Print

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

Yes

67 (62.6%)

Yes, but only if the amount you could own at any one time was limited

14 (13.1%)

Yes, but for Medicinal uses only

10 (9.3%)

Yes, but only for chronic illnesses(Cancer, AIDS, Crohn's Disease, etc.)

3 (2.8%)

No

13 (12.1%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Neonivek]

So...it's true as long as it doesn't mean anything? What does that even mean?

Maybe meaning isn't the right word.

It is true but insignificant. It is true but a pointless statement.

Though meaningless is personally a better word for what I am trying to say. I wonder if anyone knows what I meant.

[Vector]

I wasn't arguing that there weren't, I was just saying that it was very easy for someone who doesn't have a stutter to flippantly declare there's 'no benefit' for something that can treat it.

Ah, I understand your confusion.  To strengthen and clarify what I originally said, I don't think stutter-elimination and the like should be used as an argument for legalizing marijuana >_>  It really doesn't seem serious enough to necessitate the legalization of drugs, when we have better ways to combat it.

I think that our society's reliance on "miracle-solutions" is going to screw us over in some way or another.  It already is, in a sense... taking the path of least resistance in the present often leads to enormous complications in the future.

Ah, well, enough rambling.  I suppose this isn't really relevant to the rest of the conversation.


OP, you need some other hobbies.  I hope you find life enriching enough that you don't want to turn to drugs, soon, because at your age there's lots of other fun things to be doing.

[Neonivek]

I think that our society's reliance on "miracle-solutions" is going to screw us over in some way or another.  It already is, in a sense

The best place to look is in both Anti-depresents and Anti-psychotics (though the first is a much better example)

[Vector]

I think that our society's reliance on "miracle-solutions" is going to screw us over in some way or another.  It already is, in a sense

The best place to look is in both Anti-depresents and Anti-psychotics (though the first is a much better example)

I was thinking more in terms of diet pills, which really are the wrong answer.

[mainiac]

I say yes.  I want to get high and I don't like breaking the law.

Why is the government trying to lure me into becoming a stone cold criminal?

[Neonivek]

I think that our society's reliance on "miracle-solutions" is going to screw us over in some way or another.  It already is, in a sense

The best place to look is in both Anti-depresents and Anti-psychotics (though the first is a much better example)

I was thinking more in terms of diet pills, which really are the wrong answer.

Dang there are a lot of examples in the drug industry. (though it is a rather dishonest industry as a whole)

[Seamas]

I'd like to see marijuana legalized, but the idea of seeing strains patented by the likes of Monsanto, Philip Morris, etc just makes me sick.  Ironically the illegal status is all that stands between these companies and complete domination of the cannabis genome.

[Neonivek]

I really hope it doesn't get fully legalised if only because I really REALLY cannot stand the smell.

Selfish I know... but goodness it is because enough with other drugs.

[Max White]

Damn straight. Here's a story: In the US, obviously there's lots of anti-marijuana propaganda, and that extends to our schools. I had this one health class where we had a question on a true/false quiz: "Can you overdose on marijuana?" or something like that. The "correct" answer was "true", but I wrote "false", because in fact that kind of thing doesn't happen and marijuana itself is hardly capable of that. I got it wrong because, according to the teacher, marijuana can be spiked with other drugs, leading to an overdose. By that logic, you can overdose on tacos, fish, Ovaltine, air, or water.

Ah, I remember those classes from high school. Funny to say, but I had a similar test, with the same question, and I also got it wrong. I put 'true', and was later told that you can not, infact OD on marijuana. This was in a public high school, telling kids that they will pass out before they take enough to kill themselves. Seems the Australian education system likes a certain level of honesty.

Then again, from what I hear over in the US of A, in school they tell you sex is bad and you shouldn't even think about it before marrage. Over here they say that if you feel ready for sex then you should think about what forms of protection are right for you.

I like the Australian education system.

[Africa]

Of course it should. It's less harmful than several legal drugs I could name, and the effects of having it be illegal are atrocities: throwing people in jail over it, not to mention the huge amount of money wasted on police efforts to crack down on it and on prosecuting cases and incarcerating people. And there's simply no good argument for it to stay illegal.

[Max White]

Of course it should. It's less harmful than several legal drugs I could name, and the effects of having it be illegal are atrocities: throwing people in jail over it, not to mention the huge amount of money wasted on police efforts to crack down on it and on prosecuting cases and incarcerating people. And there's simply no good argument for it to stay illegal.

Well, no good argument for it to stay illegal without arguing that drugs like tobacco and alcohol should be banned.

[scriver]

So...it's true as long as it doesn't mean anything? What does that even mean?

Maybe meaning isn't the right word.

It is true but insignificant. It is true but a pointless statement.

Though meaningless is personally a better word for what I am trying to say. I wonder if anyone knows what I meant.

The way I see it, and I think it's kind of what you meant as well, is such:
Marijuana is a gateway drug, because it is a step on the Path of Escalating Drug (Mis?)Use. Statistically speaking, that is, as there is no universal law that forces you to do weed before taking on heavier drugs, but most people do. This is a proven statement, and there's little point of arguing about it.
However, the using this fact as an argument against pot is a fallacy. The action of smoking Marijuana is in itself unrelated to the reasons people are on said Path. If no Gate of Marijuana would exist, the people walking along the Path would simply travel directly from the Alchohol Gate to the next checkpoint. It's meaningless, because judging one action on the basis of what it might, but not necessarily must, lead to, is not a very sensible way of thinking.
So, basically, saying that Marijuana should be illegal because it is a gateway drug is incorrect reasoning, but at the same time, saying there is no such thing as "gateway drugs" is false as well.

_{Ugh, I keep spelling "fallacy" as "phallacy". Get out of my head, Freud!}

I think that our society's reliance on "miracle-solutions" is going to screw us over in some way or another.  It already is, in a sense

The best place to look is in both Anti-depresents and Anti-psychotics (though the first is a much better example)

Going of the rails for a bit here, because it I can't help myself:

Spoiler: Offtopic, or Escapades off the Beaten Path (click to show/hide)

Mostly this is simply because people does not realise how they (anti-depressants) are supposed to be working in the first place; Believing them to be said miracle solution that will "cure" them of their depression. That is not what it is supposed to do, there are not such thing as "happy pills". Most of them are simply meant to give you energy and strength to battle the depression, as depressed people often don't have the energy (and thus not the will) to do it on their own. Saying "Anti-depps doesn't work because I'm still down" is bullshit. Getting out of depressions are a long and hard commitment, and there is no simple solution to it. Meds are only meant to aid you with that struggle, and no serious doctors would be saying otherwise.
To sum it up: The notion that anti-depressants would be some sort of miracle cure is a misconception on the part of "ordinary people", who misunderstood the premise of those medications (the name is a bit misleading, I guess). The serious medical/psychiatrist business makes no such claims.

[Africa]

Of course it should. It's less harmful than several legal drugs I could name, and the effects of having it be illegal are atrocities: throwing people in jail over it, not to mention the huge amount of money wasted on police efforts to crack down on it and on prosecuting cases and incarcerating people. And there's simply no good argument for it to stay illegal.

Well, no good argument for it to stay illegal without arguing that drugs like tobacco and alcohol should be banned.

Arguing that would basically require you to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to make any decision that could potentially end in harm to themselves, and that the government should stop them. Hence, "no good argument."

[scriver]

Of course it should. It's less harmful than several legal drugs I could name, and the effects of having it be illegal are atrocities: throwing people in jail over it, not to mention the huge amount of money wasted on police efforts to crack down on it and on prosecuting cases and incarcerating people. And there's simply no good argument for it to stay illegal.

Well, no good argument for it to stay illegal without arguing that drugs like tobacco and alcohol should be banned.

Arguing that would basically require you to argue that people shouldn't be allowed to make any decision that could potentially end in harm to themselves, and that the government should stop them. Hence, "no good argument."

Not at all. The major arguments for illegalisation of (generalised) drugs is the harm the user causes to other people.

[Leafsnail]

It should be, but I wouldn't recommend taking it because it seems to have a tendancy to make you boring as hell to anyone who doesn't smoke marijuana.