So, the economist and time agree: It's about fucking time to LEGALISE IT

[Salty]

FWIW, from lurking I've found you to be one of the most interesting people here and I hope you stay.

[East Coast Hustle]

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

I make a couple of comments, fully disclose that it is speculation (in other words I'm not 100% sure) and it gets blown up into "large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit."

You know, I've been mulling over for the past few weeks whether or not I still fit in at pd.com.  This is giving me more pause for thought.  For the however many years I've been here, I've been a pretty straight arrow I think.  I've not tended to exaggerate what people have posted or contributed, and I think I've deserved the same kind of treatment in return.  

Perhaps it is time for me to move along.  Perhaps I don't fit with this community any more.    

No need to get hot and bothered, RWHN. We are having a very interesting intellectual debate which I, for one, am glad you are a part of. Nowhere in my post did I say "RWHN is spouting conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit". That comment was directed at all of us at a point where we seem to be losing our objectivity in this discussion.

IOW, don't take this shit so personally. It's just a debate on the internet.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Are people really getting angry about this?

[East Coast Hustle]

Some of them might be. I just found it to be an insightful discussion, both for the information relevant to the subject matter at hand and for the glimpse into the mindsets of several of our more articulate posters.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Are people really getting angry about this?

I'm not... getting mad at the Internets is silly.

[Cramulus]

I really didn't see any emotionally charged bullshit. I am enjoying reading a very well educated and well argued debate thread.


I'm not really sure where I stand.  I used to be in the Ia! Ia! Legalize fhtagn! camp, and actually RWHN's points have made me a bit more *cough* agnostic on these issues.

[East Coast Hustle]

I'm still steadfastly against legalization, but only for my own selfish motives.

As soon as I'm independently wealthy I'll be totally in favor of it.

[Chairman Risus]

I almost want it legalized for the sole reason that pot-heads would finally have to talk about something else.

[East Coast Hustle]

I agree that the "legalize it, man...pot is THE BEST!" conversations are pretty annoying. Thankfully, that sort of shit would probably get squashed pretty quick at PD.com.

RCH,
likes pot, not a big fan of potheads

[East Coast Hustle]

Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

[Verbal Mike]

Not to mention how much prohibition exacerbates the problem for adolescents by making drug abuse an alluring taboo.

[fomenter]

Also, it seems that the basic bone of contention between RWHN and myself and/or Rat is that RWHN seems to be taking the position that the need to keep adolescents from fucking up their development with recreational drug use trumps the need of adults to be able to make their own choices and not be persecuted/prosecuted for them until they have a direct negative impact on the lives of others whereas rat and I seem to be taking the position that while adolescent drug use is unfortunate and should be actively discouraged by any reasonable means, it's not a justification for blanket prohibition that criminalizes the recreational behavior of adults.

-this sums it up very well
           -i am not even remotely angry or emotional i too find it an interesting debate
           -i don't smoke pot or do drugs, in order for it to do me any good the passing of new pot laws need to be transported back in time 10 to 15 years ( which i am in favor of)
           

[East Coast Hustle]

Not to mention how much prohibition exacerbates the problem for adolescents by making drug abuse an alluring taboo.

I don't have an informed opinion on that, I just think it's irrelevant in the context of the greater social harm being done by prohibition.

Not to mention the vast amounts of money being squandered on the "war on drugs".

[Verbal Mike]

I dunno, I think you can see with alcohol prohibition, where practice is more varied across different countries, that the more illegal alcohol is for youth, the more they abuse it. That's my impression from my travels thus far and from anecdotal evidence. I've seen the taboo effect in action and I think it's a pretty powerful force.
A society that is open to substance use and does not restrict information on it is a society where youth is far likelier to make responsible decisions regarding substances. IMHO.

[Kai]

you can always count on an actual scientist to cut through large amounts of conjecture and emotionally-charged bullshit.

thanks Kai!

FWIW, what I wrote was emotionally charged as well.