REEFER MADNESS!!!!!!

[Bruno]

That assumes a rational drug user making rational decisions.  And I'll pose the above question again, if one of the arguments about marijuana prohibition is that it creates an allure and attraction to youth because it is illegal, then why are youth turning to a legal version? 

A lot of people using that stuff are using it because it (ostensibly) doesn't show up on (most) drug tests.

[Telarus]

The Emeritus Prof offers some anecdotal evidence towards that, RWHN. He says "I talked to a marijuana provider from California, a doctor, a physician," explained Huffman, "and he said that in California, that these things are not near the problem they are in the rest of the country simply because they can get marijuana. And marijuana, even for recreational use is quite easy to get in California, and it's essentially decriminalized. And marijuana is not nearly as dangerous as these compounds."

Yes, these synthetics don't show up on current pee tests (different end metabolites). I certainly haven't offered 'allure of illegality' as a reason that youth are drawn to cannabis experimentation.

[Doktor Howl]

People are getting stoned on bath salts?

This fucking country is going to the dogs.

[Wyldkat]

People are getting stoned on bath salts?

This fucking country is going to the dogs.

I read that article and besides the automatic WTF reaction, I want to know how on earth anyone could get high off bath salts and WHY?!?

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I also hope you don't honestly think that the legalization movement isn't prone to bouts of dogmatism.  It's another hallow and lazy argument.  I put up substantive points backed by peer research and best practices.  If I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong.  

Talking about the "legalization movement" in general is another hollow and lazy argument. You have put up some substantive points, and most people on the legalization side acknowledged them as valid. However, you seem incapable of admitting you're wrong about anything marijuana related.

When you repeatedly do things like:

• Ignore widespread damaging effects of marijuana prohibition

Well, this is not completely true.  I have time and time again said that there is definitely room for improvements in law enforcement when it comes to marijuana.  Such as those who have personal amounts of the substances should not be going to jail and instead should be diverted to education, treatment, or community service, depending on the results of a substance abuse assessment.  

That said, I have argued against where I see stats misused, conflated, or exaggerated.  Such as focusing on arrests and not looking at how many of those arrested for simple possession actually end up in a jail or prison cell for more than an overnight.  Or looking at how many people are in prison for marijuana offenses and ignoring the fact that many had another con-current offense, a violent offense, or were dealers.  If you were to present me with a clear cut set of data that shows a majority of people in prison were in there ONLY for simple possession charges, then we'd have something to talk about.

If you believe that the main measure of damage done by marijuana prohibition is prison sentences for marijuana then you haven't been paying attention. The point stands. You're ignoring quite a bit more of the story, in a manner that appears willful. I don't think you have a sincere interest in understanding the views you oppose, which would explain why you're continually destroying straw men.

How about the people that cannot get federal funds to go to school because of a pot conviction? How about the kids that moved on to nastier substances because they found out that well-meaning lies about pot were lies and assumed  the nastier stuff was being lied about too? How about the youth that went into the justice system for pot and came out hardened criminals? How about the families that are affected by the thousands of people rotting in privatized prisons for simple possession? How about the emotional damage to children from cops violently bursting into their parents' home, shooting their dog, and arresting their father all over a small amount of marijuana? How about the people who lost their job because of one of those arrest-and-releases that you so casually dismiss (after all, they didn't do any hard time)? How about the money spent on criminalizing people for marijuana that could have been spent on worthy pursuits?

• Reframe arguments solely around harm to children

BECAUSE THAT'S MY JOB!  It's also the central reason I oppose marijuana legalization or decriminalization.  Yeah, in a happy sunny Rainbow world, adults would be able to do whatever the hell they want and a magic force field would go up keeping their bad decisions from affecting youth.  That world doesn't exist.  Like it or not, children are a part of our society.  Like it or not, our society needs thriving youth to produce thriving communities.  Yeah, unfortunately, that means adults need to give up compete and unquestioned freedom.  

Again with these absurd straw men. NO ONE'S ARGUING FOR IDIOTIC "COMPLETE" FREEDOM OR A YOUTHLESS SOCIETY. It's crap like this that makes people think it's not worth discussing anything with you and to reject your comments without wasting much energy on it.

If you don't take these issues seriously and represent these arguments in good faith, why should anyone spend the time to expound on the evidence for their argument? It's just been falling on deaf ears.

• Smear opponents as "just wanting to get high"

Are you arguing that there aren't people in the legalization movement who's primary motivation is to be able to freely enjoy marijuana without facing criminal penalties?  I mean, your bullet above kind of heads in the direction of "adults should be able to enjoy adult activities, the children be damned."  Doesn't it?  Otherwise, why object to bringing up the damaging effects on youth?  So of course an element of that exists.  Is it everyone in the movement?  Obviously not.  But you can't seriously expect me to believe it isn't part of the motivation.

Guess what? I already can get high. I'm not concerned about my ability to get high, it's already INCREDIBLY FUCKING EASY TO GET AWAY WITH. People whose primary motivation is to make it easy to smoke pot has nothing to do with the arguments being presented to you. If you'd like, I'll stop responding to your specific statements and instead respond to the worst motivations I've observed coming from the pro drug war side, and attribute them to you. Oh wait, that would be disingenuous and stupid.

Where did I say children be damned? Oh, that was you, mischaracterizing my argument again. Oh, what do you know, you even twisted my criticism about narrowly focusing on harm to youth to try to make me look bad. Why do I object to narrowly focusing on youth for this issue? Well, if you take anything out of context and look only at its potential harm to youth, we'd have to ban cars, guns, prescription drugs and just about everything that's fine for adults but not kids.

It's the wider context that makes such bans utterly ridiculous—you have to use a narrow frame of reference for that to even BEGIN to sound reasonable.

• Ignore reams of peer-reviewed science when convenient

You're going to have to prove that accusation.

Telarus posted this link:
http://www.uccs.edu/~rmelamed/Evolutionism/medical_uses_of_cannabinoid_2/
which you did not address.

You claimed that there is not enough evidence to make a judgement about the safety of marijuana. There is, and it spans many countries as you can see above. You ignored that link and pretty much all of the rest of Telarus' post.

• Restate FDA/DEA/NIDA information incessantly as though it paints a full and unequivocal picture

I've also used peer-reviewed research to back up my points as well.  You conveniently leave those out.  But look, I put up evidence and you all are obviously free to counter it with counter information.  If you don't or can't, that's not on me.  If you think it's bogus, prove it.  Don't whine about my sources without actually lifting a finger to combat the information.  

But of course the flip side of this one is those of you arguing with me who deny information from those sources out of hand without even considering them simply because they come from those sources.

Copying and pasting large blocks of mostly irrelevant information isn't a "counter argument". It's a propaganda war. If that's what you want this to turn into, I can just go to NORML and grab some quotes and endlessly repost them when they're only tangentially related at best. Whoever reposts the most propaganda wins, eh?

• Ignore blatant US obstructionism in scientific research of marijuana

No, I remember quite clearly providing evidence that this claim was overstated.  Feel free to go back and review to refresh your memory.

I went back and you provided no evidence. You almost chickened out of the thread at that point.

• Fabricate absurdly naive narratives about cartels

Such as?  [citation needed]

Such as, "[...] I think the other thing [cartels] certainly would do is develop stronger product than what the government allows.  Now, yes, this is more often than not going to be going to your hardcore MJ users.  But that, along with the illegal Rx trade and other illicit substances, I think, would be more than enough to keep them afloat.''

OMG, TEH SUPERWEEDS!


 

• Smear valid evidence with unsubstantiated claims of bias (call this "evidence-based counter-argument")

Such as?  [citation needed]

You said, "MAPS seems to have a bit of an agenda, and a chip on their shoulder, so I suspect they are a bit biased with how they are recounting their experiences.  Not to mention they aren't the only game in the US when it comes to clinical research on medical marijuana, despite what MAPS is claiming.  They have a whole Center for medical marijuana research at the University of California.  So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock into the words of an organization that is demonstrably being less than honest."

Totally unsubstantiated. Their claim is NOT about being the only clinical research done on marijuana—it's specific to the FDA.

So yeah, I'm not going to put too much stock in your reading comprehension.

The NIDA and DEA are quite verifiably obstructionist when it comes to science around marijuana.

• Distort the context for marijuana by declaring comparisons to other substances "immaterial"

It is immaterial.  It doesn't matter that other drugs are more harmful.  Harm is harm and marijuana causes significant harm to the development of an adolescent in and of itself.  I don't believe that the disposition of substances should be dependent on whether or not something is better or worse.  It should be decided on its own merits.  

It doesn't matter if other substances are better or worse? So it doesn't matter if we treat a drug that is safer than aspirin as though it is crystal meth? Could you explain that a little more thoroughly for me?

Partially charred food is carcinogenic and harmful. Eating it is much more harmful than smoking pot, which no credible study has linked to causing cancer.

Comparisons highlight the absurd inconsistency of your position, which is no doubt why you want to avoid them at all costs.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think this is a very simple topic, personally.  I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body.  I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.

I agree with that in theory.  The problem is that kids don't get to choose their parents nor do they get to decide whether or not they have responsible and responsive parents.  I personally am not comfortable with them twisting in the wind.  Some may be, and that's fine, everyone is obviously welcome to their opinions.  It's just not how I roll and it's why I do what I do.  

So what are your feelings on refined sugar?

Should I not be allowed to sprinkle some on my shredded mini wheats because there are entire metric fucktons of scientific evidence that refined sugar is HORRIBLE for kids?

And yes, it IS the same thing. Except that refined sugar is physiologically MUCH worse for you than marijuana.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think this is a very simple topic, personally.  I don't think anyone has the right to tell another adult that they can't put something in their own body.  I don't buy the "Think about the children" argument, because raising my kids is my responsibility and nobody else's.

Wins topic. Everyone can go home now.

Won't help.  This bad boy is going 100 pages+.

If this reaches 100 pages, I'll eat my hat.

Are you kidding? Washington State is voting in 2012 on whether or not to legalize marijuana for recreational use and sell it in state stores and as of right now the polls show it being likely to pass. That's over a year of following that story, plus the retardo-legislation that Mssrs. Paul & Frank are introducing to the House that would end federal prohibition and devolve marijuana law completely to the states.

And we just added 15+ pages in the last few days.

I hope your forehead sweat tastes good.

[East Coast Hustle]

even in a world where pot is legal that these charges would still exist for selling and distributing to minors, correct?  I would be interested to see what the stats look like in terms of how many of those in jail for dealing were dealing to minors.  

If it were legal and sold out of state-run stores I bet the answer would be "zero".

[East Coast Hustle]

The latter.  But if the state has a decent juvenile drug court system, or some other kind of diversion program, the kid isn't going to the Big House unless there was some other offense such as violence. 

or distribution, which as I pointed out doesn't necesarially mean he's actually selling weed.

How often does this occur?  What percentage of those charged with distribution are not distributing? 

No hard data to back this up but my extensively irrelevant experiential and anecdotal evidence suggests the answer is higher than you think. Probably somewhere between 10% and 20%. I know a whole shitload of people who've got a record because they got a good deal on a QP and figured it would last them a few months.

[East Coast Hustle]

I think you would first have to do some kind of study to separate the "I'm doing this because it's legal and marijuana is not" from the "hey look at this new drug, I'm going to try it and see what happens"  

The latter of which you see exemplified in the "bath salt" fad that has popped up in recent months:

http://www.drugfree.org/join-together/drugs/bath-salts-abuse-hits-michigan-cdc-reports

Actually bath salts fall into the first category too, you just have to replace "marijuana" with "crystal meth".

[East Coast Hustle]

So doesn't this run counter to the argument that has been given by some in this thread and others that the allure of marijuana is because it is illegal?  If that is the case then why does this "legal" version of marijuana, the Spice and K2 products, why is it alluring youth? 

Umm, because they already smoke pot but they can't but pot at 7-11?

[Cuddlefish]

I hope your forehead sweat tastes good.

I'm on a special diet.

[East Coast Hustle]

You can't fool me. I know that's punker code for cheap beer and whatever condiment packages you can steal from Arby's.

[Triple Zero]

As far as arrests and jail time most of us disagree with you over whether or not a dealer should be doing jail time.  If there isn't something wrong with adults possessing and using the drug there's also nothing wrong with distributing the drug to adults, or "manufacturing" (growing) the drug for personal use or for distribution to adults.  Also, if more than a certain amount is found on a person they are not charged with possession, they are charged with distribution.  Same with if they are the one who serves as the connection to a larger dealer for a buy among friends.  (to make that clear, if Joe, John, Diana, and Annie all want some weed, and they get together to buy a quarter pound, because it is cheaper buying in bulk, and Joe is the one who goes and buys it and then splits it up among his friends and gets caught somewhere in the process he's dealing, not possessing, even though he makes no profit on the deal) Even if Joe buys a quarter pound purely for personal use, and gets busted for it, he'll still be charged with dealing, simply because of the quantity he's been found with.

funny that's nearly the same over here. you can get in serious trouble if you're caught with over 30g (1.06 ounce) of cannabis.

(between 5g (0.18oz) and 30g you can get a hefty fine, but I doubt they'd do that without any other reason)

[AFK]

even in a world where pot is legal that these charges would still exist for selling and distributing to minors, correct?  I would be interested to see what the stats look like in terms of how many of those in jail for dealing were dealing to minors.  

If it were legal and sold out of state-run stores I bet the answer would be "zero".

You can't be serious.  Adults are regularly arrested and put in jail for furnishing alcohol to minors you really think that somehow legal marijuana is going to avoid that?  C'mon.