Marijuana is less dangerous and less addictive than alcohol and nicotine, both legal substances to posesss and consume.

That’s not an argument for pot. That’s only an argument against alcohol and nicotine.

Because for some people, it is better. For some people, it is the only thing that works.

Says who? That’s essentially the argument here.

Also, making marijuana illegal has a huge cost in terms of having to police, prosecute, and incarcerate millions of non-violent “marijuana offenders.”

And that’s not an argument for legalization either. It’s an argument in favor of decriminalization.

It creates a dangerous black market that threatens the safety of our communities, it inflates the price of marijuana so that dangerous criminal enterprises control the market.

Pot is cheap, very cheap. It costs much less to get high than it does to get drunk. This inflated price comment makes no sense.

Moreover the “war” that the government wages on this natural substance has a lot of collateral damage in terms of lives lost and civil liberties trampled by rash raids.

Yeah, decriminalization would work just as well for fixing that.

Apparently drugs have done nothing to expand your mind and it’s also also quite obvious to me that you are the “hater” in this contretemps.

Apparently I’m scoring points because you’re resorting to ad hominems. I like it! Maybe your position isn’t so strong after all?

I was addressing your specious assertion that getting mind-blowingly stoned doesn’t affect anyone else.

Considering that you have yet to demonstrate the opposite, I don’t consider it quite so specious.

I was not on an anti-drug tirade. Since anger and not lucidity are your hallmarks, I won’t bother addressing any of your tedious and deranged comments

It’s soooo much easier to dismiss uncomfortable truths than it is to accept them. Namely, this one:

Whenever you use government force to “ban” the trade of a good or service, you never actually ban it. Instead, you merely create a black market to service the demand for the good or service. Since the purveyors of the “banned” good or service cannot rely on the government to protect their property, they have to resort to using their own force to defend themselves. This increases crime. Furthermore, since the black market cannot operate in the open, the price of the good or service (following laws of supply and demand) skyrockets. This concentrates massive amounts of cash in the hands of the black marketeers which makes them much higher targets for robbery. This increases crime.

Have I written anything in the prior paragraph which is false? (Yes/No)

I don’t give a flip if you weren’t talking about taxes or the quality of life or anything else. There is no rule, either written or understood, that my comments are limited to your narrow dictates.

In other words, if a person gets mind-blowingly high, then you are incapable of demonstrating how that is depriving you of life, liberty, or property. Consider that tens of thousands of people are mind-blowingly high at this very moment. How is that depriving you of life, liberty, or property?

I lived in NYC before Rudy came to town and “looking at homeless people” was the least of my worries. Like many New Yorkers, on various occasions I was physically assaulted, harassed, and hounded.

Assault and harassment are already illegal. Anyone doing those things deserves to be punished with fines and/or jail depending on the severity of the crime. I take it you and I agree here.

I regularly endured them yelling obscenities at me for no reason other than that they were “mind-blowingly high”.

You should have called the police. But what about the people who were mind-blowingly high who were NOT assaulting, harassing, or hounding you? And what about those people who were assaulting, harassing, and hounding you who were NOT mind-blowingly high? You’re trying to draw a correllation which does not exist.

The free access to certain streets, restaurants and shops were often blocked by them. On more than one occasion I was forced to step over them as they slept in the vestibule of my apartment building. It should be noted that I paid a handsome rent to my landlord for this privilege.

Then lock them up! But they don’t have to be high to do those things. And those things are already illegal.

All of the situations I describe deprived me of liberty and occasionally property. Therefore I have a sound “ethical claim against what they do”.

I agree! But supporting drug prohibition does not logically follow. You and I both know that the “Drug War” has NOT stopped people from getting drugs. Instead, it has merely made crime skyrocket and caused some drug dealers to get richly rewarded. Why do you think the way that you do? It’s so stupid.

Case closed.

Buy Danish on October 11, 2007 at 12:38 AM

So says you. But your arguments are retarded. If you actually engaged your brain instead of feeding your hateful feelings toward “druggies”, then you would realize that prohibition of any kind does much more harm than it does good, and it does no good at all considering that drugs have never *really* been prohibited. It’s called the black market, and you can never stop it no matter what you do.

But if it’s not better than what we’ve already got, then why would we legalize it for medical purposes?

Because for some people, it is better. For some people, it is the only thing that works. Also, making marijuana illegal has a huge cost in terms of having to police, prosecute, and incarcerate millions of non-violent “marijuana offenders.” It creates a dangerous black market that threatens the safety of our communities, it inflates the price of marijuana so that dangerous criminal enterprises control the market. Moreover the “war” that the government wages on this natural substance has a lot of collateral damage in terms of lives lost and civil liberties trampled by rash raids.

Marijuana is less dangerous and less addictive than alcohol and nicotine, both legal substances to posesss and consume. It costs the government upwards of $42 billion a year to maintain this ridiculous stance on marijuana.

Red meat carrot: what could $42 billion do for border enforcement efforts?

How selfish of you.

right2bright on October 10, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Talk about sitting in judgment of someone else.

I know very well how people with cancer suffer. I was there with my mother, driving her to and from chemo sessions. I saw her white-fuzzed bald head and her reactions to the drugs.

Please, don’t presume you can lecture me about how these people feel. What you don’t know about me could fill several novels.

The people who are suffering from disease are not the experts on drugs. As you have stated yourself, doctors are the experts there. If they can prove that pot is better for people with cancer than any of the other already legal drugs, then they should do so.

But if it’s not better than what we’ve already got, then why would we legalize it for medical purposes? I guess we already covered this one too, it’s because many people are using this as a political tool, even some doctors.

Oh, and as to this:

or hopefully fight and live.

You are either being hopelessly naive or disgracefully dishonest. Pot can no more help someone fight and live than morphine can. It’s a depressant, not a stimulant.

This is disappointing. I thought we were having a thoughtful discussion on an issue that is highly complicated and controversial and instead you went straight to insults.

It is highly offensive for you to question my concern for cancer patients. Do so again, and consider this my last response to you.

Speaking of hypocrisy, Anyone opposed this guy taking a puff can give up their booze, and then start throwing rocks.

Kalapana on October 8, 2007 at 10:46 PM
That’s the only criterion? Done.

Now where’d I put those throwin’ rocks…?

Harpazo on October 8, 2007 at 10:52 PM

Don’t drink, smoke or do Drugs. Yep, raised a Mormon, but I m not a Mitt fan. He did the second best thing he could do.

First would have been to play up to these idiots in the most absurd manner and watch them go apolextic.

“yes, If I’m elected President, I’m going to personally pull you and your vw bus over and tase you,Bro.”

’scuse me whiles I lok for my taser throwin’ rocks.

Apparently drugs have done nothing to expand your mind and it’s also also quite obvious to me that you are the “hater” in this contretemps.

I was addressing your specious assertion that getting mind-blowingly stoned doesn’t affect anyone else. I was not on an anti-drug tirade. Since anger and not lucidity are your hallmarks, I won’t bother addressing any of your tedious and deranged comments directly except this one:

I didn’t ask if it “impacted the quality of life”. I asked how it deprived you of life, liberty, or property.

I don’t give a flip if you weren’t talking about taxes or the quality of life or anything else. There is no rule, either written or understood, that my comments are limited to your narrow dictates.

Yes, I don’t want to look at homeless people. I also don’t want to look at people with facial piercings and facial tattoos. But as long as they’re not depriving me of life, liberty, or property, then I have no ethical claim against what they do.

I lived in NYC before Rudy came to town and “looking at homeless people” was the least of my worries. Like many New Yorkers, on various occasions I was physically assaulted, harassed, and hounded. I regularly endured them yelling obscenities at me for no reason other than that they were “mind-blowingly high”. The free access to certain streets, restaurants and shops were often blocked by them. On more than one occasion I was forced to step over them as they slept in the vestibule of my apartment building. It should be noted that I paid a handsome rent to my landlord for this privilege.

All of the situations I describe deprived me of liberty and occasionally property. Therefore I have a sound “ethical claim against what they do”.

Case closed.

I still see no proof that it does, or at least no proof that it’s better than what is already legal.
Esthier on October 10, 2007 at 10:26 AM

You don’t need to see the proof, the ones dying with cancer and other diseases make those statements. How nice that you sit in judgment of them, saying they need “proof” for them to receive a drug that is harmless compared to what had been injected into them for months; by the way of Chemo-therapy. They spend tens of thousands of dollars, hours puking their guts out, losing their hair, weight, bone mass, and maybe eventually their lives…and you need “proof” to let someone die in grace and peace, or hopefully fight and live.

How selfish of you.

Ok, I finally got a transcipt to read (here, but there’s a ton of typos) and I watched the video….
Popularity: unranked [?]……

Most anti-drug arguments are nothing more than “Drug users should be raped and executed!” (That’s consistent with “Christian love”, but it really isn’t an argument.)

NO ONE has made that argument at all. This is simply how you view arguments against drug legalization. You are completely blind to what people are actually saying because you’re convinced that we all hate drug users.

If a person wants to get so mind-blowingly high that he can’t hold a job, then I say let him starve to death in his squalor.

And if the government cared about your opinion on this matter we wouldn’t have the welfare system that we have. The fact remains that if drugs are legalized more people will do them which means that more people will abuse them which also means that more people will wind up on welfare.

Disagreeing with welfare doesn’t change the fact that it exists.

It is easy to grow, and is grown. And the abuse of giving “prescriptions” is much higher, I suspect, than any other drug. Still if it medically helps, then why not provide it…just like “v”.

For all the reasons you’ve just stated.

I hate to side with the loonies. Still if it does help medically…

right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 6:50 PM

I still see no proof that it does, or at least no proof that it’s better than what is already legal.

So people smoke less of it. In the 60s, hippies would smoke entire joints. Now they just take a few hits off of a bong. Stoners are consuming the same amount of THC as they always did.

sandberg on October 9, 2007 at 7:02 PM

Maybe casual stoners smoke less. There are certainly people who smoke entire joints by themselves though.

If the person gets mind-blowingly high on a regular basis and can’t hold a job, who is it that picks up the slack for them? Taxpayers?

Finally, a decent counter-argument! Most anti-drug arguments are nothing more than “Drug users should be raped and executed!” (That’s consistent with “Christian love”, but it really isn’t an argument.)

People who are able to work do not want to work deserve to starve. All government welfare should be abolished. If a person wants to get so mind-blowingly high that he can’t hold a job, then I say let him starve to death in his squalor. It’s HIS life, not mine, not yours, and not “society’s”. Certainly not “god’s”, either, for that matter.

So the deprivation you describe is not caused by the drug user. It’s caused by the government, who, in their poor (yet “progressive”) wisdom, decides to deprive you of property to give stipend to losers. Put blame where it is due.

Or perhaps they end up homeless and on the streets? Do you think that that has no impact on the quality of life for the rest of us?

I didn’t ask if it “impacted the quality of life”. I asked how it deprived you of life, liberty, or property. Yes, I don’t want to look at homeless people. I also don’t want to look at people with facial piercings and facial tattoos. But as long as they’re not depriving me of life, liberty, or property, then I have no ethical claim against what they do.

If someone is in pain and wants to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to ease pain and nausea there are arguments pro and con that position, but you’re not doing the medical marijuna lobby any good by associating it with the right to get stoned out of your gourd.

Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 3:56 PM

You’re not doing drug users any good by persecuting them for using drugs. In fact, you’re not doing people who *don’t* use drugs any good by persecuting drug users. It makes things worse, not better. Let drug users destroy themselves if they so choose. Ending prohibition will decrease crime, since the “War on Drugs” is merely a tough but stupid euphemism for your desire to ensure that the drug market is handled by the black market (which *ALWAYS* increases violent crime everywhere) instead of by the legitimate market.

But those are logical arguments, and something tells me that this isn’t a logical issue for you. I’m butting up against pure hate.

sandberg on October 9, 2007 at 7:02 PM

I can’t find it either, but the numbers suggest that most pot seized is from Mexico. Heck, I don’t even remember what my point was. Must have been real important.

Are you sure? I read your DoJ link, and I do not see that claim anywhere. (e.g. they list the estimated net MJ production of Mexico, but do not list the estimated domestic production.)

The potency of pot has doubled since the mid 90’s.

So people smoke less of it. In the 60s, hippies would smoke entire joints. Now they just take a few hits off of a bong. Stoners are consuming the same amount of THC as they always did.

Esthier on October 9, 2007 at 5:49 PM

How do you argue against logic?
You are right, I am assuming, but I think my assumptions are not out of context. He either thinks of a gateway or that it is just bad (evil as I state), if he thought it was good but still deny that would not make sense.
And your argument about ease is debate proof. It is easy to grow, and is grown. And the abuse of giving “prescriptions” is much higher, I suspect, than any other drug. Still if it medically helps, then why not provide it…just like “v”.

I also see no proof that those in favor of legalizing pot aren’t being politicians themselves.

And I struggle with that also, separating the real need from the Naral group drives your argument better than mine. I hate to side with the loonies. Still if it does help medically…

He is stating that under no circumstances is he for medical use of marijuana. Even under doctors prescription, I am assuming he considers marijuana an “evil” drug, because some people mis-use it on the streets, or that it is considered a “gateway” drug.

But you are assuming, and that’s the part that concerns me. It’s very possible that he simply doesn’t want to give people easier access to the drug than they already have. Right now, medical pot proponents don’t really have a great argument against that.

It’s entirely possible that it has nothing to do with the idea of pot as a gateway drug.

The key here is being consistent, and allowing doctors to make the decision. Do you think marijuana or “V” causes more damage to the consistent user? Which is more likely to cause dependency?

I will say this. It is harder to get “v” than it is to get pot. If someone can legally smoke it, they can legally grow it, which means that they do not have to follow specific orders regarding doses.

With “v” they’re not giving the option of creating their own source for the drug and thus must rely on doctor orders.

I think marijuana use is stupid, that’s not the point, it should be the doctors decision whether to make someones life more comfortable, not a politician.

right2bright on October 9, 2007 at 3:55 PM

I agree with you on that, but I see no proof that pot makes a person’s life more comfortable. I also see no proof that those in favor of legalizing pot aren’t being politicians themselves.

The Race Card on October 9, 2007 at 4:58 PM

You just insulted all of us by saying we sound like we’re high and then proceeded to comment on name-calling here.

Maybe I am high, because I really don’t get that.

Apparently, conservative postulating and pondering sounds just like a bunch of stoners debating which fast food restaurant has the best french fries.

Also, a lot of the moral arbiters in the house sound like they are intoxicated with anger and spite towards a lot of their fellow citizens. That’s very commendable.
cough cough!

Crawling away? Hardly.

I said that you wanted to remove painkillers from the oversight of physicians not that you wanted to have them removed altogether.

I said that because you made this nonsensical statement:

Every (severe) pain reliever drug is illegal on the street, with Mitt’s mentality, all drugs would be forbidden that relieve pain.

Later you said this:

I said that him using the same belief for marijuana would take most prescription drugs out of use.

That makes no sense. You are literally using bassackwards thinking to make your argument.

He is stating that under no circumstances is he for medical use of marijuana

To whom it may concern:

Mitt said, and I quote, …and you have synthetic marijuana available.

…r2b is suggesting that pain killers should be removed…
Surely you don’t agree with that.
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 11:41 AM

Then you post this:

I never said that you said “pain killers should be removed…
Buy Danish on October 9, 2007 at 3:44 PM

Where did I say painkillers should be removed from the oversight of physicians or removed anywhere?

I thought you would be smart enough to read what I wrote and how you responded. Looks like I have to spell out every word for you to understand.

I think this finishes this argument…and I hope you crawl away.

How does someone else getting high, completely mind-blowingly high, deprive anyone else of life, liberty, or property?
Loundry on October 9, 2007 at 1:15 PM

If the person gets mind-blowingly high on a regular basis and can’t hold a job, who is it that picks up the slack for them? Taxpayers?

Or perhaps they end up homeless and on the streets? Do you think that that has no impact on the quality of life for the rest of us?

If someone is in pain and wants to use marijuana for medicinal purposes to ease pain and nausea there are arguments pro and con that position, but you’re not doing the medical marijuna lobby any good by associating it with the right to get stoned out of your gourd.