getting back to the original debate, it should be treated no different then alcohol. It's a great source of revenue for both federal, state and local economies. The amount of money that would made from it from taxes would most likely pay off our debts and give us a surplus with in 10 years if taxed appropriately. 533 economists, including Dr. Jeffrey Miran, Professor of Economics at Harvard University in 2005, had predicted an annual revenue of 10 to 14 billion dollars.
In Dr. Miran's words; "Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of legal regulation would save approximately $7.7 billion in government expenditures on prohibition enforcement - $2.4 billion at the federal level and $5.3 billion at the state and local levels"
So it is logical to assume with the savings along with the revenue associated with the regulated sales of marijuana the U.S Government would save about $15.4 billion and gain another $10 to $14 billion in revenue.
Because I'm a numbers guy and I hardheartedly believe in Capitalism, marijuana should be legalized. The revenue, job creation and boon to the economy is undeniable.
Last edited by a moderator:
lemonwedgie
Well-Known Member
Obviously, being from the UK, I am for legalising. I have lived in the US for nearly 10yrs and am constantly amazed at the harsh penalties and social stigma for marijuana. Quite often, police in the UK will turn a blind-eye if you are just a user. If they decide not to, then you will get a caution. In some areas it is de-criminalised. Having a joint is looked upon in the same light as those who have a glass of wine and it is not seen as a gateway drug nor has it been proved to be one. I know plenty of people who have smoked it all their life and never touched anything else.