[Beej]

I would rather be drunk than high. If my government thinks that they should have a say in that decision, then they are fools at best.

I am not against banning as a strict rule, but the general notion of presumed banning is moronic. Start with allowing everything and use science and socio-economic evidence to determine excise taxes and, if ultimately reasonable, banning.

 

[Beej]

If it's possible to have 1 beer, rather than 6
............
Fundamentally, the only reason marijuana is illegal is that several powerful industries successfully lobbied the government to prohibit it in an effort to protect their profits.

But it's not...
............
What is that based upon? I think it underestimates how deeply conservative people, particularly parents, are about such things. Think about all the stuff that gets banned or proposed to get banned, often due to flocks of worried parents.

I can see how big drug companies help to hold the status quo, but I think the fears of "reefer madness" predate big drug companies. Didn't it align with silliness like alcohol prohibition and a generally socially conservative push to get government into our lives in the early 20th century?

 

[Beej]

I think the arguments that "Marihuana" was demonized to prevent the hemp indistry from challenging other established concerns have merit. There's a Popeye cartoon from the 1930s in which he consumes "loco weed" instead of spinach and there's no real stigma attached to it. A 1916 silent film "The Mystery of the Leaping Fish" features Douglas Fairbanks as Coke Ennyday, a comic detective who solves crimes entirely through the use of recreational drugs.

That's fair, but what is the timeline from the substance being banned to it, essentially, being pushed out of publicly polite society?

Also, "Fundamentally, the only reason" is quite an expansive conclusion versus, "was demonized to prevent", which does not set aside other reasons for the silliness or assign a heirarchy.

Unfounded fear and superstition, as seen with, "gingerism" is fully capable of staying alive on a shoestring budget. Heck, looking at some past ehmac threads, it is alive and well on the wild, wild net as well!

 

[Beej]

I simply don't think it's the government's job to legislate how adults run their lives.

Would you also agree that modern pharmaceuticals should be freely available to adults, allowing for huge flashing safety warnings and having to pass a basic, "does not instantly kill or disable" test (gets into another level of debate)?

A true open standard for all drugs, instead of our current artificial tiers between "fun" drugs and "treatment" drugs -- a line that marijuana is already blurring.

 

[Beej]

Perhaps the most honest statement of the debate to date.

The "blurring" part, that is.

Actually, I raise it because the topic, on the surface, unites some "righty" and, "lefty" ehmacers on the side of liberty. I'm scratching the surface.

The social-conservative approach, to me, is just surface. Either personal feelings -- fine when honestly stated as such, or some mix of flawed logic or, more simply, a stronger desire to control other adults.

 

[Beej]

What none of you get, is that there is no soft version of alcohol. It is what it is, but drugs are considered "soft and hard" for whatever reason.
......
Someone tried to draw a similarity of beer leading to vodka, but that just shows the ignorance of understanding between the two drugs.

Alcohol is alcohol is alcohol.

Pot is not coke and coke is not meth and so on. Get it now?

Some of the drugs can be blended. Maybe all. I'm not sure.

For example, marijuana and tobacco are frequently blended. That makes it similar to alcohol in that the strength can be set. Add to that the selectable THC content of the mj (by selecting breed) and blending other fun stuff...when the geniuses at Molson, Merck-Frost and Rothmans are finally allowed to play along.

Legalise and regulate and, like most consumer products, a few big brands will dominate along with some nice local supply for variety. Or we could attempt to build a cowardly new world in which individuals must be protected from...themselves. Next up from Mac: iRobot, for your protection.

 

[Beej]

Adults have been taking time off from the everyday for a long time. A form of beer was, I think, invented around the same time as civilisation itself (causality unknown ). Clearly that's stretching the precision of the data, but I just think that it's funny that way.

Blandly dismissing all users through a mindset that, as MF pointed out, was only established recently and is already under fire, demonstrates a lack of historical understanding, to put it politely.

Throw in the limited distinctions, despite what you may feel, between alcohol, caffeine, tobacco, "illegal" drugs and pharmaceuticals and there is little room left for the, "I jus knows what I knows" argument, unless it is admitted to be personal feelings. It is not reasoning itself, but an attempt to reason with one's own feelings. Feel any way you want -- and ingest what you want, as far as I'm concerned -- but don't try to pass a feeling off as a rationale argument.

 

[Beej]

Being older means that you understand history? I think you just firmly established quite the opposite. Maybe you do not realise how much of it went on before you were born? And by "how much" I do not mean just a simple count of the years.

And...aw heck, I'll leave it at your response to being challenged on your understanding of history:
"Oh, I understand history just fine thanks. Having lived it more than twice as long as some here, suffice to say that I have zero respect for anyone who chooses to use drugs."

That is plain enough. I could not have made my case so effectively without your help. Thanks.

 

[Beej]

You are mixing up user and juvenile; have, thankfully, backed away from a ludicrous defense of the foundation of historical understanding; and, do not allow for "users" that do just fine. Most "users" that I meet are doing very little, but not all. Your statement does not allow for that.

And, finally, none of the "loser" talk has anything to do with supporting the illegality of the drugs unless, "I have no desire to control other adults" is not true. And no, simply redefining the term, "adult" to exclude those that behave against your wishes does not count, for obvious reasons.

I'm not sure what the difficulty is with just saying, "I feel this way" instead of the ongoing farce of stating fake general facts and/or fake arguments. Why present your feelings as something they are not with the "objective" lingo?

 

[Beej]

Sure, but that's an odd way to put it.

Example: one loves their significant other and feels that the other is a great person; they may know -- rationally -- that the significant other does bad things quite often, and not have true faith that they are a great person (faith can be tested) but, nonetheless, feel that their significant other is a great person.

I am not wording this well at all but I think that faith is different than simple feeling. Either way, thanks for removing faith-feeling from the realm of rationale argument. It may influence one's rational thoughts, but is not a substitute. Similarly, rational argument is not a substitute for faith-feeling but it does have the advantage of being better suited to debate. Makes for cr*p poetry, though.

 

[Beej]

"One is legal, one is not.": an argument for stasis from someone that wants to change how judges are appointed? Once again, these are your feelings Sinc, not rational arguments of a debate. The equivalent of, "I prefer the colour green over the colour blue."

"The choice we (society) have already made is that pot is illegal.": We cannot change? Perhaps you have zero interest in laws changing, but most people (ie. society) seem to instinctively understand that they do change, and that they want a say in such change, no matter how petty in some cases.

Once again, these are your feelings Sinc.

Unless, of course, you want to argue from the basis of our laws being permanent and unchanging. That would be odd, considering that they get changed every year.

 

[Beej]

Society has already, "demised" due to a long list of liberties that were "granted". Many people, including myself, would not want to go back to the "un-demised" state and look forward to further similar "demising".

"Sorry" about all the annoying quotes.

 

[Beej]

I see you missed this point in my earlier post.

Feelings are with fingers. Feeling is a sense of touch and has zip to do with the discussion.

I did not miss the point; I did not want to embarrass you.

Find a decent English dictionary. There are multiple definitions of feel and feeling. You may believe or feel that only one definition exists, but you would be wrong.

 

[Beej]

VD:

1) Yet another example of feelings masquerading as rational argument -- I have pointed this out to Sinc before. Usually it takes me longer to get him to make such obviously irrational arguments. They're normally only obvious when one knows to look for them.

2) Being intentionally provocative. Not adeptly, but done nonetheless. Like Hitchens' enjoyment of pulling down popular idols, but more concise and even less witty.

3) Attempt at the "ah ha" of others admitting that the law is not perfect and is changeable...something most would admit to right off the bat if asked. Weak links to justifying elected judges are forthcoming?

4) Other, including being influenced.

5) Blend of any/all of the above.

What's your take, VD?

 

[Beej]

I believe I know the difference:

Knowing is not understanding in the same way that knowledge is not wisdom.

 

[Beej]

Sinc, that is the same style of argument used by militant atheists against religion. Lovely.

Are you so ashamed of your own feelings that you regularly try to disguise them as logical argument? Is it a generational thing? I have lots of feelings and they are what they are. They are not logical arguments to use against others' arguments. I can try to understand how I ended up with my feelings but, in the end, if I prefer green over blue that does not mean that someone else should or that government should declare reality to be as such.

 

[Beej]

Nor is wisdom functioning under the illusion that one has knowledge.

You once again attacked your own "arguments" (actually, they're feelings).

At least you have a sense of humour about this and I do appreciate that.

 

[Beej]

It is a matter of faith and your preceding arguments were, as already demonstrated by others, meaningless in an objective sense (ie. argument/debate etc.). That makes a sort of sense.

So why go through the farcical "rationale" when it really is just faith (or feeling)? To put it another way, why try to act like others should have the same favourite colour as yourself? I am not saying that there are no arguments that can lead to your conclusions, just that you used few (if any) and that your posts were dominated by the irrational/emotional without admitting (until pushed) to being as such.

But, after all, we have been through this before. Isn't it fun to recycle?

 

[Beej]

Given the baby-boom, "young" people are politically short-changed compared to the political demographics of more typical population pyramids. Thankfully, after the boomers and their immediate predecessors are gone, we'll still have an enormous debt to remember them by.

Boomer parents lived through and fought in WWII, but the kids born around the time of the war, and the boomers themselves seemed to struggle only with the problem of how long they should do something that is obviously damaging to the country and the future.

They can moralise about other adults' pot use all they want but thanks guys, if for no other reason than to prove, once and for all, that one generation can steal from another and get away with it.

 

[Beej]

Not to mention the thousands of inventions by boomers you take for granted today.


Not enough damage to prevent you from having the freedom to express yourself.


The generation we inherited was no picnic either. History has a way of repeating itself. You ready?

People stopped inventing things and did not invent before these great spenders came along?

Hmmm...look at the biggies: not invented by the big spenders, most were advanced but not invented. Things had been consistently advanced for a quite a while there. Understanding of history, eh?

Some even say that technology by around 1920 was, in many areas, a fair bit ahead of where it was in 1500. But they're weirdos. It took the big spenders to really make a difference.

Advanced computers are great, though. Thanks. Er wait, that still does not explain the debt. Particularly, Canada's and each province's debt. Maybe a tiny portion of Canada's debt and some more of the U.S. debt, though.
..
Yes, they managed not to undo what predecessors had fought for. Not that the big spenders themselves fought for anything, but they managed not to blow it. Hooray! Not blowing it makes up for the theft?
..
Yes, and hopefully more of the useless and often damaging social conservatism will, once again, be tossed onto the trash heap.