The Right Scoop
Legalizing marijuana is part of decentralizing government as a whole. I personally don't use marijuana, never will, but the government has pretty much no right telling us what we can put in our bodies.
I disagree with Crowder. Relaxing drug laws decreases black market crime. Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek stated this, also. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLsCC0LZxkY
So what is more important...A stoned non productive populace or decreasing black market crime? What is the bigger threat to society and civilization in general?
Decreasing black market crime is more important, because there's no evidence from existing sources that legalizing marijuana will lead to a "stoned non productive populace". No country that legalized their pot has gone down the highway to hell, and any evidence to the contrary is nonexistent.
Jared this thread is old, yes the stats are out there but it is pointless to retrieve them for a rabid pot smoker who thinks he knows better than the rest of the world. There are stats. There are articles. Studies. Tons and tons of information but you are not interested in being informed and educated to both sides of an issue. You are interested in one up-manship that really is pointless.
It isn't about the constitution exactly per se but it is about the fabric that makes a cohesive and productive society. You know that. I asked earlier...What is the purpose of government? And what you may think it is the ultimate question really isn't. The ultimate question is...Is it good for or beneficial to society and civilization overall? Where in the constitution does it say we can't drink and drive?
Now I haven't avoided any topic or resorted to any name calling. I don't really care what you major in. My daughter is a historian...not a student. Would you like my resume? Does it matter? What you are is a person that has to justify your bad behavior and moral relativism with personal slights and insults devoid of reality.
Oh and Jared...I am a very active member of the Mount Vernon Historical Society as well as other historical charities aimed at preserving our history. Yes your history could use some work. So much of what you know just isn't so. But you keep letting those leftist agenda driven profs manipulate and lie to you. After all they have been doing it for decades and decades so you wouldn't be an exception. Let the culture control you as well since that is just so intelligent and worthy of a history major. Ironically you bring up the behavior of others without ever critically thinking or examining whether that behavior was good or justified. Let's say your history is correct and the Founding Father's did indeed do dope...SO? Since when are the Founding Fathers perfect beings to be emulated in every way and manner? If that were the case we would still have slavery. I could give you a list of things that would be entirely different if we are to copy FF's exactly. My dear please try and learn some critical thinking skills. Also if your history is indeed correct look up the Scotus rulings on drugs. Not just the outcome...actually read the opinions and the arguments put forth by both sides.
As to your personal habits...what did you say...oh yeah.."PROVE IT!"
Now you may respond but since you are not informed of both sides of the issue and refuse to get that way, I will not respond back. So rant, rave, swear, do what you like. It will fall on deaf ears. What I am not going to do is clog up this blog with literally thousands of stats on subject where the information is readily and easily accessible.
I find it interesting (and not a least bit humorous) that you use the terms "vociferous", "nasty", "too late for your brain", etc when you speak of my posts.....when you're the one using them, not me.
LAUREL: "There are tons and tons of stats"
That's probably the third time I've heard that. So where are they?
LAUREL: ".....the facts in the video didn't seem to matter either."
Actually, Crowder made some good points. I'm making a different point about states' rights and the role of civil government in the whole affair. Even Crowder himself said in the video that civil government not having a say in what we can or can't put in our bodies was a good point to make and one worth debating.
LAUREL: "And your history needs some serious work..."
I would ask for evidence, but that hasn't worked yet.....
Oh, and I'm a history major, so I don't say these things lightly.
LAUREL: "Now you are inventing things as well."
Prove it. Or is that too much to ask?
For the record, I have never used drugs, pot, alcohol, cigars, cigarettes, or even had a cup of coffee (can't stand the taste). Can you say the same? I await your retraction of the term "pot head" with glee.
LAUREL: ".....and it's too late for your brain anyway."
I'll remember that after I graduate college with two degrees (Political Science and History).
FOR ANYONE READING THIS THREAD: Avoiding the topic (like Laurel has done), resorting to name-calling (like Laurel has done), refusing to answer questions (like Laurel has done), and claiming to have but refusing to show evidence to back up points (like Laurel has done) are all clear signs of someone losing a debate (or so I remember from debate class back in high school).
I will leave Ms. Laurel with one last question: Where in the Constitution (or anywhere else, for that matter) does civil government have ANY right to dictate to anyone what they can or can't place in their own bodies in the privacy of their own homes? THAT is the ultimate question.
Are you still talking?! Now you are inventing things as well. What never ceases to amaze me is just how vociferous and downright nasty pot heads get while arguing for the legalization of a seemingly 'harmless' drug. If it is so harmless why does it need regulation?
And your history needs some serious work...but you keep contorting it and yourself in an effort to justify your shortcomings.
There are tons and tons of stats but somehow I get the inkling that even if I did post them it wouldn't matter since the facts in the video didn't seem to matter either.
Go smoke another one brotha' since you need to chill out and it's too late for your brain anyway.
I don't need to offer stats for a claim I didn't make. You're the one making the claim, so back it up. That's why I did with my claim, so the ball is officially in your court. You're saying I'm either lying or ignorant -- be my guest and prove it.
Moral relativism has virtually nothing to do with any of this. I've always believed drug usage to be morally wrong, but civil government has no philosophical, moral, or theological grounds to tell me, you, or anyone else what we can or can't put in our bodies. If we infringe on the rights of other folks, then that's another story -- beyond that, civil government has no role to play. I'm advocating freedom here. Liberty doesn't always look pretty or do what we want it to do, but it's always worth it in the end. I'll be the first to say that people have a right to smoke marijuana in the privacy of their own home, and I'll also be the first to say that they're idiots if they act on that freedom. There's no hypocrisy there. The only one being hypocritical in the long run is yourself.
The American Founders didn't fight the Revolution so we could be putting people in jail for this nonsense -- heck, Washington, Jefferson, and Hancock would all be behind bars today, since Washington grew hemp at Mount Vernon, Jefferson smoked it, and Hancock distributed/smuggled it.
Are you incapable of googling the stats out of those country's with legalized drugs??? Really?! What has happened to Sweden, Netherlands, etc societies since legalization of drugs? Do you even know? You said evidence is non existent but that is a blatant lie you tell yourself to justify your stupidity.
Like all good druggies that don't care about civilization you will spin, twist, contort and be just plain ridiculous to deny the truth.
And if you are going to post stats, post the sources. Plus your stats don't even begin to refute the science behind pot.
Good grief the dope advocates make me laugh with their ridiculousness. You guys give dogs and bones a run for their money. Their is tons of history about what happened to moral relativistic non productive drug hazed societies. Learn it.
What is ironic is your total lack of ethics. You yourself proclaim drug abuse bad but then go on to advocate something bad for society. STUNNING! That right there is where moral relativism crosses the line from stupid into evil.
I find it interesting that you mention "stats" and then don't offer any. Unless you consider 2% marijuana abuse (and that might be pushing it up a bit higher than what's justified) in Europe and Australia COMBINED to be "the highway to hell", marijuana legalization hasn't really affected Europe in a hugely negative way. Are there negatives? Of course, using drugs is stupid and ridiculous -- but let's stop pretending the world will end if people can roll up a joint in their spare time.
Want more stats? Sure thing:
1) As already mentioned, estimates from Europe and Australia also find rates of marijuana abuse and dependence in the general population between 1 percent and 2 percent. This relatively small group accounts for a considerable share of total consumption.
2) A study by Rosalie Pacula, Jamie Chriqui, and Janna King examined several states where marijuana had been decriminalized by reducing the penalties for simple possession. They found that living in a decriminalized state increases use among high school students but by only 2%. Other studies have found either no increases among juveniles or as much as 4% increase.
3) On a national level, a recent report by Jon Gettman estimated that national criminal justice expenditures for enforcing marijuana laws is $7.6 billion per year with $3.7 billion being allocated to police, $853 million to the courts, and $3.1 billion to corrections. If the number of arrests for marijuana in a given jurisdiction reflects 10% of the total arrests, it is argued that the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana would produce a 10% drop or savings in the total law enforcement costs. At present, the nation is spending $12.1 billion in police and court costs and another $16.9 billion in corrections costs. Go ahead and do the math.
Au contraire. There is plenty of evidence and denial is not a river in Egypt. Take a look at the stats that come out of Sweden, The Netherlands, etc.
Simply because you say there is no evidence and bury your head in the sand doesn't make it so.
Do you think the government should make all bad behavior illegal? Good luck with that! You just admitted in your previous post you'd rather have it illegal even though that increases black market crime.
And what makes them do violence? Are you also saying we as a country and people aren't capable of walking and chewing bubblegum? We can't focus on more than one thing?
BALONEY.
So far all you are doing is attempting to justify personal bad behavior.
You are totally misinterpreting that video. And so what if you weren't? Milton Friedman and Hayek were not all knowing gods right about every single thing or topic they ever gave an opinion on.
by the way, my source on the big gulp was Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan - a very enlightening book, and my sources on marijuana are the various internet places as well as personal experience - I do not like alcohol because it doesnt like me - marijuana does :-)
Big gulp Vs Marijuana - wow. Let me take a stab at this - I support the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana, but not the "big gulp".
Pepsi-cola (and other soft drink manufacturers) introduced the larger sizes to sell more - but specifically because people will buy more ounces, but not more drinks. Much to the health detriment of our society.
Marijuana was made demonized by the government due to racial motivation, again to the detriment of our society in terms of criminalizing someone caught with it ever after due to records retention of law enforcement/government.
Maybe both are bad for you. So is too much water. Common sense needs to be used with all things, and I prefer to be the judge of my own common sense as long as it doesnt affect others.
I think the physicians opinions are just that. Its hard to have, at this time, an honest long term view as all modern results have been skewed by the government.
But on personal bias, knowing what it does to the individual is as varied as the issues - its never the same consistently. However to allow substances and not others is biased and if researched for the motivations as of today can be seen to be either politically or monetarily devised. seemingly not for individual freedoms or rights.
What a load of crap. Dope has a deleterious effect on society as has been proven repeatedly. It is not a victimless crime and it is not some government conspiracy...and drinking Big Gulp isn't either. Pepsi/Coke didn't force people to buy and drink those Big Gulps. They wanted them and the market provided it.
Not everyone has common sense as evidenced by your post and society at large needs a bit of protection from boneheads like you that read one book on a given topic that they picked to support their preconceived notions then go on to consider it the end all be all authority on a subject.
And really the comment on the physicians opinions is priceless. You don't like their opinions so you discount them immediately despite the fact they have education and science behind those opinions. So if you get cancer are you going to discount the oncologist's opinion as well?
Your whole government conspiracy-big business conspiracy-paranoid post that has no critical thinking skills what so ever makes the case TO NOT LEGALIZE DOPE.
And Pollan is a charlatan and there are suckers born every minute that fall for people like him.
There's a fun (but serious) article called "everything causes cancer" and it looks at all the things that we eat, cook and encounter that can (and have) caused cancer in humans and rats. So when Crowder goes to the doc who wants to cite some "potential" problem with schizos (because theirs soooo many of them) maybe having an onset early - it ranks right up there with the propaganda that pot is harmless.
Another problem with this is his statement that it's something that's engaged in by a minority while at the same time having a hard time finding somebody that hasn't toked up. I was a teenager in the 80s, a LOT of people tried pot and if it was the doomsday gateway drug that the antis say it is, the US would have crashed and burned by 1990.
More seriously, you don't see gangbangers having shootouts over Jim Beam "turf", legalization would cut down on a lot of that. The NARCO lords are rich because the stuff is illegal (and so therefore profitable to smuggle) and what are we up to now 40,000 dead Mexicans? I can't go to certain parts of my state (Arizona) because I don't want to run into armed traffickers strolling across the border by the squad. Add to that the criminal garbage pulled by ATF and DEA (oops, wrong house, sorry Mr. Smith got shot)...
Just legalize it. All of it. Darwin will take his cut, but that might be good for the gene pool.
You would think Steve told people child molesters are good guys by the hate he is getting for this. It is common sense that something that gets you high is not good for you....that falls under the category as DUH! Yet the fact that these kids are so ignorant about this is disturbing.
Steven, if the culture fully adopts the legalization of pot, it will not require a nuclear event to take us back to the stone age. No pun intended. Pot is the gateway drug to irreversible, national decline.
The argument of alcohol being just as bad as pot and it is legal is silly. Is that the basis for every political argument nowadays? Two wrongs make a right? People in this culture have just simply checked out. That said, i never would drink alcohol or smoke weed. People who do these things are flirting with addiction and dependency and possibly ruining their entire lives. All of this stuff is bad, bad, stuff. The government most certainly wants the legalization of pot so it can become another huge revenue source, via taxation just like Cigarettes are.
The government doesn't want to legalize pot. The government and Obama agrees with you that it should be prosecuted and spends resources cracking down on pot.
I don't know if you're saying that we should try Prohibition towards alcohol again.
I have no problem with marijuana. None at all. I think its absolutely ridiculous to argue against it when liquor is legal. A substance that has ruined millions of lives for thousands of years. I despise alcohol. I hate it actually. Pot isn't even addictive. Can you find stats on marijuana deaths and the deaths its caused. No.
My wife works for one of the highest end doctor's in Dallas. They do pain management for Dallas Cowboys, Dallas Mavericks and Texas Rangers. He essays he doesn't even test for it. They test for all other drugs. This whole issue is stupid.
Drinkers run red lights....pot smokers stop at green one's.
Lemmee see if I understand this correctly...
Ok for the govt to make a certain size soft drink cup illegal. Because its size can be harmful to ya.
But not ok to make marijuana illegal. And that don't cause no harm.
The government and the likes of Bloomberg would delight in cracking down on both of them. And does. Eric Holder agrees with you on marijuana.
His point about legalizing it wont reduce crime is lame. For one his example is not even one of legalizing and two there is a big diff in the crime of murder vs buying some Pot legally then redistributing it. The drug smuggling arena is rife with murders and other heinous crimes, properly legalizing contraban would reduce those crimes. However it won't be legalized properly because the Gov will tax the hell out of it so you will still have the Blackmarket element as long as they can provide it cheaper or of better quality. I am not saying whether I am for or against the issue but what I am for is realizing that a blackmarket is an indicator that you are doing something wrong and needs to be looked at under that light. If there wasn't something wrong with your model a blackmarket wouldnt exist.
Baloney. Black market often is an indicator that taxes and regulations as well as government oversight are to be avoided since they tend to eat into the bottom line. then to add insult to injury the dope heads have to pay taxes on it to boot.
Remember Al Capone didn't go to Alcatraz for smuggling. He went for tax evasion.
but Rum running was not due to tax avoidance it was due to prohibition. They couldnt get Capone on anything else so they settled for taxes.
Laurel I enjoyed reading your intelligent comments. I'm the psychiatrist in the video and wish Steven could have had the space to include our discussions about psych symptoms other than psychosis. Mood disorders, anxiety disorders and cognitive disorders arise from pot use, not to mention pot use fueling cross-addiction. The prefrontal cortex, AKA the executive brain, is severely impaired by cannabis. The deficits are evident on neuropsych testing and in functional MRI's of the brain. Because pot is a depot drug, the impairment is chronic and use is heavy enough, permanent.
Less than 0.01 percent of physicians are pro or neutral about "medical" use, because docs know that cannabis actually contains 400 different chemicals and 80 identifiable metabolites is not a medicine.
Take a look at mob history through the ages...most are gotten on tax evasion even now with RICO in place.
Now if NYC can legalize pot so in the same city big gulps are banned yet pot is legal....that would a fine work of liberalism to see
We already have a bunch of freeloaders wandering around detoxing off Big Gulps,Twinkies and salt.What's next? A bunch of stoned freeloaders. I guess they want a bunch of Jello heads to hand more free crap to.
You notice he asks a bunch of stoners to give an expert opinion about being stoned?
That's similar to asking a bunch of convicts if they deserve to be in jail.
Hope you had a good Thanksgiving.Mine was nice but I think the Turkey may have been high.One of those free range organic birds running around eating only God knows what. Haha
I did notice that.
Hope your Thanksgiving was good as well. Fried a turkey for the first time and we've found our new method of cooking turkey. It's way shorter and tastes 100 times better. I got lucky and got sucked up to the big bldg up here. yeah.....ha. Hope all is well on your end.
Awesome.
Desk jockey job would drive me crazy.I couldn't do it.
The school doesn't want to let you go once they get a hold of you. You would get locked in.They like to put you out to pasture over there.
Ha ha ha...I know. i haven't but I'll get locked in over there. I'm applying for that NDU masters program next year over at SWC so hopefully I get that and can get out. In the meantime this job is an "intern" job to finishing ILE and getting back to group really.
A year? Man that can feel like a lifetime. Have you ever tried to get on out at SWCS?
At least you can have fun making the cherries life's miserable.
It might be fun Swicking em around.
I didn't. The pot I used actually had fill lines on it for the appropriate size turkey. Turned out great. I agree if the left has their way that will be too unhealthy for you, but I'll probably be allowed to spark a bowl while I'm discarding my oil. Thats completely fine.
The big bldg is what it is. Nothing exciting, pushing paper around. Lot of civillians and ca people around. Not too many long tabbers which takes away from at least entertaining conversation. Shouldn't be up there too long though, no more than a year I hope.
Be careful not to overfill the cooker. It kinda pisses off the neighbors when you start burning down the neighborhood. Deep fry while you can.It will probably be outlawed by next Thanksgiving. Big building.Good for you.Are you happy?
So, I'm sitting in my living room just now and I hear cars blowing their horns outside, and a line of them at a halt. I look ahead a little and see the reason...ten wild turkeys crossing the road. Yesterday it was deer.
I was wondering why they crossed the road and it occurred to me that they just wanted to get to other side.
Here's my opinion: If the choice is between drinking "Wild Turkey" or smoking duh weed, choose duh weed. I've tried both and there is no comparison. Hard liquor is much worse IMO.
Wild turkeys and deer? I don't think I would be blowing a horn.I'd be out there blowing holes in those mothers. Fill the freezer with munchies.
Liquor or duh weed? One get's me stupid the other gets me a few years pounding rocks into sand.For now I'll stick with the drunk birds.
That cigarette that guy in front of you is puffing on behind the wheel: Marlboro or marijuana? Better hang back or take a detour.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.