Skeptic Project

Falkner summed it up pretty well and you didn't even come close to refuting anything he said.

I have said repeatedly that I don't think cannabis should be legalized because pointing out the existence of legal harmful substances is not a valid reason for legalizing other harmful substances.

YES I GET THAT MATT.

What you don't seem to get is that you arbitrarily decide that to legalise pot would make society worse. I've asked you why that is and you never have an answer.

Let me restate the underlying thesis of my argument, because I did not make it clear in my fairly convoluted language. Alcohol and marijuana first and foremost have functional differences in their inherent design. Alcohol is not immediately capable of inducing intoxication, but marijuana is designed to immediately create a sense of intoxication. This dovetails to my cultural argument, that alcohol has traditionally had a legitimate role in food-customs and does not immediately link itself up to the act of mood alteration. Of course alcohol can be and is an abused substance, but at that point you are starting to get into alcohol legislation that is currently under way in Illinois (my home state). The state legislature recently banned the drink FourLoco which was a mixture of caffeine and alcohol that was designed to get drinkers intoxicated immediately. This is not a question of alcohol itself, but a question of products that are designed to reach a destructive end. But there is no such distinction for marijuana. The smoking of marijuana does not have a difference between use for custom and diet and use for alteration.

Your point about the acquire taste of alcohol is furthermore rather limited. Caviar too is an acquired taste, or any number of rather repugnant cheeses. This analysis of food is rather empty and provides no ground for the argument you seem to be forwarding.

As for the distinctions between various substances, they are largely historical and cultural. Alcohol was not made illegal in the UK because it very much occupied a long and consistent part of English food-custom and tradition. Marijuana has no such position, and indeed if we look at the Opium Wars in China, we se just how damaging the introduction of non-integrative and deliberately altering substances can really be. I would argue that the functional intent of marijuana, not the total net effect of THC, is what distinguishes it from alcohol. Of course people abuse alcohol, but people also abuse their bodies through other perfectly legal means.

Why is it that reasonable, rational people start going Randroid on the subject of drugs? You know that stuff doesn't work, why do you think it works for this subject? No one lives in a vacuum, we all have to live in the same society and I have yet to hear a good reason why more harmful substances that are detrimental to society should be allowed.

Research it, legalize it, and educate people about it. Beyond that, let them make their own decisions. That isn't randroid. That is about maximizing freedom while minimizing the negative aspects that come with it. I don't think marijuana is so harmful that it should be illegal. Users have no trouble finding it anyway, in California. It's just the dealers that are getting busted and wasting taxpayer money keeping them in prison. Legitimatize it, tax it. Will dealers be doing other criminal activities if they weren't selling weed? Probably. But you'd also open up a whole market for legitimate cultivators and store owners, and I know people are hurting for jobs right now.

Well...it's a really fking complicated issue to analyze, but my intuition tells me it would be a good idea to legalize it. Probably because I learned a lot of things about myself that I probably wouldn't have learned if I didn't smoke. Also formed lots of friendships by smoking with people. But at this point, for how long I've been smoking, I have much less desire to smoke these days. It's gotten old, and I have responsibilities. Still good for curing headaches though!

I think they should legalize huffing paint in paper bags to get high

that we imagine that we live in an alternate reality

No I didn't. I never even implied it.

When I said blank slate, I meant we start without any preconceptions and simply look A. At the biological affect on the human body these drugs have and then B: How society functions with these drugs, and what we can predict would happen if a now illegal drug were to be made legal.

Your response to that was to claim I never said point 2 in order to argue that's there's also the sociological aspect. Either you're being intentionally obtuse Matt or you're just being an idiot.

KAISER RUINED MY POST

I'm sorry Ed. You're right. Clearly we need to legalize huffing paint in bags. I see the light thanks to your fantasy world argument.

Kaiser has totally destroyed you guys in this thread.

I sure am glad he wasn't around to post when I had such dumbass opinions.

Well Bill, if we re-frame the argument in a magical fantasy world where huffing shit and piss is as culturally significant or acceptable as alcohol or tobacco, then clearly my iron clad logic proves that huffing shit and piss should be legal.

"But I get the feeling the majority of people would rather go through legitimate sources if they were available."

What if the DTOs sold it cheaper than stores and without requiring photo ID?

Domokato, I think you should read the NPR article when you can, it was really interesting. It actually has to do with how taxing of vices (in their case, gamlbing) creates tax wars between states and begins to create all sorts of complications. Also, DTOs would certainly provide significantly cheaper products and not require the kinds of ID the state would, as Matt suggested. There's also the issue that drug trade empowers and profits street dealers who would likewise have a great deal at stake in keeping legal-purchasing low. Think about the way organized crime often intimidated or coerced shop keepers to play by their rules. We have no guarantee that a similar situation wouldnt happen in this case. Illegal drug trade is already remarkably entrenched in various aspects of social life, and these are not things that will easily or cleanly vanish with legalizations. DTOs have already demonstrated that they will not tolerate state intervention of any kind.

Fuck this pot stuff and money drugs I'm all about the RBE-D you know the Resource Base based Economy Drug called jenkem. Jenkem made and processed from you, all natural RBE drug free of charge. I can see every Zeitgeisters promoting jenkem in the name of TZM. Jenkem is the Zeitgeist Movement

Ed, could you redit your block quoting? I cant make heads or tails of this.

*Sigh*

I think I see why Ed used to be a Truther.

Actually, I feel like you've completely missed the position regarding food-custom and acquired tastes. You certainly can employ anecdotal evidence to suggest that there is abuse of alcohol, but this does nothing to deal with the fact that alcohol is and has been a part of food-custom for centuries. I drink alcohol with diner three times a week because I enjoy the taste. I wouldnt have eaten it if there wasnt a custom in favor of it, but the same goes for bleu cheese. This really doesnt seem to grapple with the realities of food-customs whatsoever, nor does it deal with the functional distinction. I am not claim that alcohol isnt abused, but that its functional role is not historically in favor of such use, nor is it inherent to the substance. Marijuana, however, is functionally different and has no such customary or cultural role contrary to this point. Again, you'd have to show that alcohol did not have a limited role traditionally in many instances. You are conflating an abusing culture with the substance. Just because a group uses alcohol to get drunk doesn't mean that is what it is functionally designed to accomplish. I dont agree that this argument has no basis, and actually think one must face up to this distinction in the substances to understand their treatment in society. Once more, I would caution against conflating abusive behavior with substances themselves. I drink a beer three times a week and dont get intoxicated, but one every two months i deliberately abuse the substance (and knowingly do so). But my friend who smokes one joint is knowingly doing it to alter his state, and that is the functional difference.