Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[i2amroy]

@Lord Bucket
It's not really what I'm looking for (though it is certainly interesting). I'm not looking for data that gives the harm amounts of the current system, which I've agreed sucks, and should be changed. My idea for how it should be changed doesn't match many other's and since we haven't found a country that matches my idea yet we can't really compare on that point.

What I'm really looking for would be something like "Psychological effects of recreational Cannabis use make people less likely to become arsonists", for example. Something that links a decrease in a harm-causing activity with the use of cannabis. If we could find something like that we could compare data I found or later dig up about risk chances multiplied by the average number of events and compare to determine if the overall effect is harmful or not. Depending on the results would then make me shift my opinions ranging from full blown legalization (which would require it to be totally good, and which I've already shown that it isn't) to full blown illegalization like we have now (which also is unlikely, I'm sure that cannabis has some sort of a good effect somewhere, even if only a reduction in suicide killings due to feeling better).
Anyways I gotta go, if anyone manages to find a study that links cannabis use with decreased harmful activities I'd love to see it in a PM (don't send me stuff about the current system, I know it is harmful and I'm only looking for things on one specific topic). Alternatively if someone finds a country that fits my ideal system (immediate recreational use in sponsored locations only with some sort of exiting bar, and actually enforces it) I'd love to see any data on that as well. My whole opinion of where cannabis use should sit legally is kind dependent on the data I've gathered in the past on this, so depending on the quality and amount of stuff anyone digs up you could actually change my opinions with nothing more than that. (What can I say, I'm a very logical person ).

[Yoink]

...My argument doesn't care if the number is 1 or 1 billion, as long as it is greater than zero. If even 1 person ended up committing a crime due to cannabis my argument would still be a valid one...

Outlaw civilian motor vehicles, public beaches, power tools and skateboards and maybe your argument would have a leg to stand on.

[Helgoland]

But you need to weigh the harm prevented against the harm caused by legislation [...] All you've shown is that there's something [the negative effects of prohibition enforcement] need to be weighed against.

I guess I'll just quote myself instead of spelling it out again...

Do you have a link that I can compare against? That was my point earlier. I've given (and been given now) data that supports my reasoning. I have hard proof that links cannabis use to an increase in harm to other people. That means the burden of proof falls on those who want to prove that it doesn't. That's the way a debate works, I've brought proof out for why I do something and now it's your turn to bring out proof that competes with it. I'm not going to spend potentially copious amounts of time looking for data that may not exist. I will say that I've considered both sides, but I'm not going to dig out data for you just so that I have to dig out more to fight it.

There's two issues:
1) You ain't proven shit. Sorry for being so drastic, but (as several people have told you), your sources show nothing - especially not that the harm done by drugs outweighs the harm done by criminalization, since they only look at parts of the former while being totally unrelated to the latter.. And there's nobody arguing that cannabis use does not harm others; but there have been several plausible arguments showing that it is likely smaller than the harm done by criminalization (see for example the Mexican border/my home town comparison). And yes, _plausible_ _arguments_, which brings me to point
2) Debates don't work like that. They're not about throwing data at each other (I believe there's a saying going something like 'throwing shit and seeing what sticks') but about showing that one's position is plausible and consistent while that of the other is implausible and/or inconsistent. We're not trying to write a paper - anecdotal evidence should not be ddismissed without reason. A lot of the stuff we're arguing here is very, very hard to measure since the system we're looking at, society, is too complex, and that's why we're better off doing comparisons between various implementations of various scenarios. Again, Netherlands/Mexico.

Edit: Okay, I'm arguing past you here. But what exactly is the system you're proposing? The couple of things you wrote sound like they would increase the amount of weed illegally in circulation while changing nothing about the flaws of the current (US) system, except maybe part of the smuggling issue.

[LordBucket]

Meta commentary on thread redacted

[Graknorke]

There better have been some Snoop in this thread at some point.
I'm not actually going to go through it because chances are there aren't and it's all just caustic bickering, but hey. I can hope.

[penguinofhonor]

There better have been some Snoop in this thread at some point.
I'm not actually going to go through it because chances are there aren't and it's all just caustic bickering, but hey. I can hope.

...crap, it looks like I was wrong.


Still, my point still stands- 18 murderers high on pot a reason to extremely restrict pot does not make.

So your argument is that 250 people or whatever is too small a sample size?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

93% of murderers polled who killed people didn't cite smoking marijuana as a reason.. I think we're onto something here.

[LordBucket]

@Lord Bucket
What I'm really looking for would be something like "Psychological effects of recreational Cannabis use make people less
likely to become arsonists", for example. Something that links a decrease in a harm-causing activity with the use of cannabis.

I'm not sure that data exists. Whether or not the data exists, I'm not certain the supposition is true in the first place.

I suppose you could run a study where you give marijuana to parolees and compare their repeat offense rates to a control group. Not only would it give you the data you want, the politics of that would be hilarious.

[4maskwolf]

I suppose you could run a study where you give marijuana to parolees and compare their repeat offense rates to a control group. Not only would it give you the data you want, the politics of that would be hilarious.

* 4maskwolf snickers

Is it bad that I think this study should happen?  See if giving people cannabis would help them stay out of prison?

[4maskwolf]

Jesus Christ this is dishonest.

Leafsnail, sometimes it seems like you follow me in every thread I post in just to make accusations and insult me. It's very, very tiresome.

I'd rather you two work this out outside of this thread, I'm already touchy enough about keeping the thread clean (as noticed from my hypersensitivity to things) without adding in interpersonal drama to the mix.

[Leafsnail]

It's nothing personal, I just saw your presentation of that source as extremely misleading (and providing a misleading account of an article is different to just repeating an anecdotal story without questioning it).  I didn't see how you could come to that conclusion unless you read only half of the paragraph you linked starting in the middle of a sentence (ie from "As an incidental note, Blinder mentioned theories that elements of diet could worsen existing mood swings") and ignored all the rest - both the paragraphs above and below state that the "twinkie defense" is a misconception, and the rest of the paragraph talks about how White was depressed.  If it was a genuine mistake I will withdraw the accusation of dishonesty, though.

[TamerVirus]

If anything, weed tends to make people very hungry or inactive, not psycho murderers.

That's PCP

[Neonivek]

If anything, weed tends to make people very hungry or inactive, not psycho murderers.

That's PCP

Didn't someone earlier state that Weed is an Upper?

[penguinofhonor]

That wasn't entirely true. It has stimulant and depressant qualities.

That said, depressant/stimulant isn't enough to predict what a drug will do. Alcohol is a depressant and it makes you more violent.

[Neonivek]

That wasn't entirely true. It has stimulant and depressant qualities.

That said, depressant/stimulant isn't enough to predict what a drug will do. Alcohol is a depressant and it makes you more violent.

That is because alcohol has the effect of loosening up your inhibitions giving you less reason not to clobber anyone.