Marijuana

Started by inimalist19 pages
Originally posted by 753
You're mistaking what I said. Private transportation of people, as in cars, needs to be replaced with public, as in collective, transportation, such as trains, etc. Likewise, cargo transportation should be steered towards the least impacting forms on the environment and public health. None of this requires a state monopoly of transportation.

so, I could still own a car if I wanted to take it somewhere?

(truth be told, you will get no argument from me in terms of making public transportation efficent enough to provide for people's day to day needs, I bus everywhere)

Originally posted by inimalist
[B]
Your point is perfect in terms of this example. If we argue that the role of the state is to prevent people from hurting themselves, it follows that driving over 5mph is an excess, not a liberty people should have due to personal freedom and all that.

if car accidents did not harm anyone other than the driver, I'd agree the state would have no place restricting the driver's behavior, but they don't so speed limits are reasonable. the reason they aren't capped at 5 is a practical one, as it would render traffic impossible, not amatter of a personal driving liberty.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Only if we say that the state must protect people from harm at all costs. It's not inconsistent to say that safety and liberty are both good.

I don't disagree, however, at least in my opinion, banning things like smoking or fast/unhealthy food goes way too far in the direction of a nanny state.

Hell, if we apply the idea of a "state enforced diet" to my own situation, there should be people coming to my house and force feeding me, because my BMI is very low and I am clinically underweight. (not that I take to much pride in my slenderness, just that it isn't anyone else's business)

Originally posted by 753
if car accidents did not harm anyone other than the driver, I'd agree the state would have no place restricting the driver's behavior, but they don't so speed limits are reasonable. the reason they aren't capped at 5 is a practical one, as it would render traffic impossible, not amatter of a personal driving liberty.

I don't think liberty has nothing to do with it, and I tend to interpret things in terms of personal liberty

Originally posted by inimalist
so, I could still own a car if I wanted to take it somewhere?

(truth be told, you will get no argument from me in terms of making public transportation efficent enough to provide for people's day to day needs, I bus everywhere)

taking my country for instance, in order to make the transition happen, people would need to be encouraged to use public transportation (which would have to be improved in a lot of cities) and discouraged to use cars. compulsory extinction of the automobile industry and prohibition of car use would be the most extreme and obvious ways to acomplish this. But if more subtles methods, like taxes, can achieve a majoritary transition that solves the problems caused by massive car use (and they probably can) then they should be preferred over prohibition. However, I ultimately believe the social and environmental benefits of the transition outweight the particular individual liberties to manufacture, sell, own and use cars. If there was no other way of curbing the effects of the current model of transportation, then I would support prohibition.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't disagree, however, at least in my opinion, banning things like smoking or fast/unhealthy food goes way too far in the direction of a nanny state.

Hell, if we apply the idea of a "state enforced diet" to my own situation, there should be people coming to my house and force feeding me, because my BMI is very low and I am clinically underweight. (not that I take to much pride in my slenderness, just that it isn't anyone else's business)

I don't think liberty has nothing to do with it, and I tend to interpret things in terms of personal liberty

I guess I didnt understand what you posted.

But my point is this: using the smoking ban example you gave, it's unnacceptable for the government to keep people from smoking, but banning smoking in public spaces is reasonable, as second-hand smoke is harmful.

Re: Marijuana

Originally posted by King Kandy
Too much discussion about this has focused only on whether it should be legal or not. I thought maybe we could stand a thread about the substance itself. Have you ever used it? Do you still use it? How has it impacted the culture where you live? Do you think its effects are positive, negative, neutral?

Personally, I like the stuff. Its pretty tolerated where I live (lots of old hippies who passed on the habit to their kids) and i've never felt like anyone was worse off for that fact.

Marijuana is a drug I do quite frequently. Rogue Jedi knows that quite well 😄. But honestly, I don't think it should be legalized.

Let me answer your questions:

Have you ever used it?/ Do you still use it?- Yes. Quite frequently
How has it impacted the culture where you live?- I would not know. But just about everyone I go to school with smokes, so....
Do you think its effects are positive, negative, neutral?- Here is the kicker.
Marijuana poses virtually no threat to one's physical health. It does not pose the same threats as Tobacco (such as lung cancer, emphysema, and such), and scientists have many times debunked the "kills brain cells" myth. Mental health however, is where shit gets tricky. While Marijuana definitely doesn't pose the threat of a physical addiction, trust me, the psychological addiction can be extremely trying individuals. It takes good will to be able to do weed moderately.
The reason I don't believe Marijuana should be legalized on a mainstream market is because of the extremely lethargic and sedentary lifestyle it would bring upon the citizens. While yes, many people do smoke, I feel as if it's illegality is what prevents it from being tremendously abused

But, what evidence is there that the population would be hindered by it being legal? In the netherlands, for instance, I see no indication of such an effect taking place.

I used to be a pot head and i still partake in the occasional spliff. I think Pot is incredibly overrated. Not only for how it's demonized but also for it's popularity. I always preferred uppers and psychedelics, myself. Pot just makes me stupid and lazy. The best times i've had while using pot came while playing guitar or just relaxing to a good CD. For me, if i'm going to make the effort to get high i prefer a drug that is going to change my perspective or give me a sense of keener focus and energy.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
I used to be a pot head and i still partake in the occasional spliff. I think Pot is incredibly overrated. Not only for how it's demonized but also for it's popularity. I always preferred uppers and psychedelics, myself. Pot just makes me stupid and lazy. The best times i've had while using pot came while playing guitar or just relaxing to a good CD. For me, if i'm going to make the effort to get high i prefer a drug that is going to change my perspective or give me a sense of keener focus and energy.

I find this quite intriguing. I am exactly the opposite. I try to avoid psychedelics and other similar drugs as much as possible. I feel that if the most enjoyable high is one in which you feel the effects, but still have control over your mind. I feel that if I use a mind-alterer, that I will immediately panic (even subconsciously), and will hallucinate my worst fears

Weed's overrated.

That aside, I say legalize, only because the US is losing the "drug war", and it's an unnescesarry waste of resources. Legalize it and put all that extra money into something more meaningful.

Originally posted by The Nuul
People on weed are more laid back and dont break the law as much as drunk people. Drunk people do crazy shit all the time, pot heads dont.

I beg to differ.

I have actually been in a comparable situation to that of jaden's friend. I didn't sit at home all day but I was pretty much continuously stoned. Which eventually lead me to become somewhat paranoid and depressed. It didn't last long enough for it to ruin my life but I do know that the consequences of regular usage can be a lot more serious than a lot of people think. That being said, I definitely can't judge anyone for smoking pot and I don't even care if you do.

Tried it, was horrible. Tried it again, was horrible again.

I'm not interested in any drugs anymore really, maybe some caffeine in my soda.

Originally posted by Slay
I beg to differ.

I have actually been in a comparable situation to that of jaden's friend. I didn't sit at home all day but I was pretty much continuously stoned. Which eventually lead me to become somewhat paranoid and depressed. It didn't last long enough for it to ruin my life but I do know that the consequences of regular usage can be a lot more serious than a lot of people think. That being said, I definitely can't judge anyone for smoking pot and I don't even care if you do.

but he's right that weed doesn't induce agressive behavior. you're right that not everyone is fit to do drugs though

Originally posted by Bardock42
Tried it, was horrible. Tried it again, was horrible again.

I'm not interested in any drugs anymore really, maybe some caffeine in my soda.

That reminds me, a good friend of mine (he's a friend of mine on Facebook, Bards, so I can point you to him, if you'd like) tried weed for his first time in Holland (western portion of the Netherlands). They gave him like a "book" of sorts at his hotel and he tried white widow as his very first weed.

He said it made him so high that he was hallucinating and was scared shitless. He thought he OD'd or something.

The way he told the story was hilarious and I laughed at him. Weed newbz: getting their first high and a shitload of white widow. 😆

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
For me, if i'm going to make the effort to get high i prefer a drug that is going to change my perspective or give me a sense of keener focus and energy.
'Shrooms. 😮‍💨

Originally posted by Mindship
'Shrooms. 😮‍💨

Way too dangerous. Pot is so much safer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Way too dangerous. Pot is so much safer.

In terms of the toxicity, there are several kinds of psilocybins that are about the same as marijuana.

Originally posted by King Kandy
In terms of the toxicity, there are several kinds of psilocybins that are about the same as marijuana.

That is true, but unless you grow it yourself, you don't always know what you are getting. To be honest, if it was all legalized, we would all be safer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Way too dangerous. Pot is so much safer.
They can be. But the key to a safe trip, like any real trip, is preparation.

Originally posted by King Kandy
In terms of the toxicity, there are several kinds of psilocybins that are about the same as marijuana.

Psylocybin itself, like pure mdma, lsd or thc, is so benign that you would have to specifically set out to OD on it in order for it to harm you seriously.

Eating it as mushrooms, you are going to be sooooooo high that you are incapable of injesting fatal amounts. I'm not sure about other chemicals in some mushrooms, and I am not saying in any way that taking irresponsibly large doses of hallucinogens is healthy (especially in terms of mental health).

Pot, on the other hand, does actually have some fairly serious physiological effects. Inhaling smoke is never good, it has a very high tar content, and is much more likely to be abused than are traditional psychadellics (you build up a tollorance to shrooms/lsd so fast it would be difficult to have a habit of it longer than a month or two, not considering the stress that would put on your psyche)