Skeptic Project

You're seriously asking me what the difference is between huffing paint in a bag and getting drunk?

Seriously? LOL, wow. Keep posting Ed, this shit is hilarious.

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,

Are you seriously going to suggest that there is not a serious problem with alcohol abuse in society? o_O If you are, I don't think I can be bothered with this debate.

Marijuana, however, is functionally different and has no such customary or cultural role contrary to this point.

You act like marijuana is as void of culture as MDMA is. Cannabis has been taken for thousands of years for religious, medicinal and recreation reasons.

How many people give a monkeys about the history about cannabis when they spark up? Probably the most hardcore smokers, ironically. Everyone else just wouldn't give a crap. Same with alcohol. Most people just want to get drunk, or have a beer with their mates. They don't care about the history of beer, that's secondary. It makes it more interesting, but that's about it. People who are really into wine love to know where it came from, the entire history. Same with tobacco, people who are connoisseurs of smoking love to know where their tobacco comes from. But most people buying Marlboro Lights off the self in the store just want their nicotine fix. I just don't see how this argument you make makes any sense.

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.

Alcohol is a natural product, cannabis is a natural product. Its what you do with it that makes it targeted. Alcoholic products can be and are specifically made to appeal to people that just want to get drunk, people who sell alcohol put offers on such products because they know that the audience of these products and why they buy them.

Alcohol in itself isn't "designed" to do anything and cannabis is just a plant. When you make a product like you referenced earlier like FourLoco, that is designed for a purpose. Similarly when you intentionally make a beer dirt cheap and slap a high alcohol content in it, its appealing to a certain market as well. They often won't advertise as what it really is, but its obvious what the intent is especially when you see the customers that buy it. Products that are too overt in their intent can get banned such as FourLoco or alcopops that specifically try to market to teens. In fact in TV advertising in the UK have very strict rules about what they can and can't do when promoting alcoholic products. They have to be very careful, but there is nonetheless a massive drinking culture here in the UK (since that's all I can give experience in). And when I say drinking culture, I mean in the negative way not what you're talking about.

Only a small amount of people drink a small amount of products because they think it tastes nice, the idea that a relevantly significant number of people would drink it if it had no alcoholic content is insane to me. Some products would have an acquired taste, like certain beers, but most products would completely disappear. Its like saying people would still smoke if it didn't have any nicotine. Some people would, of course, because some people are tobacco connoisseurs, but most people would suddenly have no reason to do it. Why do you think there's plenty of cheap alcohol around? Its the same reasons there's plenty of cheap tobacco products around. The customers of these products don't give a crap what sort of history or tradition surrounds the drugs they are taking and neither do the companies that make them.

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.

But is it a relevant one? Why does that difference mean it should be illegal while the more harmful drug in every way I have seen - alcohol, is allowed to be legal. So if your friend smokes a spliff he is breaking the law while you can have a house full of alcohol, drink until you pass out, have to be taken to hospital, the cops know you have a house full of booze, but you're totally fine legally. I just don't get that. If it was a serious drug like crystal meth, I can see this argument being much less cut and dry but for me cannabis isn't that bad.

Don't talk to me about tradition and why people take these drugs, tell me why scientifically and/or sociologically society would be better off with cannabis being illegal, rather than at least being decriminalised as it is in the Netherlands.

Everything else here just seems to be your own personal concepts about why YOU like alcohol rather than cannabis. I find this completely irrelevant, we're talking about what's best for society.

You're seriously asking me what the difference is between huffing paint in a bag and getting drunk?

Yes, medically, what is the difference? Don't worry about answering though, I know you don't get why I'm asking, since you've been misrepresenting everything I've said since I started posting you're either too dishonest or stupid to bother with anymore.

@Snob Goblin I wish you'd bring up some links as to how legalizing pot would be worse =P

I know CS isn't trying to change the world but it be fun to read a explanation of "how it will be worse" in some details.

I'm also curious how you reconcile that alcohol in moderation has scientifically been shown to have positive health benefits, but no study has shown any positive health benefit for marijuana at any level. We certainly cannot ignore that the substances are both functionally different irrespective of the cultures of abuse that have grown up around them.

What does a matter if people have done something for thousands of years for any reason? People beat women for thousands of years. Also, I'm curious as for crime and so forth, how many frequent marijuana users actually commit petty or violent crimes to feed their habits? My point being, if it's legalized the only crime that will come to an end is marijuana possession arrests.

Degenerate fucks who can't hold a job because they have a drug problem will still commit crimes, even if the drug is legal. This was true back when heroin was sold at Sears, and it's true today.

Please explain to me, on this point alone, how will crime go down if people committing crimes are doing it because they are consumed by addiction, even if they can buy the drug at the corner store? I can't possibly believe all these laptops, cars, TV, etc over town are being stolen because of the evil drug cartels or the Russian mob, and not because of the person alone.

I hope the answer isn't providing prescriptions them like Jello Biafra suggests, I think that's a horrible idea. So we get to not only pay for their drug habit, when it goes too far we get to pay for their treatment as well.

You are assuming that for history and cultural significance to be pertinent one must have it in mind. This is certainly absurd.

Oh good.

What I am stating is that alcohol can and has been functionally a part of food-custom and as such it is impossible to make it illegal as it betrays two fundamental roles the substance has- that between abusers and those who actually enjoy the taste of food and drink. Can the same be said for canibis?

I don't see why its relevant, as I stated in my previous post.

Whether you get high off one spliff or not to me doesn't make any difference here. Some people have very low tolerance to alcohol and merely require half a beer, or a glass of wine to be at least as intoxicated as sharing a spliff with a friend. But we are talking about HARM TO SOCIETY and I have not seen you extend this argument as to the differences between alcohol and cannabis consumption to how it actually relates to this issue.

To consume it in "moderation" is rather contradictory to its function.

Well I guess this sentence now promotes be to ask for a definition of "abuse" and "moderation". Are you "abusing" alcohol if you get drunk? How drunk do you have to get before you are "abusing" it? If you get tipsy, are you abusing it? And on what scale of tipsy do you have to be? Slightly light-headed?

I'm asking not to be an ass but because since I've smoked before and done a few other drugs I come at this from a somewhat educated perspective as to the effects of these substances. To me I can safely say I have "abused" alcohol far more than I have cannabis. I have stupidly drunk so much I have vomited all day and felt as sick as I have ever been several times. With cannabis I had smoked a lot (for me) as well and been pretty high, one time I felt high for several days afterwards after smoking all day consistently. I felt sick a few times, but not that much, I mainly just need a nap. But in terms of abuse, you would have to objectively say I abuse alcohol far more.

Critically, its far EASIER to abuse alcohol. With alcohol the reaction is FAR worse much faster for your health. Now, I do not dispute cannabis is very bad when taken consistently for a long period, but to claim that you can't take cannabis "moderately" tells me you haven't really smoked it before and if you have I really don't see how you could say these things.

This is precisely why huffing paint is so asinine- it is an action based on manipulating an otherwise innocuous substance for the sole purpose of mood alteration.

And someone choosing to do that and drinking till they pass out isn't really that different. But its a stupid example like I said when Matt said it, since sniffing solvents can be immediately deadly. But cannabis is not a drug that is comparable to such things, you could smoke and smoke and smoke and you'd pass out before had any problems. But people die all the time from drink related injuries not to mention the damage to their liver.

Again, we're talking about harm to society here, why can't we talk about that? I keep seeing that question being bypassed every time.

Your point that cannibis is just a plant is further rather empty as its cultivation and curing process is deliberately set up to create a substance designed for the sole purpose of mood alteration. Do you think there is not a distinct difference in functionality between these substances?

Don't misunderstand why I said cannabis is just a plant. I hate it when people promoting cannabis legalisation say its not harmful because its natural, there's plenty of natural plants out there that will kill you and make you sick. I said it was a plant because you said cannabis was made to get you high, I said its application is what tells us the intent. Alcohol is the same thing, it itself it is also natural same with tobacco. But you get dirty cheap high alcoholic content products and you get cheap tobacco products. These are made for people that want their drug fix, so unless you're all for getting rid of THEM, I fail to see the argument.

Now marijuana does not create a physical dependence, but the key difference is, and here I repeat it again, is that marijuana has only the functional role of mood alteration- alcohol does not.

Personally and I know this does come under mood alteration, the main reason I would smoke again is because I love how it amplifies my sense of taste. To say I'm not allowed to have that because you have arbitrarily decided that I took it to get that affect doesn't make any sense to me.

What relevance does any of this have with how bad cannabis would be to society if it was decriminalised?

I have asked this before and don't think I got an answer, so I'll copy and paste it again: If you can show me how cannabis legalisation would harm society then I will accept the proposition that it should stay illegal. The closest to legalisation is that of the Netherlands: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands So I ask again, is there any objective reason that cannabis should not be treated in this way, or at least in a similar way? It seems to me that the statistics show that their drugs policy works, or at least works better than what we're talking about. I'm prepared to be shown that is not true, I just haven't seen it. Their policy may not be perfect, but it sure seems like they are progressive enough to at least be moving forward.

Alcohol's intent is not always to get someone drunk. It is also used for cooking. It is also used for religious rituals. Its also used as a drink with a meal without the intention to get drunk.

Pot's intent is only to get stoned.

You can keep linking that stupid Netherlands Wikipedia entry, it means squat when RAND did a study on the impacts of legalization on Mexican drug cartels. Its linked in this very thread.

I think Ed is just dumb and he's going to stick to his guns on this no matter what. It wouldn't be the first time he's shown his crank side. Ask him about organic food sometime.

I find the Netherlands argument laughable, as they've stopped making drugs available to foreigners because of the trouble it's causing them.

So don't act like the Dutch aren't starting to wise up, they are.

I find the Netherlands argument laughable, as they've stopped making drugs available to foreigners because of the trouble it's causing them.

You havent read the wiki article and followed the links. You claimed crime would get worse, where has that happened?

You can keep linking that stupid Netherlands Wikipedia entry, it means squat when RAND did a study on the impacts of legalization on Mexican drug cartels. Its linked in this very thread.

First time you've ever mentioned something that might have some kind of relevance looking like some data besides your own firm opinions.

We're not just talking about America, I live in the UK, America isn't the whole world y'know. I don't know what the deal is with America, if there is a good reason why cannabis should not be decriminalised in America then I just haven't see that reason presented and all you've done through this whole thread is insult me and call me names while offering not a shred of data, evidence or reason while misrepresenting my position so you can call it stupid. You call yourself a troll, well congrats, you are.

If someone wants to actually talk specifics on this then please go ahead, no one actually seems to be doing this.

Ask him about organic food sometime.

Oh right, so what do I think about that Matt? Go on please do tell me, I'm sure it will be hilarious given how you've been doing a great job lying about what I think in this thread so why not this too? Go for it.

"I'm sure it will be hilarious given how you've been doing a great job lying about what I think in this thread so why not this too?"

LOL! Fuckin' lunatic. Anyways, the study was linked on the previous page. Ain't my fault you didn't see it. Ain't my fault you don't see all the specifics Kaiser has laid out right in front of your woo-spewing face either. But yeah, you never participated in any Facebook discussions on organic food. Nope, I'm lying about it. I didn't even bring up paint huffing either, Bill did.

You're presenting a fine example of why I don't think drugs should be legal: lack of personal fucking responsibility.

Also I don't give a shit about the UK or the Netherlands. I'm an American.

I would like pot to be legal but for selfish subjective reasons. ;)

I'm only quitting because I don't want to smoke it. I wouldn't be quitting if I could afford to ingest it rather than smoke it. But it's too dam expensive too cook with because it's illegal. :p

I personally believe it's just a matter of time before it's legalized anyway. But whether or not it legalized, it won't really affect my life.

//Laws exist because people do not exhibit enough personal responsibility and rational behavior to not need them.//

Unfortunately this is true.

I struggle to think of any valid good that legalization would do. Decriminalization, maybe, because I don't necessarily think you should rot in jail for blazing up, either. But full-on legalization I'd never vote for.

It seems people want it legalized, better or not, IMO.

Which is why it was legalized in California? Oh, haha.

Really, I think young, liberal-minded people are projecting onto the rest of society. Most of them simply do not vote, and the people who do vote often do not want it legalized.