It's 1920's Under The United State During Alcohol Prohibition.

[ardillacid]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='08 May 2010 - 02:59 AM' timestamp='1273301968' post='2106834']
[color="#000080"][i]There is a common misconception that the principle costs of marijuana use are those related to the criminal justice system. This is a false premise. Caulkins & Sevigny (2005) found that the percentage of people in prison for marijuana use is less than one half of one percent (0.1-0.2 percent). [/i][/color]
[url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223/Why_We_Should_Not_Legalize_Marijuana"]Source[/url]


Do you honestly believe that goes away if America legalized?

[/quote]
yes. At the very least, a great deal of it will.


[quote]not everything is equally anything.[/quote]
Thanks for the priceless quote

[quote]You have to be license to produce alcohol.[/quote]
You have to have a license to use more than 5 sheets of toilet paper per day. ITS THE LAW. IT SAVES THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE EARTH

[quote][color="#000080"][i][b]State Agents Raid Illegal Distillery[/b]

POSTED: 7:52 am CDT April 22, 2010
UPDATED: 8:17 am CDT April 22, 2010

McCOOL, Miss. -- State agents have raided an illegal distillery in McCool, arrested one man and seized marijuana and whiskey.

The Mississippi Alcohol Beverage Control served a warrant on Tuesday, where they discovered 45 gallons of whiskey in clear plastic jugs, a three-barrel still covered in insulation and a half-pound of processed marijuana in clear plastic bags inside some sheds.[/i][/color]
[url="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MSmjH4_MiL4J:www.wapt.com/news/23230450/detail.html+illegal+distillery&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&lr=lang_en"]Source[/url]

I am not surprised marijuana was found on site. He probably thinks the prohibition against distilling without a license to be oppressive.

[color="#000080"][b]Modern Moonshine Manufacture on the Rise[/b]

Mr. CALHOUN: A lot of things that they do, it hurts our community.

NIILER: Agent Jay Calhoun disagrees. He says it's a serious crime and that some moonshiners are now selling drugs, moving marijuana and cocaine along the same smuggling routes north.

Mr. CALHOUN: And once you get in that illegal mind-set, it's easy to branch over to other crimes.
[url="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5029896"]Source[/url]
[/color][/quote]
Congrats, you know how to use google. 45 gallons of whiskey? Is this a national crisis?

[quote]Again, we agree. Obesity causes stress on the system. There's no need to add to it with the inevitable problems arising from legalized marijuana.
[/quote]Inevitable problems? Are you serious? Please show me documented studies proving that poo will get worse when marijuana is legalized. People who want marijuana now, have it.



[quote]I do not consider myself a PhD, which is why I did the leg work of getting the opinion of those who do hold the degree and those working on the front lines of addiction. I was a little when such work was batted away with a "Nuh, uh. Not true." rebuttal.[/quote]
A phd doesn't make you Jesus. poo, I know people with phd's that I wouldn't trust with my kids.


[quote]I rely on multiple sources. If I thought I was a good source, I would have referenced myself. And, I know anecdotal evidence only goes so far.
[/quote]
I could cite multiple sources saying god doesn't exist...

[quote]

Summary:
1. Marijuana is addictive.
2. Its addiction is chemical and psychologically based. Some say mild, but an addiction is an addiction.
3. Legalized marijuana endangers a community. Specific example of impaired drivers was provided.
4. Legalizing marijuana would not decrease the number of addicts, but increase them. (Does the U.S. not have enough addictions to deal with?)[/quote]

5. I can post multiple sources agreeing with me. This makes me right. This also exempts me from using basic common sense and historical precedent.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 May 2010 - 01:26 AM' timestamp='1273206395' post='2106173']
Can you comment on exactly how the spiritual faculties are affected?
[/quote]
I don't think the topic requires that much serious thought. If you've ever been high you know how it is, and you can draw your own conclusions on how it affected your spiritual faculties.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='08 May 2010 - 03:13 AM' timestamp='1273302820' post='2106848']
yes. At the very least, a great deal of it will.[/quote]
As I mentioned before, then Mexico is well on its way to being the land of milk and honey. They have eliminated a large part of the violence in their country. Just a guess, but I am pretty sure Mexico will still have turf wars and more with legalized narcotics. Amsterdam has already discovered legalization does not reduce crime.

[quote]Thanks for the priceless quote[/quote]
Anytime.

[quote]You have to have a license to use more than 5 sheets of toilet paper per day. ITS THE LAW. IT SAVES THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE EARTH[/quote]
I am an unlicensed crapper.

[quote]Congrats, you know how to use google. 45 gallons of whiskey? Is this a national crisis?[/quote]
No. Just proof legalization does not eliminate illegal production and distribution.

[quote]Inevitable problems? Are you serious? Please show me documented studies proving that poo will get worse when marijuana is legalized. People who want marijuana now, have it.[/quote]
Laws compel people to behave a certain way or prohibits behaviors. It provides boundaries, and many people decide to observe those boundaries to the best of their ability. There are many who are not consuming marijuana because it is illegal but who may if was legal, i.e. removing the boundary.

I have provided case studies and other evidence in previous posts.

[quote]A phd doesn't make you Jesus. poo, I know people with phd's that I wouldn't trust with my kids.[/quote]
I don't disagree, but we can't rely on a few bad apples spoiling the bunch. Many are bound to be good. I have provided multiple professional references. If their credentials aren't worth squat, then invalidating their research should be trivial.

[quote]I could cite multiple sources saying god doesn't exist...[/quote]
And rather than attacking the credentials of the sources, I would address their point and try my best to prove it incorrect. Try it sometime.

[quote]5. I can post multiple sources agreeing with me. This makes me right. This also exempts me from using basic common sense and historical precedent.
[/quote]
Um, those were JLOL's sources. Not mine.

If you read my previous posts, you will find it is basic common sense and historical precedent driving my arguments, not red herrings like "He's not PhD enough!"

[ardillacid]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='08 May 2010 - 03:31 AM' timestamp='1273303899' post='2106862']
I don't think the topic requires that much serious thought. If you've ever been high you know how it is, and you can draw your own conclusions on how it affected your spiritual faculties.
[/quote]
Disagree. Being high isn't an on/off thing. There are stages, just like with alcohol.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='notardillacid' date='08 May 2010 - 04:34 AM' timestamp='1273304040' post='2106865']
Disagree. Being high isn't an on/off thing. There are stages, just like with alcohol.
[/quote]
What do you disagree with? that the topic requires little serious thought, or that someone who has been high can draw their own conclusions about the effect on one's "spiritual faculties?"

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='07 May 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1273301968' post='2106834']
[color="#000080"][i]There is a common misconception that the principle costs of marijuana use are those related to the criminal justice system. This is a false premise. Caulkins & Sevigny (2005) found that the percentage of people in prison for marijuana use is less than one half of one percent (0.1-0.2 percent). [/i][/color]
[url="http://www.cnbc.com/id/36267223/Why_We_Should_Not_Legalize_Marijuana"]Source[/url]
[/quote]
misconception here, i was just kinda refuting your general statement that "the war on drugs is winning" not marijuana specifically.

[quote]
Do you honestly believe that goes away if America legalized?[referring to gang violence over marijuana trafficking]
[/quote]

simply, yes. not entirely, nothing works perfectly, but it would be incredibly reduced. you might say that "crime will find a way" and might make up their lost profits with other business, but thats kind of true with everything, and isnt a reason to withhold legalization of marijuana. While the mexican gangs will have to supplement their lost criminal income somehow, this doesnt change the fact that they wouldnt be profiting off of marijuana any more, and thus would grow disinterested in it.
criminals are pragmatic, mostly. their profit margins are what determines what areas they apply themselves in, and what they will viciously defend.

If steaks were outlawed, it wouldnt be long before raising cows, selling their beef and sneaking through the legal system to obtain steak became a lucrative business for criminals.and if all of a sudden steak cost hundreds of dollar each, and there was a high demand for it, people would start to kill and be killed over it.


[quote]
Your argument was about profitability of a crime and the costs of enforcing prohibition of a behavior. A turn into a debate about the morality of the behaviors means we agree on the futility of dismissing prohibition of narcotics on grounds of profitability and the cost of enforcement.

Anything taken to excess is bad, but not everything is equally anything. Marijuana is not chocolate or a Big Mac.
[/quote]
not true, we do not agree there. you can have several reasons to want something. 1) i think marijuana is not an immoral substance 2) laws should not have to enforce morality in all cases, even if it was immoral.(it may be immoral to get wasted drunk, but it should still be legal) 3) it has the convenient effect of lowering marijuana growing/trafficking related crime as well.

no it isnt chocolate. but it isnt any worse than alchohol, much better in most ways and the law has set a precedent for allowing a dangerous drug, because restricting it would be immoral, no reason that cant extend to a less dangerous drug.

[quote]
You have to be license to produce alcohol.

[color="#000080"][i][b]State Agents Raid Illegal Distillery[/b]
[/i][/color]
I am not surprised marijuana was found on site. He probably thinks the prohibition against distilling without a license to be oppressive.

[color="#000080"][b]Modern Moonshine Manufacture on the Rise[/b][/color]

Illegal distribution is the distribution of spirits where it is not licit. You're thinking trucks with barrels of whiskey like in Prohibition. But today, it includes the largest crime of distributing alcohol to minors. Do you really think that minimal?
[/quote]

i was making the point that illegal alcohol trafficking and violence has become fairly rare compared to when alcohol was prohibited.

my arguments about the drinking age needing to be lowered to at least 18 are in the Drinking Age thread. France and other countries with wine drinking cultures dont have the same problem with binge drinking and underage binge drinking as we do over here. the boys who grew up with wine at dinner dont go furtively pay homeless people to get as much alcohol as they can and binge drink themselves to sickness nearly as much.

laws dont always have the intended effect. in this case, prohibiting any alcohol until 21 scares of a few people, but mostly just turns the rest into more severe drinkers with a newfound disrespect for the law. binge drinking at night in strange places is not a preferable alternative to supervised introductions to the drink in safe environments.


[quote]
Again, we agree. Obesity causes stress on the system. There's no need to add to it with the inevitable problems arising from legalized marijuana.
[/quote]
then there is no need to add to it with the inevitable problems arising from legalized alcohol or tobacco, etc. this argument is cannot be used against marijuana without being used to greater effect against alcohol or tobacco. both of which are rightly here to stay.

[quote]
If you are uncomfortable with your user name, you should request changing it.

I do not consider myself a PhD, which is why I did the leg work of getting the opinion of those who do hold the degree and those working on the front lines of addiction. I was a little when such work was batted away with a "Nuh, uh. Not true." rebuttal.
[/quote]

i am fine with my username, though i grow weary of receiving flak about it from other members.
Sorry to irritate, but you have similarly dismissed every rebuttal to you I post. and some things are patently and easily verifiable as untrue in their statements.


[quote]
I will take these one by one below...

[color="#000080"][i]While it is widely accepted that cannabis use can slow motor skills and reduce task-attention, increasing in severity with dose, research has shown that cannabis use is less likely to dangerously impair driving abilities than alcohol at similar levels of intoxication. Cannabis intoxication often makes smokers more aware of their impairment, causing them to slow down and become more cautious [b]while also worsening reaction time and attention[/b][/i][/color]

The article admits impairment while driving when smoking marijuana. "Well, it's not as bad as alcohol" is a poor argument because both are bad. Why legalize marijuana and make the roads more dangerous?

The second article is the same as the first, driving under the influence of alcohol and marijuana impairs a driver's skills. If someone was arguing against the prohibition of driving under the influence of alcohol, I would say you have a point.
[/quote]

I would hope if we ever legalize marijuana, that it remains against the law to drive while under its influence. however, the fact that alcohol makes you a horrifyingly terrible driver, is not reason to ban alcohol use under situations that do not include driving/operating machinery etc.

[quote]
The third article does its best to paint marijuana as healthy as eating carrots using an array of subject areas. (The most ridiculous claim is marijuana use during pregnancy comes with very little risk to the unborn.) Did you want to focus on one in particular?
[/quote]
question, do you think that is a ridiculous claim because it is in fact false, or because you think it is ridiculous?

[quote]
And I wonder how many people took a drag on mommy or daddy's cigarette once and never did it again. Therefore, cigarettes are not addictive.

If so few people who have tried marijuana are repeat users, then what's the point of legalizing? Very few are using. This will make the drug war easy to fight.
[/quote]
sarcasm, yes. here it is again emphasis mine
" However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that [b]substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail[/b] in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities."

kiddy trying dad's cig or beer, doesnt really count as a being a user or having experience with a drug

and this is very circular reasoning you are using. your logic does not progress from A to B to Conclusion, you have already determined your conclusion and twist everything to that outcome. first marijuana should be illegal because it is addictive/habit forming. upon being shown evidence that it is not actually habit forming, you say it should be illegal because people DONT continue to use it.

Interest or disinterest doesnt really enter into legality. Many non addictive activities are discontinued as age progresses. people drink less, dont party as hard, go mtn bike stunt riding less, drive slower as they get older.
whereas with stuff like heroin, cigarettes, etc people keep doing them, often increasing amounts as their tolerance for the drug they cant quit goes up.

[quote]
They are describing symptoms of withdrawal when administering high quantities. If something is not truly not addicting, it would not show signs of withdrawal at any level. They are admitting there is an addictive element to marijuana, even chemical. Some of those symptoms of withdrawal sound a lot like the withdrawal someone experiences when they're addicted to harder drugs. You told me that's not possible, but your article say it is.
[/quote]

they always test much over the normal limits, in this case to see if there was anything at all. these high quantities would never be approached even remotely close by normal humans, even hardcore potsmokers would never reach this level of useage. This is like saying that if a competing food eater(?) feels a little bit queasy after eating 37 hotdogs, you can then assume that one or 2 or even 7 hotdogs is going to have any adverse effect at all.

statistics only talk about significant findings because ones that are negligible like this have no bearing on anything real.

Some of those symptoms are similar, in the same way that the symptoms of a small cut are similar to having a knife stabbed through an artery. yes in both cases skin is broken, and blood flows, but that is where the similarities end. severity must always be taken into consideration
relevant parts again
"[i]There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans[...][/i][i]However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms."[/i]

my statement is still valid. in human controlled consumption, and even a fair bit above that there are no adverse withdrawal symptoms.
This is all that really needs to be considered.
Holiday treats such as rumballs are fine for children to eat despite the fact that if they ate more of them than their stomachs could hold, they might get a little tipsy. because quite obviously, it will never happen.

and i have already addressed all the points in your summary.

these posts should probably be moved into a separate thread, i beleive we left the topic behind long ago.

Edited May 8, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='08 May 2010 - 02:31 AM' timestamp='1273303899' post='2106862']
I don't think the topic requires that much serious thought. If you've ever been high you know how it is, and you can draw your own conclusions on how it affected your spiritual faculties.
[/quote]
I have not, and I'm not really feeling up to figuring it out.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='08 May 2010 - 04:28 AM' timestamp='1273307287' post='2106881']
misconception here, i was just kinda refuting your general statement that "the war on drugs is winning" not marijuana specifically.

simply, yes. not entirely, nothing works perfectly, but it would be incredibly reduced. you might say that "crime will find a way" and might make up their lost profits with other business, but thats kind of true with everything, and isnt a reason to withhold legalization of marijuana. While the mexican gangs will have to supplement their lost criminal income somehow, this doesnt change the fact that they wouldnt be profiting off of marijuana any more, and thus would grow disinterested in it.
criminals are pragmatic, mostly. their profit margins are what determines what areas they apply themselves in, and what they will viciously defend.[/quote]
By what benchmarks do you say the drug war is not working?

Let's imagine marijuana is legalized. The federal government is regulating the substance, like the potency of the drug. Business are established, paying taxes, following regulations, and such.

Two issues disprove the gangs will not go away:

1) Gangs will offer marijuana on the black market with a higher potency. If you don't think this will happen, then you probably believe all those emails which say they are offering you "authentic Viagra."

2) Business have to follow regulation and pay taxes. This is the cost of operating a business. The consumer pays this in the end. The gangs, who have not been operating within the law, will simply skirt these regulations and taxes and offer "the same high at a lower price." While their profit margins are lower than they were during prohibition, they are selling in much greater quantity. Net profit stays the same or even grows. Bank on it!

[quote]If steaks were outlawed, it wouldnt be long before raising cows, selling their beef and sneaking through the legal system to obtain steak became a lucrative business for criminals.and if all of a sudden steak cost hundreds of dollar each, and there was a high demand for it, people would start to kill and be killed over it.[/quote]
Ranchers are making far more money with lower profit margins in a legal market because they make up the difference in quantity.

[quote]not true, we do not agree there. you can have several reasons to want something. 1) i think marijuana is not an immoral substance 2) laws should not have to enforce morality in all cases, even if it was immoral.(it may be immoral to get wasted drunk, but it should still be legal) 3) it has the convenient effect of lowering marijuana growing/trafficking related crime as well.[/quote]
"Excess" is not the same as addiction. There are things you can consume to excess and will never have an addiction to. Marijuana is addictive. Your sources do not deny this.

I never made a claim on the morality or immorality of marijuana use. I think your pursuit of this argument is to claim the morality of alcohol and marijuana are equal. (My guess is the next argument will be something to the effect of "Everything God makes is 'good.' God made marijuana. Therefore, it's good.") I do not need to argue the morality of marijuana to know it is not beneficial to the common good.

Let's assume marijuana growing/trafficking related crime goes down. Have you thought about the costs of the dramatic rise in marijuana related and ancillary crime?

[quote]no it isnt chocolate. but it isnt any worse than alchohol, much better in most ways and the law has set a precedent for allowing a dangerous drug, because restricting it would be immoral, no reason that cant extend to a less dangerous drug.
[/quote]
When you say alcohol is less dangerous than marijuana, you admit there is a danger to marijuana. Why add more danger to an already dangerous situation?

Let's assume marijuana is half as dangerous as alcohol. There are 40,000 deaths from drunk driving alone each year. So let's add 20,000 deaths from driving while high to the 40,000 toll? You're making a great argument for the prohibition.

[quote]my arguments about the drinking age needing to be lowered to at least 18 are in the Drinking Age thread. France and other countries with wine drinking cultures dont have the same problem with binge drinking and underage binge drinking as we do over here. the boys who grew up with wine at dinner dont go furtively pay homeless people to get as much alcohol as they can and binge drink themselves to sickness nearly as much.

laws dont always have the intended effect. in this case, prohibiting any alcohol until 21 scares of a few people, but mostly just turns the rest into more severe drinkers with a newfound disrespect for the law. binge drinking at night in strange places is not a preferable alternative to supervised introductions to the drink in safe environments.[/quote]
Maybe the drinking age should be remove entirely. Then all bing drinking will disappear.

This is the problem with comparing your grass (the lawn kind) with your neighbor's. There are cultural differences, and mirroring another country's policies and assuming it'll all work the same is erroneous.

[quote]question, do you think that is a ridiculous claim because it is in fact false, or because you think it is ridiculous?[/quote]
I think it's ridiculous because anyone with a basic understanding of the vulnerable state of an unborn realize smoking pot while pregnant would have detrimental effect.

[quote]sarcasm, yes. here it is again emphasis mine
" However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that [b]substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail[/b] in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities."

kiddy trying dad's cig or beer, doesnt really count as a being a user or having experience with a drug[/quote]
It depends on how the question was asked. Someone who took some drags has had an experience with a cigarette. Your source simply said those who had experienced marijuana. For an article claiming to be scientific, that's pretty broad of a term. A real scientific article would have asked the question using quantifiable values.

"Experienced", "substantial" - That kind of speak is what would be labeled in Wikipedia as "weasel words."

[quote]and this is very circular reasoning you are using. your logic does not progress from A to B to Conclusion, you have already determined your conclusion and twist everything to that outcome. first marijuana should be illegal because it is addictive/habit forming. upon being shown evidence that it is not actually habit forming, you say it should be illegal because people DONT continue to use it.[/quote]
Stop. You never showed me any evidence saying it was not addictive or habit forming. You said it was not addictive; your sources say it is. The disagreement with your sources is the level of addiction.

Even your non-scientific quote above is careful in using the term "highly addictive." They won't go so far as to say it's not addictive. Only an addict would say what they are addicted to is not addictive, like an alcoholic saying "I can quit anytime."

[quote][b]Interest or disinterest doesnt really enter into legality.[/b] Many non addictive activities are discontinued as age progresses. people drink less, dont party as hard, go mtn bike stunt riding less, drive slower as they get older.
whereas with stuff like heroin, cigarettes, etc people keep doing them, often increasing amounts as their tolerance for the drug they cant quit goes up.[/quote]
Here you go again. You make a false statement and then build an argument around it. Read the bolded part and tell me if you really believe [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_%28criminal%29"]that[/url].

[quote]they always test much over the normal limits, in this case to see if there was anything at all. these high quantities would never be approached even remotely close by normal humans, even hardcore potsmokers would never reach this level of useage. This is like saying that if a competing food eater(?) feels a little bit queasy after eating 37 hotdogs, you can then assume that one or 2 or even 7 hotdogs is going to have any adverse effect at all.
...
my statement is still valid. in human controlled consumption, and even a fair bit above that there are no adverse withdrawal symptoms.
[/quote]
The hot dog eater, after feeling sick because he stuffed his gut and not because of what is in the hot dog, would not be addicted to hot dogs. In fact, he might develop an aversion to it. This is the opposite of what your source said about marijuana. More evidence of its addictive nature.

If marijuana is not addictive and shows no withdrawal symptoms, then I guess all the people in rehab clinics for marijuana addiction are insane. They actually believe the stuff is additive and are suffering from it. Those geniuses!

[kamiller42]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/q05Q0.jpg[/img]

[Nihil Obstat]

Ah, for a second I thought Havoc was starting his shenanigans again.

[jeffpugh]

How dare you profane the world's most interesting man!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='03 June 2010 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1275627522' post='2123518']
How dare you profane the world's most interesting man!
[/quote]
The World's Most Interesting Man has no need for family-abuse.

[Catholic Fox]

There isn't a blackmail him, option.

Actually, I would probably purchase his wares, if I was too chicken to produce for my own consumption.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='04 June 2010 - 12:58 AM' timestamp='1275627522' post='2123518']
How dare you profane the world's most interesting man!
[/quote]


I appreciate it. But I really don't think anyone has profaned my words here.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='07 May 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1273250399' post='2106311']
Apparently my great grandfather did.
[/quote]

Mine, too. He invested his money....in stocks

Another great grandfather was a bookie's bookie.

And a great grandmother was a flapper and heroin addict.

And...shall I continue to pull the skeletons out of my closet?

When what your dad does for a living is illegal, you learn to be very secretive and not invite people back to the house, etc. while you're growing up. To suggest that it 'doesn't matter' or has no effect is silly. Outside the law means something socially as well as legally. Criminal activity gets you involved with a whole slew of things that are outside the law. You do crazy things like not call 911 for an ambulance because you don't want anyone to see what's on your property, and instead try to drive yourself to the emergency room.

I don't think it would be such a terrible thing to do without alcohol. I know our society has a lot built up around drinking (again, socially, not just legally) , so I understand what a shock to the system it was to outlaw it.

That being said, I don't know that I would have taken the initiative to call the cops on my neighbor, but I certainly wouldn't have helped him to hide his activities from the police, either.