Democrats want to Legalize Marijuana

[jamil]

I still think that framing this argument as "it's just a plant" isn't helpful, because it's not banned because it's a plant. It's banned because of its intoxicating effects. The real argument is whether people should be able to indulge in it or not, and whether or not that harms other people.

People are using moral arguments against this plant. they're not using moral arguments against alfalfa plants. If it's indeed an issue of morality, I think there has to be a victim other than the person doing it. I get Blackhawk's collective morality stance. That freedom requires responsibility and sensibility. But I'm not sure that keeping it illegal maintains that any more than making it legal would diminish it. Laws don't make people moral. And the people smoking weed do it as much as they want now. But at the risk of going to jail over it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

OK, There is no straw in a hay field.

Correct version you can cut and paste.

Did you just harvest a wheat field? There is a whole lot of straw in this post.

I suspect you are not even a Timjoebillybob, a guy named that would know this…

LOL

I know hay is for horses, and grass is for people...

 

[jamil]

Someone must be smoking weed.

 

[phylodog]

I still think that framing this argument as "it's just a plant" isn't helpful, because it's not banned because it's a plant. It's banned because of its intoxicating effects. The real argument is whether people should be able to indulge in it or not, and whether or not that harms other people.

People are using moral arguments against this plant. they're not using moral arguments against alfalfa plants. If it's indeed an issue of morality, I think there has to be a victim other than the person doing it. I get Blackhawk's collective morality stance. That freedom requires responsibility and sensibility. But I'm not sure that keeping it illegal maintains that any more than making it legal would diminish it. Laws don't make people moral. And the people smoking weed do it as much as they want now. But at the risk of going to jail over it.

I don't bring up the fact that it's a plant to diminish the fact that some people use it for purposes others might find distasteful. I could not care less about how someone else might feel about how I might use something, particularly when it has zero direct affect to those other people.

I bring it up to bring attention to the fact that human beings have been using it for thousands of years. Thousands of years and our species has managed to survive. This isn't some newly discovered intoxicant which is sure to doom humanity. Making it illegal hasn't stopped people from using it. Declaring it icky isn't going to stop people from using it. Digesting all of the (clearly) ridiculous propaganda which has been spread about it for only the past 1% of it's co-existence with human beings isn't going to stop people from using it. Spending billions to arrest and incarcerate people for something humans have been doing for thousands of year hasn't stopped people from using it. All for what? So some people who refuse to actually consider a different perspective can feel like they've accomplished something beneficial to society?

Alcohol is the only drug known to make people aggressive. If there were a legitimate reason to go after an intoxicant in a feeble attempt to eradicate it alcohol is the clearly deserving of that ire but we don't hear people climbing on soapboxes demanding it be prohibited. We tried that, it didn't work and apparently the people around back then were capable of seeing how ridiculous it is to try to forbid someone from doing something simply because you may not agree with it.

Maintaining the illegal status of cannabis is an extremely costly approach to helping some people sleep better at night believing they've done something. It apparently doesn't matter that the something they've been doing is, has been and will continue to be a complete and total failure. Maybe it'll work some day? Maybe after thousands of years of use and in spite of being prosecuted or persecuted for it humans will just wake up one day and say "OK, we'll stop now"?

 

[jamil]

I wouldn’t say alcohol is the only drug known to make people aggressive. I’m pretty sure that’s not true. But anyway, you can make the same arguments you’re making about alcohol. It’s been around for thousands of years. we banned it in this country for a few years and that turned out to be disastrous.

Prohibition of mj here hasn’t been any more effective. People still drank alcohol and people still use mj. It’s just that the number of people legitimately opposed to using mj is much higher than it was for alcohol.

The point is, mj’s current status has nothing to do with it being a plant.

 

[DadSmith]

Was marijuana legal for use in 1791? How about 1891? When did the government make it against the law?

My point is if for 100 years or more we didn't care who smoked weed. Why is it illegal now? How many other things have been banned by the federal government since 1791 that use to be a freedom and a choice?

I am not for any so called illegal drug use. I feel if a person wants to destroy their mind and body have at it. It's a choice although a bad choice if using drugs like methamphetamine, and many other drugs that destroy the mind and body. So be it. That is their Choice. If they decide to do home invasions and steal for their habit, and get caught or shot that is still on them.

A druggie will not stop until they themselves want to stop. Just my personal opinion, and experience working with druggies.

 

[jamil]

Was marijuana legal for use in 1791? How about 1891? When did the government make it against the law?

I think around 1970? I posted that a few days ago and now I’ve forgotten.

Why? War on blacks?

 

[phylodog]

I think around 1970? I posted that a few days ago and now I’ve forgotten.

Why? War on blacks?

Blacks unfairly played a very large role in the campaign which put cannabis on the schedule.

 

[blues bondsman]

Good by !
A bunch of woke leftists here.
Please remove my membership in this club !!!
They call it Dope for a reason !
You want to fog your brain ? well go for it.
Stink up a whole town with it ?? NO !

 

[Libertarian01]

I've supported legalizing marijuana for several decades.

Many years ago I asked myself, "From where does the government derive the just authority to tell me what I can and cannot put in my own body?" As I never was able to answer that question to my satisfaction I came to the conclusion that almost all drug laws were based upon nanny state thinking and therefore wrong. Not because I want to smoke marijuana - I don't. But because the government has no just authority to tell me I cannot. However, the government DOES have the authority to tell me I cannot operate a potentially lethal motor vehicle on the road impaired, but the cause of the impairment is irrelevant.

I had a client tell me one time that they smoked marijuana to help relieve some severe arthritis pain. I asked how long it took for relief to start to set in? They said very fast, about 15 minutes. And how much do you have to smoke? They said only a few puffs. So then how long does the relief last? They said about 3 - 4 hours, a little more or less depending.

With relatively fast relief lasting hours from a nonaddictive chemical I could easily see where certain segments of big pharma would be concerned. However, their interests are irrelevant to me.

I would certainly be happy if the republicans picked up this mantle and went forward with it. I certainly won't vote democratic over one (1) issue, but then neither would I for any other party, including my own. The republicans would be wise to pick this up and go forward with it, because others are one (1) issue voters.

Regards,

Doug

 

[phylodog]

Good by !
A bunch of woke leftists here.
Please remove my membership in this club !!!
They call it Dope for a reason !
You want to fog your brain ? well go for it.
Stink up a whole town with it ?? NO !

See ya

 

[BugI02]

Did you just harvest a hay field? There is a whole lot of straw in this post.

MJ = Vaccines?

For growing your own, some people would want to some wouldn't. Same with a whole host of other things. We'll start with alcohol, how many beer/wine drinkers do you know? How many make their own? How about hard alcohol? If they removed all the permits, etc that are required. How many do you think would get a still?

[Depends on if distilling it or growing it yourself is the only option. What about the claims of being Mother Nature's most natural discomfort reliever? Do you think commercial farming will hesitate to use pesticides and fertilizers and other things Gaia won't like? Won't that disrupt the magic?]

And brewing your own alcohol at home is simple, very simple compared to growing a garden. Pick up a gallon of water, a pack of yeast, sugar, and some raisins at the store. Dump out some of the water, add sugar and shake to dissolve, drop in some raisins and the pack of yeast and put a balloon over the mouth of the water jug. Wait a week or two.

Never heard that it was the only cure, heck I've never heard it being touted as a cure for anything. A treatment for somethings, but not a cure. And yes people can grow it now, not legally. Same with home distilling. Or running a meth lab. Or...

[I think it becomes a Pharma style cure, where you have to stay on the 'treatment protocol' for the rest of your life. The criticism you lampoon is directed at the 'cure' testimonials that seem to accompany every opinion in favor of elegalization. Take as an example Petulant Child's declaration that he didn't care about my brother's experience followed immediately by the Parkinson's sufferer who threw away his crutches and was well again after partaking of nature's miracle. The stories share many characteristic with things like faith healing and 'crystal medicine' or reiki - long on unsupported testimonial and short on scientific evidence

I will reiterate that Parkinson's is a deficiency in the production of dopamine in the Substantia Nigra. Weed works by triggering the enhanced release of dopamine in the brain. If you make so little dopamine already that it interferes with control of your musculature, weed trying to release more that you don't have isn't going to improve the problem. That's why the standard of care is often treatment with Levodopa]

Why would the state need to impose dispensaries? Or quality control? Wouldn't the free market take care of that? Heck if I wanted to I could grown a multitude of medicinal herbs and such, and sell them. Does the state need to impose dispensaries for those?

[The state wants to get paid. Name any state that legalized that hasn't gone with the licensed dispensary model for those who don't wish to grow their own? Did you know in California you can grow quite a bit of your own, but you can't buy the seeds. You have to order those from sketchy places in the EU and pay with NFTs. The problem is mentioned because the legalizers tend to 'think' in the manner of Legalize > A miracle happens> there are no unintended consequences and everybody is happy ever after]

Why do we need to deal with the disparity in numbers between medical and recreational?

[Because the proselytizers for legalization are always quoting stories about the medicinal benefits and objecting to the characterization that the lion's share are decadent and just want to get high. Referencing the 10:1 or more ratio between the recreational users and the numbers of people with conditions amenable to treatment with MJ is refutation of that canard]

And yet more straw. By the way there are several Repubs that back this as well. At least one that I can think of is I believe pretty well liked on this site, Rep Lucas.

[I'm happy you like him. Plenty of Republicans have backed stupid ideas (See: Romney, McCain, McMullen, The Chamber o'Commerce, path to citizenship etc), having a few Republicans on your side is no guarantee an idea is good or beneficial. I would ask if the fact you have a lot of Democrats on your side ever gives you pause]

And a national referendum on whether it should be legal or not? I'd be pretty confident it would pass for legalization. Polls going back 20 years or more show a majority of people supporting it, with support increasing over time. Current support is near 70% iirc.

[If it is such a done deal, why not go there? Write your democratic congressmen now!}

See above about beer/wine. Or heck look at the produce section of your local store, how many of the things there are easy to grow here in IN? I know a lot of people who like tomatoes but don't want to grow them themselves. You've mentioned you enjoy a drink now and again. Do you make your own or pick it up at CVS or Walgreens?

And cannibalism = MJ? Here is a bit of advice, Reefer Madness was not a true documentary.

[The mention was a refutation of the idea that because 'people have been growing and using weed for centuries it is magically wonderful. Reductio Absurdum. There are plenty of things that humans have been doing for centuries that are not benign. The mere fact that something has been going on for a long period of time is not prima facie evidence that it is beneficial or even desirable See:Chattel Slavery

I'll return the favor on advice. Fast Times at Ridgemont High was fiction, not a documentary]

 

[BugI02]

But….Hay and straw are two different things.

Shhhh. Don't confuse the city boy dopers with the facts

 

[ditcherman]

OK, There is no straw in a hay field.

Correct version you can cut and paste.

Did you just harvest a wheat field? There is a whole lot of straw in this post.

I suspect you are not even a Timjoebillybob, a guy named that would know this…

LOL

That’s exactly the first thing I thought, anybody with that name…
But decided against going there because I’m already so bad at threadjacking.

 

[phylodog]

Lol, facts

 

[BugI02]

I still think that framing this argument as "it's just a plant" isn't helpful, because it's not banned because it's a plant. It's banned because of its intoxicating effects. The real argument is whether people should be able to indulge in it or not, and whether or not that harms other people.

People are using moral arguments against this plant. they're not using moral arguments against alfalfa plants. If it's indeed an issue of morality, I think there has to be a victim other than the person doing it. I get Blackhawk's collective morality stance. That freedom requires responsibility and sensibility. [Glad a few people will consider this] But I'm not sure that keeping it illegal maintains that any more than making it legal would diminish it [So, if you're not sure about the outcome, is it just some grand experiment you are advocating? Do you have reason to believe MJMagic will suspend the law of unintended consequences? Do you have reason to believe a benign outcome is more likely than a disastrous one?]
Laws don't make people moral. And the people smoking weed do it as much as they want now. But at the risk of going to jail over it. [And I ask again, does the willingness to risk their career, their livelihood, their possessions and even perhaps their freedom to participate in society never give them pause, cause them to wonder WHY the desire to be high is so strong that they will risk so much? After all, it isn't addictive or anything]

 

[phylodog]

If facts were being utilized for this discussion there wouldn’t be a discussion.

The pot discussion stirs up emotions of ickyness which interfere with logical thought. Those emotions are based on the misinformation and ******** which is apparently so embedded in hard heads they can no longer consider other perspectives.

Here’s a hint, Covid isn’t the first major “problem” our government has lied about in order to control people. Some could use a clue, possibly do some actual research but fragile emotions could be problematic.

 

[BugI02]

I don't bring up the fact that it's a plant to diminish the fact that some people use it for purposes others might find distasteful. I could not care less about how someone else might feel about how I might use something, particularly when it has zero direct affect to those other people.

I bring it up to bring attention to the fact that human beings have been using it for thousands of years. Thousands of years and our species has managed to survive. This isn't some newly discovered intoxicant which is sure to doom humanity. Making it illegal hasn't stopped people from using it. Declaring it icky isn't going to stop people from using it. Digesting all of the (clearly) ridiculous propaganda which has been spread about it for only the past 1% of it's co-existence with human beings isn't going to stop people from using it. Spending billions to arrest and incarcerate people for something humans have been doing for thousands of year hasn't stopped people from using it. All for what? So some people who refuse to actually consider a different perspective can feel like they've accomplished something beneficial to society?

Alcohol is the only drug known to make people aggressive. If there were a legitimate reason to go after an intoxicant in a feeble attempt to eradicate it alcohol is the clearly deserving of that ire but we don't hear people climbing on soapboxes demanding it be prohibited. We tried that, it didn't work and apparently the people around back then were capable of seeing how ridiculous it is to try to forbid someone from doing something simply because you may not agree with it.

Maintaining the illegal status of cannabis is an extremely costly approach to helping some people sleep better at night believing they've done something. It apparently doesn't matter that the something they've been doing is, has been and will continue to be a complete and total failure. Maybe it'll work some day? Maybe after thousands of years of use and in spite of being prosecuted or persecuted for it humans will just wake up one day and say "OK, we'll stop now"?

Crash rates jump in wake of marijuana legalization, new studies show

New research from IIHS and HLDI confirms the trend, but a separate study of injured drivers found no increase in crash risk from the drug except when combined with alcohol.

www.iihs.org

More evidence is emerging that crash rates go up when states legalize recreational use and retail sales of marijuana.

Crash rates spiked with the legalization of recreational marijuana use and retail sales in California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, a new study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and another by the affiliated Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) show.

The most recent of these studies from IIHS shows that injury and fatal crash rates in California, Colorado, Nevada, Oregon and Washington jumped in the months following the relaxation of marijuana laws in each state.

Combined, the impact of legalization and, subsequently, retail sales in the five states resulted in a 6 percent increase in injury crash rates and a 4 percent increase in fatal crash rates compared with other Western states where recreational marijuana use was illegal during the study period. Only the increase in injury crash rates was statistically significant.

Awaiting focus on the datum that people involved in crashes were more likely to be doing dope and alcohol, as if all the blame accrues to alcohol and none to weed - ignoring the fact that the people drinking and driving likely always were and the addition of dope absolutely made injury and fatal crashes more likely. 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

 

[BugI02]

I think around 1970? I posted that a few days ago and now I’ve forgotten.

Why? War on blacks?

A fairly large number of individual states made it illegal between 1918 and 1937 (either 19 or 29, can't remember) then it was made de facto illegal nationwide by some sort of tax act in 1937

 

[phylodog]

Crash rates jump in wake of marijuana legalization, new studies show

New research from IIHS and HLDI confirms the trend, but a separate study of injured drivers found no increase in crash risk from the drug except when combined with alcohol.

www.iihs.org

Awaiting focus on the datum that people involved in crashes were more likely to be doing dope and alcohol, as if all the blame accrues to alcohol and none to weed - ignoring the fact that the people drinking and driving likely always were and the addition of dope absolutely made injury and fatal crashes more likely. 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

I haven’t seen anyone advocate for smoking a fatty and driving a car. If we’re going to use that sort of ******** thinking we’d better start writing checks to Mom’s Demand Action so we can ban guns so no one will get murdered with one.

I’m starting to think that some might benefit from smoking a joint. Might slow down the frothy mouthed gnashing of teeth long enough for some logic to sneak in.