What's new
By:

I knew this was going to happen!

colton said:
You pretty much missed my point. I advise you to re-read my post. I was using prohibition to counter Nate's claim that more access will definitely not result in more usage. I think that's a completely false idea, so felt the need to debunk it.
Click to expand...
That's not really my claim though. My claim was that availability doesn't drive demand. The proof is in the pudding in the sense that I doubt any of you who don't smoke weed now will up and start if it's just available. And if I'm wrong I really, really doubt the reason will be "well golly, it's here so I must try it." Now I will admit that if a supply is artificially restricted that use will go up to satisfy the demand that was unable to procure the supply. However, mere legality doesn't mean people will try something. Salvia was legal for many years and I don't know anyone who ever tried it.

But the original contention was basically that "when something is more available more people will do it." That's a theory I don't agree with at all. There are plenty of things that have been widely available that people don't buy. Mere availability doesn't increase a product's use. If it did the New Coke would have been a smashing success since it was everywhere during that glorious summer of 1985.
 
Nate505 said:
That's not really my claim though. My claim was that availability doesn't drive demand. The proof is in the pudding in the sense that I doubt any of you who don't smoke weed now will up and start if it's just available. And if I'm wrong I really, really doubt the reason will be "well golly, it's here so I must try it." Now I will admit that if a supply is artificially restricted that use will go up to satisfy the demand that was unable to procure the supply. However, mere legality doesn't mean people will try something. Salvia was legal for many years and I don't know anyone who ever tried it.

But the original contention was basically that "when something is more available more people will do it." That's a theory I don't agree with at all. There are plenty of things that have been widely available that people don't buy. Mere availability doesn't increase a product's use. If it did the New Coke would have been a smashing success since it was everywhere during that glorious summer of 1985.
Click to expand...

Honestly I think you have this slightly backwards. I'd say there ARE people who don't use MJ because it is illegal and they'd have to interact with a criminal drug dealer in order to get it. For those people, if there was a store on the corner and they could waltz in and pick up some MJ and know that they weren't getting the stranger price or the bottom of the bag shake, etc. they'd be more likely to use some now and then.

I don't see that as a reasonable justification for taking on all the unintended horrific consequences of prohibition, but...
 
colton said:
That's a huge if. Is there any evidence that that's the case? (I haven't run across anyone claiming that, but it's not something I've researched.)
Click to expand...
1. There's a link in my post that you quoted.

2. Google is your friend.

Don't think it's a huge "if" at all. I'm an incredibly solitary person, but I know two people (one of whom was/is an alcoholic) who reduced their alcohol consumption when they started smoking weed.

I'd guess the number of non-drinkers who'd smoke weed if it were legal is pretty close to zero. With that in mind, I wouldn't be surprised at all if fatal accidents decreased under a legalized regime.
 
Beantown said:
Uh what the **** are you talking about?

Porn has been proven to change how the brain operates in relation to sexual stimulation. It' actually changing how your brain functions. That must be one powerful bowl of lucky charms to pull off that.
Click to expand...

Meaningless drivel. Every experience you have creates a memory, and every memory is several changes in your brain to store the related sense data. The brain is constantly changing, and porn is not special in that regard.
 
colton said:
That's a huge if. Is there any evidence that that's the case? (I haven't run across anyone claiming that, but it's not something I've researched.)
Click to expand...

I think that alot of people would drink less if weed were legal.

I am one of them
 
Gameface said:
Honestly I think you have this slightly backwards. I'd say there ARE people who don't use MJ because it is illegal and they'd have to interact with a criminal drug dealer in order to get it. For those people, if there was a store on the corner and they could waltz in and pick up some MJ and know that they weren't getting the stranger price or the bottom of the bag shake, etc. they'd be more likely to use some now and then.

I don't see that as a reasonable justification for taking on all the unintended horrific consequences of prohibition, but...
Click to expand...

I think this is a good take, but out of the millions of people in the USA, what % of people actually fall into that category? I bet it's less than 1%.
 
E.J. Wells said:
I think this is a good take, but out of the millions of people in the USA, what % of people actually fall into that category? I bet it's less than 1%.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree. I don't think use will skyrocket or anything, although I would expect it to increase, maybe even substantially.

People making their own choices ftw.

Sent from the JazzFanz app
 
GVC said:
Not for someone looking to get ****ed up.
Click to expand...

So if that is what they are looking for it seems joints and booze would go hand in hand.
 
I don't care if usage increases by 1 million percent in the event of legalization. I just want people to be able to make personal decisions instead of another entity doing it for them.
 
LazyD said:
I don't care if usage increases by 1 million percent in the event of legalization. I just want people to be able to make personal decisions instead of another entity doing it for them.
Click to expand...

I want to kill children.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Get in line.
Click to expand...

I took my two nieces to see the Lego movie this past weekend. Afterwards, we went out for some lunch. At the restaurant, my nieces were incredibly well behaved. Across the aisle at this one table, there was this gaggle of kids who were so ****ing unruly. They were about 7 or 8 years old talking and yelling about farting and pooping and spitting on each other. The group of parents, three women and one dude, were all helpless. I didn't want to kill the kids, but I did want to punch them.
 
VINYLONE said:
I took my two nieces to see the Lego movie this past weekend. Afterwards, we went out for some lunch. At the restaurant, my nieces were incredibly well behaved. Across the aisle at this one table, there was this gaggle of kids who were so ****ing unruly. They were about 7 or 8 years old talking and yelling about farting and pooping and spitting on each other. The group of parents, three women and one dude, were all helpless. I didn't want to kill the kids, but I did want to punch them.
Click to expand...

What did you think of the lego movie?
It has got very good reviews
 
VINYLONE said:
It's a kids movie for sure but it was good. I laughed at parts. It was a very cute movie for a toy that resonates with me as I loved legos when I was a kid. Def reco.
Click to expand...

I want to check it out just cause i like the lego video games
 
VINYLONE said:
I took my two nieces to see the Lego movie this past weekend. Afterwards, we went out for some lunch. At the restaurant, my nieces were incredibly well behaved. Across the aisle at this one table, there was this gaggle of kids who were so ****ing unruly. They were about 7 or 8 years old talking and yelling about farting and pooping and spitting on each other. The group of parents, three women and one dude, were all helpless. I didn't want to kill the kids, but I did want to punch them.
Click to expand...

When this happens, I find that killing the parents is the appropriate action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top