[Curtman]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Comparing food to illicit drugs. Nobody does it better.

Comparing pot to alcohol? I know it's a stretch.

Thanks for GOMCing anyway.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Well, I guess if I'd asked you to define virtually harmless we wouldn't have this stimulating discussion.

“Virtually” and “harmelss” are in the dictionary.

$1:

Although I still don't agree with your new definition. I think there are significant harms that come from marijuana. And people not dying from it doesn't seem like a high (low?) enough bar to set to call it insignificant.

Well given you listed “irritability” due to caffeine withdrawal, I’m not surprised. You’ve established mnay times here on CKA here that your bar for state interference is very low. Mine is comparatively high. That’s why we argue all the time. It’s just a different view about the appropriate role of the state in modifying behaviour and morals.

$1:

There is something to the cliche about the stoners - it does waste people, who knows how permanent the effects can be. Many people just way overdo it, IMO, just as many do with alcohol.

Again, here’s the problem with folks who try to make pot appear worse than it is: most people in Canada have direct experience with pot or pot smokers. So when you talk about all this damage it does, people, at least in Canada, know you’re full of it. So the answer to the question of “who knows how permanent the effects may be?” is “Most Canadians. And they’re not that concerned.” When I was in school, the cops came to our class an dtold us marijuana would make boys grow breasts.

$1:

As for banning, maybe your pot smoking has damaged your long term memory.

I believe this is an example of the pejorative term you coined “To Toews an argument.” This is your common fallback position after getting pants in an argument, isn’t it? Last time I was a drunk; now I’m a stoner. And you don’t even know me. Amazing!

[Zipperfish]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

I am totally anti-nanny state and your point is almost laughable.

I call baloney on that.

[sandorski]

Dude is 100% correct.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You’ve established mnay times here on CKA here that your bar for state interference is very low.

I believe this is an example of the pejorative term you coined “To Toews an argument.” This is your common fallback position after getting pants in an argument, isn’t it? Last time I was a drunk; now I’m a stoner. And you don’t even know me. Amazing!

Look at your sentence above - you still can't seem to take in that I'm for legalization - I just don't wear rose colored glasses about how innocuous drugs, any drugs, are.

Nope, it's not Toewsing. (That would be if I said you stood with the drug dealers) It's just a plain old fashioned insult because you either willfully, or whatever, miscast my position on legalization.

As for getting pants in this argument - if you think you've made your case that pot is virtually harmless, keep smoking. You got your pants handed to you by me and by Caleb about aspirin and caffeine. If you call those drugs harmless, then a dictionary isn't going to resolve this as to what virtually harmless means.

[Public_Domain]

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You’ve established mnay times here on CKA here that your bar for state interference is very low.

I believe this is an example of the pejorative term you coined “To Toews an argument.” This is your common fallback position after getting pants in an argument, isn’t it? Last time I was a drunk; now I’m a stoner. And you don’t even know me. Amazing!

Look at your sentence above - you still can't seem to take in that I'm for legalization - I just don't wear rose colored glasses about how innocuous drugs, any drugs, are.

Nope, it's not Toewsing. (That would be if I said you stood with the drug dealers) It's just a plain old fashioned insult because you either willfully, or whatever, miscast my position on legalization.

As for getting pants in this argument - if you think you've made your case that pot is virtually harmless, keep smoking. You got your pants handed to you by me and by Caleb about aspirin and caffeine. If you call those drugs harmless, then a dictionary isn't going to resolve this as to what virtually harmless means.

Well then you just like arguing. One moment you're going on about how harmful pot is and the next post your saying that heroin is "safe." Make up your mind. If you ask me you're just being contrarian and then resorting to insults when you're called on it.

Recall I didn't call caffeine or aspirin or pot harmless, I called them virtually harmless, and I've stated twice earlier that "virtually harmless" doesn't mean "harmless." Billions of people drink/take caffeine everyday. Perhaps a handful have died and even in the cases Caleb cited there were other drugs involved, or the findings were not confirmed. Same with aspirin.

You don't seem to have a concept of risk--the idea that risk is a gradation, not a risk/no-risk dichotomy.

You seem to want everyone to live by your puritan standards, yet look what a miserable old grump you are.

[andyt]

If you think those drugs are virtually harmless, after what Caleb and I showed, including death, then we have different ideas of what virtually means, dictionary or no. Water is virtually harmless, by my definition of the word.

I pointed out that pot is not harmless, for some reason you take that to mean I agree with prohibition, tho I've always advocated for legalization on this forum. It's possible to recognize that pot is not harmless, but that that harm will befall people and society whether pot is illegal or not. Adding prohibition just adds more harm. It's not really such a complicated idea, and someone of your intelligence should be able to grasp it.

You seem to want to put words/ideas in my mouth. Stating the fact that pot is not virtually harmless is just stating that fact. It says nothing about what my expectations of others or myself are. I just don't like the "magical herb that's all good" attitude of many pro legalizers. It actually undercuts their argument, when anti-legalizers can point out the dangers. Just take it straight - many of the things we do have risks, doesn't mean they all need to be banned, especially when banning doesn't work. As you pointed out, I like to ride my bike and it has risks. I try to minimize those risks by using my head, but am constantly aware of how dependent I am on drivers using theirs, and I know many don't. It hasn't stopped me from riding, nor has it made me an anti-bike advocate.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Recall I didn't call caffeine or aspirin or pot harmless, I called them virtually harmless, and I've stated twice earlier that "virtually harmless" doesn't mean "harmless."

Either way, in terms of Aspirin, you're wrong.

Asprin kills well over 15,000 people annually in the US alone and many more hospital visits for complications from Aspirin. That's just under the 17,000 die annually from illicit drug use.

[TattoodGirl]

Havent read the whole thread, nor will I, but here is my two cents worth...unless you and I mean YOU THE INDIVIDUAL, creates said drug you CANNOT comment on the purity of said drug.

[Zipperfish]

andyt andyt:

If you think those drugs are virtually harmless, after what Caleb and I showed, including death, then we have different ideas of what virtually means, dictionary or no. Water is virtually harmless, by my definition of the word.

I pointed out that pot is not harmless, for some reason you take that to mean I agree with prohibition, tho I've always advocated for legalization on this forum. It's possible to recognize that pot is not harmless, but that that harm will befall people and society whether pot is illegal or not. Adding prohibition just adds more harm. It's not really such a complicated idea, and someone of your intelligence should be able to grasp it.

You seem to want to put words/ideas in my mouth. Stating the fact that pot is not virtually harmless is just stating that fact. It says nothing about what my expectations of others or myself are. I just don't like the "magical herb that's all good" attitude of many pro legalizers. It actually undercuts their argument, when anti-legalizers can point out the dangers. Just take it straight - many of the things we do have risks, doesn't mean they all need to be banned, especially when banning doesn't work. As you pointed out, I like to ride my bike and it has risks. I try to minimize those risks by using my head, but am constantly aware of how dependent I am on drivers using theirs, and I know many don't. It hasn't stopped me from riding, nor has it made me an anti-bike advocate.

If I’ve misconstrued your position it’s because it’s a little confusing to me.

I understand that you support legalization, as do I, for very different reasons. My view is that given the harm--or lack thereof--that marijuana exhibits--the state should not have the authority to prohibit it, based on my general principle that people should be free to make choices, good or bad, unless significant social harm can be demonstrated. Free is the operative word as far as I’m concerned. If you want to take away my freedom to choose, you should have a darn good reason for doing it, in my opinion. And pot, to my mind, does not make the "darn good reason" case by a long shot.

Your argument--my perception of your argument--is that, while pot is a significant harm to society, prohibition is an even greater harm. While we both support legalization, your view is that pot is significantly harmful and my view is that it is insignificantly harmful.

I understand that we may have different definitions of what constitutes significant harm. What I cannot understand is (my perception of) your argument that pot, caffeine and aspirin are significantly harmful, whereas heroin is safe. That makes no sense to me at all.

As for water being "virtually harmless"--well, clearly, but I thought we were confining our discussion to drugs here.

I had no idea 15000 people a year in the US alone die from taking Aspirin, so I have to concede the point on that one. That would be significantly harmful.

[andyt]

Pot causes harm to some people. It makes other people's lives better. But be that as it may, pot is a commonly used drug even tho prohibited. I don't believe legalizing it will significantly increase it's use, so whatever harm pot causes by it's use is already with us. But there's significant harm that's caused by it's prohibition, so I'm for legalization.

I forget what I said about heroin or why I brought it up. Probably to give an example of another drug, that under controlled conditions is relatively safe. (Just can't get myself to say virtually safe.) Most people who have access to pure heroin of a fixed dosage will suffer few ill effects using it, aside from constipation. Certainly less psychiatric problems than pot can cause. I do not mean that heroin is safer than pot. It's far more dangerous in regard lethality, as I'm not aware of any deaths by pot. In that latter sense, pot is very safe. But that's not the only issue in my opinion.

Perry is actually not specifically for legalization. He is for treating drug use as a medical rather than a criminal issue. Sounds good to me, tho I'm not clear how that would be put into practice.

[Prof_Chomsky]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Not every drug is available on the street. Remember, not all of Canada is one big city. Sure, there are areas of the Country where drugs are easy to come by, but by no means is ready access all over Canada. I know that where I live, a suburb outside Toronto the only drug easily available is weed....the rest you have to travel into Toronto for.

I grew up in the middle of nowhere and believe me, every single drug was available to anyone who wanted it. Every tiny town of 1,000 people or less in the surrounding areas was the same way. If you want it you can get it. Very few people wanted it. And if you legalized everything you would only see those specialty stores, or pharmacies carrying drugs that sold. It’s no different. You want a giant Wal-Mart worth of selection, you go to the city the same as small towners do today to shop.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

You won't kill the illegal trade at all so your point it moot. That's a myth you pro-legalization people like to throw around.

We have legalized cigarettes and booze yet we still have a booming underground economy for both.

You will not kill gangs or the mob by legalizing drugs.

Better start checking your facts on this one. For starters, the illegal cigarette trade was crushed (yes I know it still exists), and all those tobacco sales figures I gave I my last post are the profits the government makes on tobacco sales even after the tiny illegal trade takes it’s toll. And booze? Lol. How many people do you know of that buy bath tub moonshine today? Drugs are also inherently different than those. The reason cartels have to exist is most “hard” drugs take a lot of processing and known how to produce. When cartels can’t compete price wise with the legal stuff they go bankrupt. They have far more overhead than legal drugs do even with taxes added in - drug mules, lost shipments, bribes, and the cost of drug wars take a toll...

I like that you mention the mob, it was BUILT off of prohibition money.

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Eating is a necessity of life. Obesity is a problem, but unfortunately, people have to eat and due to the poor quality of food and the bad choices people make, we have the situation we have. I'm betting the total sales tax on food and beverages far exceeds that of the health care costs.

Drug use is simply a bad choice and not necessary for day to day life for the vast majority of Canadians.

Eating is a necessity. But eating twinkies, drinking syrup, mowing down a bag of sugar engineered in a laboratory to maximize salt, sugar, fat and caffeine ratios to create a food high is NOT. So by your own logic we should make illegal every other processed and engineered food because obesity kills far more than illicit drugs do.