KingEup posted:Check out this amazing piece of poo poo that has shown up in the NYTimes: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/opinion/marijuana-and-minorities.html?_r=1& it never ceases to amaze me the blindspot people have for issues of class vs issues of race and how they relate to each other (and also maybe don't).
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
computer parts posted:In other words, it's perfectly reasonable to have an ideology of "legal, but discouraged" like a million other things we have now. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
computer parts posted:On the other hand, "We need to send people to treatment, not prison" isn't that bad of a (what I got out of it anyway) viewpoint (certainly there are worse). You know who shouldn't use cannabis — them poor blacks, that’s who. My God, they will spend the milk money. They don’t know how to control it. They can’t handle it and they can't even afford to get help. We should not advocate cannabis legalisation because them poor blacks will inevitably get themselves into a mess because they won't be able to resist the pot stores. You know how they are... Dr A. Porot 1939; League of Nations Sub-Committee on Cannabis posted:The... African native...‘has a peculiar propensity towards drug addiction. It has been said that he is a born drug addict... his essentially passive temperament leaves him without defense against temptation. He lives from day to day, at the mercy of his instincts and desires. He has no idea of making provision for the future, and abandons himself to the satisfaction of his immediate needs. … Owing to his lack of mental and moral powers of resistance, the native soon falls into the state of decline and moral decay which follows too wholesale or long an indulgence in drugs. Similarly, his entirely instinctive way of life, the fact that his behavior is dictated solely by immediate reaction, and his fundamentally impulsive nature, soon give to his crises of intoxication a violent and tragic character’. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1478-0542.2010.00740.x/abstract The language has changed to be less overtly racist but the sub-text remains the same. KingEup fucked around with this message at 02:35 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
The sheer audacity of writing "black people are going to be the most adversely affected by legalization" in seriousness is just amazing to me. I mean, obviously this is a bullshit think tank getting paid to spout this garbage but even still. My problem with "let's legalize it, but discourage use" is that, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, nobody ever says that about hamburgers or watching TV all day. It just reeks of the moral baggage of prohibition and anti-stoner sentiments (hi echinopsis) and not an eye towards the greatest possible well-being and collective health of our society. Of course legalization will change things a bit and there will be issues that arise that will need to be handled but you have to be blind to think that the new issues will be even a fraction as detrimental to anybody or anything as the current drug war is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:We ask people to get treatment for all sorts of substances (Alcohol, Tobacco) and other vices (gambling) all the time. With stuff like that, we generally only ask people to seek treatment when they take it to a clearly self-destructive level. That's not remotely comparable to blindly assuming that anyone using a given substance suffers from a similar lack of self-control and needs to be protected from themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:My problem with "let's legalize it, but discourage use" is that, as someone mentioned earlier in the thread, nobody ever says that about hamburgers or watching TV all day. Yeah, plenty of people do. We just don't pay attention to them because it's easy not to and/or it's beneficial to corporations if you don't pay attention. Like seriously, the whole anti-obesity thing is a direct call out to how lovely fast food is for you. e: I mean, when the First Lady's whole gimmick for the past five years has been "stop eating bad food and go exercise" you can't legitimately say "nobody every says to stop eating hamburgers and watching TV".
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
You're right, I should clarify I guess. There are definitely campaigns against eating junk food and watching TV all day. It's just that "legalize and discourage" is almost always couched in moralistic language and prohibitionist sentiment, so I tend to view it skeptically even though I don't have much problem with it in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
computer parts posted:
She (And others like her) is trying to stop the number one cause of death in america. When cannibus cracks the top 3 we can start talking about ineffective campaigns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:She (And others like her) is trying to stop the number one cause of death in america. When cannibus cracks the top 3 we can start talking about ineffective campaigns. That's not the point. The point is that we keep things legal that are simultaneously discouraged all the time. There is no contradiction in that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
Muck and Mire posted:It just reeks of the moral baggage of prohibition and anti-stoner sentiments (hi echinopsis) and not an eye towards the greatest possible well-being and collective health of our society. See I hold the greatest possible well-being as the highest goal, hence why I am against prohibition, but still think that cannabis use is detrimental overall to society. legalisation and regulation is key
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
Seriously, why are you so set against people using cannabis? While I'm not going to pretend it's completely harmless, it's so far down the list of things that harm individuals and society that you could not reasonably be against recreational and medicinal (and studies are showing that is does have legitimate medical uses) cannabis use without also opposing virtually everything people do in modern society. Are you opposed to the use of all forms of personal motorized transportation due to pollution? Do you oppose anyone ever having a single beer? Are you also against people ever eating sweet foods or having drinks with lots of caffeine? Do you gasp in horror when someone takes an ibuprofen for a headache? What about modern electronics and the vast amount of metals and petroleum that modern society needs to supply demand? "Detrimental to society" is such a broad category that singling out cannabis is simply ridiculous, especially when you take it to the point that you're opposed to someone smoking one bowl a week before a show or something, as you do.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 05:26
|
|
|
I'm not against people who use cannabis, I just don't think its helpful if people get blazed on a daily basis. Why won't people understand this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:01
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I'm not against people who use cannabis, I just don't think its helpful if people get blazed on a daily basis. Why won't people understand this? You just made the claim that cannabis use is detrimental 'overall' to society. Obviously what you meant to say was 'problematic cannabis use is detrimental to society'. Our bodies need a bit of sun. Though only an idiot would argue that the sun is detrimental to society. Still, overexposure can be a problem. Some people deliberately expose themself to UV rays for recreational purposes on a daily basis. This can be problematic. These people and those around them can suffer as a result. The same is true in relation to excessive use of cannabis. How do you feel about credit cards? Detrimental to society? People can lose everything! What about loud iPods? Detrimental to society? People can suffer permanent hearing loss! KingEup fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
KingEup posted:You just made the claim that cannabis use is detrimental 'overall' to society. yes generally it's problematic use that is the detriment but if we look at our favourite intoxicant alcohol, we can all vouch for reasonable use cases and people who don't abuse but it's still correct to say that alcohol use overall is a detriment to society quote:What about loud iPods? Detrimental to society? People can suffer permanent hearing loss!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:if significant amounts of people are losing hearing then yes... How do you feel about peanuts?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:30
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I'm not against people who use cannabis, I just don't think its helpful if people get blazed on a daily basis. Why won't people understand this? Because you have repeatedly said that to you are opposed to any cannabis use at all due to a utilitarian moral framework that emphasizes the utility/detriment to society above all else, but are just resigned to the fact that people are going to smoke it. How are we supposed to interpret it? It doesn't help your case that you've consistently portrayed daily smokers as lifestyle stoners, which is simply ridiculous. Yes, we all know people that won't shut the gently caress up about weed and have Bob Marley posters and Pink Floyd shirts and so on. They aren't the only people who smoke daily, and far more of the daily smokers I know are in academia or have serious chronic illnesses whose symptoms are alleviated by marijuana; you would never know they partake unless you were right there with them when they used marijuana.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I'm not against people who use cannabis, I just don't think its helpful if people get blazed on a daily basis. Why won't people understand this? I think that you've made your point very clear. The reason people are confused right now is because you insist on bringing it up over and over for pages at a time. You don't like cannabis because of a subjective feeling that it is bad for society. Is there anything else you'd like to add?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:36
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:Because you have repeatedly said that to you are opposed to any cannabis use at all due to a utilitarian moral framework that emphasizes the utility/detriment to society above all else You make a lot of assumptions but this one is classic. I can think a thing without trying to make it law or some moral code. Stop thinking everyone is internally logical Salt Fish posted:I think that you've made your point very clear. The reason people are confused right now is because you insist on bringing it up over and over for pages at a time. You don't like cannabis because of a subjective feeling that it is bad for society. Is there anything else you'd like to add? no, 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:47
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:You make a lot of assumptions but this one is classic. I can think a thing without trying to make it law or some moral code. Stop thinking everyone is internally logical I'm just going off of what you've said. You're constantly talking about the cost to society and "greatest possible well-being", so presumably you're operating from a utilitarian view of society. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your position instead of poo poo-posting?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Stop thinking everyone is internally logical You're the one who just espoused utilitarianism, the beep boopest of philosophies, like two posts ago.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:53
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:I can think a thing without trying to make it law or some moral code. Stop thinking everyone is internally logical In other words, you have no awareness of you own beliefs or why you think the things you do. You baulk at the suggestion you should examine your own internal logic or apply logic where your feelings trumps it because, well, just because. It's almost like you're an infant. Are you an infant? KingEup fucked around with this message at 08:06 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
All it really comes down to is that while marijuana use probably isn't the sort of thing that the government should be promoting or subsidizing, by any measurable level of harm there is no shortage of better targets for education campaigns, Pigovian taxes, and regulation generally, not to mention the absurdity of spending law enforcement resources. So why should marijuana be subject to a regulatory framework above and beyond the dozens, if not hundreds, of other demonstrably more harmful substances, behaviors, industries, etc?echinopsis posted:You make a lot of assumptions but this one is classic. I can think a thing without trying to make it law or some moral code. Stop thinking everyone is internally logical echinopsis posted:See I hold the greatest possible well-being as the highest goal, hence why I am against prohibition, but still think that cannabis use is detrimental overall to society. legalisation and regulation is key You're right, we may have been expecting too much of you with this internal logic and consistency stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 07:59
|
|
|
Preem Palver posted:I'm just going off of what you've said. You're constantly talking about the cost to society and "greatest possible well-being", so presumably you're operating from a utilitarian view of society. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your position instead of poo poo-posting? Unlikely AreWeDrunkYet posted:All it really comes down to is that while marijuana use probably isn't the sort of thing that the government should be promoting or subsidizing, by any measurable level of harm there is no shortage of better targets for education campaigns, Pigovian taxes, and regulation generally, not to mention the absurdity of spending law enforcement resources. So why should marijuana be subject to a regulatory framework above and beyond the dozens, if not hundreds, of other demonstrably more harmful substances, behaviors, industries, etc? This is the kind of assumptions that make this conversation difficult. I hold, as a personal opinion, that regular cannabis use ain't great for ya. I'm not espousing that we regulated based on that. KingEup posted:In other words, you have no awareness of you own beliefs or why you think the things you do. You baulk at the suggestion you should examine your own internal logic or apply logic where your feelings trumps it because, well, just because. Are we ageist now? gently caress
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 08:41
|
|
|
computer parts posted:e: I mean, when the First Lady's whole gimmick for the past five years has been "stop eating bad food and go exercise" you can't legitimately say "nobody every says to stop eating hamburgers and watching TV". Obesity is not simply use of hamburgers/TV though, no one cares about that at all. Most non-obese people enjoy hamburgers, TV, and alcohol regularly but not to the extent to where it causes health issues. The distinction here is that simply use of pot is being discouraged where with obesity, alcohol, too much TV, etc it's an issue of abuse or addiction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 09:47
|
|
|
computer parts posted:That's not the point. The point is that we keep things legal that are simultaneously discouraged all the time. There is no contradiction in that. There are also things that are legal and not discouraged. Kind of like how most people agreed it was silly to bring up Mitt Romney's recreational drug use during his campaign.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 09:57
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:There are also things that are legal and not discouraged. Kind of like how most people agreed it was silly to bring up Mitt Romney's recreational drug use during his campaign. What recreational drug use? I never heard about anything like that, and I followed the race pretty closely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Idran posted:What recreational drug use? I never heard about anything like that, and I followed the race pretty closely. Yeah, I heard about the gay bashing, the predatory business practices, the dog on the roof, the car elevator, the tape were he called half of America moochers and his wife's fancy dancing horse, but nothing about any sort of drug use. Man, Romney was a lovely candidate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
cafel posted:Yeah, I heard about the gay bashing, the predatory business practices, the dog on the roof, the car elevator, the tape were he called half of America moochers and his wife's fancy dancing horse, but nothing about any sort of drug use. Man, Romney was a lovely candidate. Haha, yeah, that's about what I was thinking. He hit just about every scandal imaginable except smoking pot in college.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
He's a devout Mormon who doesn't even drink caffeine. I don't think there was any drug scandal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 13:25
|
|
|
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me." - Mitt 'The Widowmaker' Romney
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 14:03
|
|
|
Its great how the argument against legalization quite literally boils down to hippy hate, and since weed turns people into hippies, we should discourage its use. The comparison of cannabis (precursor to no disease) to the primary drivers of heart disease (fast food) is a perfect example of how disingenuous truth stretching is necessary to make even basic equivocation between the two.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
Well, I wouldn't say precursor to no disease, as a large proportion of users will be smoking it in some form, and inhaling burning plant matter on a regular basis is not going to be great for your lungs. Especially in the UK where everybody I know puts tobacco in their spliffs and doesn't use one of those cellulose filter tips you get for rollies. Obviously, the logical solution is for governments to promote the use of edibles and vapourisers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 14:56
|
|
|
I kinda understand why people do that in Europe/UK (roll spliffs; it increases the buzz) but seriously it's pretty gross and not really necessary. Hopefully with eventual legalization there can be a nice PSA campaign about getting the tobacco outta your joint. Or maybe just "vape it for your health!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 15:34
|
|
|
XMNN posted:Well, I wouldn't say precursor to no disease, as a large proportion of users will be smoking it in some form, and inhaling burning plant matter on a regular basis is not going to be great for your lungs. Especially in the UK where everybody I know puts tobacco in their spliffs and doesn't use one of those cellulose filter tips you get for rollies. Right but a spliff is adding in another outside agent and isn't strictly just the cannabis. As far as cannabis not being great for your lungs, I imagine it depends if you're eating it, smoking it, vaporizing it etc. And I don't think there's a lot of evidence that even smoking it causes great harm to one's lungs, but I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Inhaling smoke even if it is magical healing herbs from the earth, is bad for your lungs. This is indisputable. It may not be AS BAD as processed tobacco, but it is still harmful.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 19:56
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:Unlikely Why is anyone responding to the guy proudly proclaiming that his views re illogical and unreasonable and getting upset when he is asked to think critically? He is obviously just trolling. There is no reason to consider his opinion at all. Powercrazy posted:Inhaling smoke even if it is magical healing herbs from the earth, is bad for your lungs. This is indisputable. It may not be AS BAD as processed tobacco, but it is still harmful. Yeah, your common sense "everyone knows this!" Sarah Palin folsky wisdom really trumps the studies showing no harm or negligible amounts of harm from decades of marijuana use. The best you can really do to support this is say "this loose correlation here..." Or "this may be related maybe but there's no direct link" to a number of subtle, non life threatening conditions or slight decreases n fertility. And of course children shouldn't smoke it because it can trigger mental health problems in the very young, a point not even really worth mentioning. Other that, nope, not really. empty whippet box fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jun 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Yeah, your common sense "everyone knows this!" Sarah Palin folsky wisdom really trumps the studies showing no harm or negligible amounts of harm from decades of marijuana use. The best you can really do to support this is say "this loose correlation here..." Or "this may be related maybe but there's no direct link" to a number of subtle, non life threatening conditions or slight decreases n fertility. And of course children shouldn't smoke it because it can trigger mental health problems in the very young, a point not even really worth mentioning. I don't get why you're talking to one of the major pro-legalization posters in this thread like he's a crazy right-winger? He's talking about the decrease in lung function that's associated with inhaling smoke of any kind over the course of years, not about the effect of THC on the body. Which, yes, is less with marijuana users as compared to cigarette smokers, but that's more a function of people that smoke marijuana smoking far less often than those that smoke tobacco; even so, there's still a measurable loss of pulmonary function in those that have smoked marijuana for years. Human lungs just aren't built for handling particulate matter well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Idran posted:I don't get why you're talking to one of the major pro-legalization posters in this thread like he's a crazy right-winger? He's talking about the decrease in lung function that's associated with inhaling smoke of any kind over the course of years, not about the effect of THC on the body. Which, yes, is less with marijuana users as compared to cigarette smokers, but that's more a function of people that smoke marijuana smoking far less often than those that smoke tobacco; even so, there's still a measurable loss of pulmonary function in those that have smoked marijuana for years. Human lungs just aren't built for handling particulate matter well. Actual studies on the matter are, at best, inconclusive. http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/738255_4 medcscape posted:Smokers of marijuana had no significant difference in FEV1, FVC, FEV1/FVC or diffusion lung capacity for carbon monoxide (DLCO) compared with nonsmokers. These spirometry findings were similar in a number of other studies, both cross-sectional and longitudinal.[4,12,17] Interestingly, however, there was a modest but statistically significant increase in airway resistance and reduction in specific airway conductance in smokers of marijuana compared with both nonsmokers and tobacco smokers In general, inhaling plant matter into your lungs is not good for you; however, cannabis smoke specifically is a bronchodilator, which appears to mitigate the negative effects of inhaling smoke. Or you could just ingest it in another manner and avoid the issue entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Broken Machine posted:Actual studies on the matter are, at best, inconclusive. Aha, fair enough; I hadn't seen that study. Interesting, I didn't realize that about cannabis! quote:Or you could just ingest it in another manner and avoid the issue entirely. Oh yeah, of course, but the topic was specifically smoking here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 22:36 |
|
|
Warchicken posted:getting upset when he is asked to think critically? I don't recall getting upset quote:There is reason to consider his opinion at all.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2013 21:23
|
|