Marijuana: Facts, Myths, and plain old Stupidity.

[freakazoid]

This is another item I was going to bring up. As mentioned earlier in the thread, my own feelings are complex and I could possibly be persuaded that marijuana should be legalized. However, what I totally do not get are all of the people in the thread who are saying that they think laws against its use are stupid, and therefore they have no issue with using it themselves. There are LOTS of laws that I think are stupid, but that does not mean that I should be able to break them with impunity.

I live in a state where it's legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but if you ride in a car without a seat belt you're braking the law. I consider this to be similar to the alcohol/marijuana laws. I doubt many people would argue that seat belts are a bad idea, but that doesn't mean our government should be forcing us to wear them. If so, then motorcycles should be against the law. So should smoking. And as long as we're at it, we should probably start regulating what people chose to eat. Mandatory exercise also sounds like a good idea.

How does one become a lawmaker, anyway? I've got some GREAT ideas on how to force people to live.

 

[NUMBERICA]

So anyone who believes in obeying the law is blinded by authority, is that it? All enlightened people disregard all laws so they won't be viewed as blindly authoritarian?

Clearly.

 

[GVC]

There are LOTS of laws that I think are stupid, but that does not mean that I should be able to break them with impunity.

What are those laws? What are the penalties for breaking those laws? How many people are affected by those laws? What are the negative/positive effects of breaking those laws?

 

[GVC]

I live in a state where it's legal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, but if you ride in a car without a seat belt you're braking the law. I consider this to be similar to the alcohol/marijuana laws.

Except driving without a seat belt isn't a felony.

 

[GVC]

Clearly I do feel that there have been occasions where civil disobedience has been called for.

I'm interested in you detailing what the necessary conditions are for someone to be justified in challenging existing laws with civil disobedience.

 

[GVC]

A couple useful/informative videos (I've yet to watch Ken Burns' Prohibition, but will do so today if I'm not too busy).

The Union:
https://thejimgaudet.com/articles/legalize-it-watch-the-union-online/

Ken Burns' Prohibition (episodes 1 and 2):
https://www.novamov.com/video/bukszi8ld1cmn
https://www.novamov.com/video/4e8ab193eff2c

 

[Cope]

Gateway Drug

 

[DutchJazzer]

What feels better? Getting drunk or getting high on weed?

Sincerely,

Wussy guy.

getting drunk on weed or high on alcohol

 

[Archie Moses]

What's better?

Sniffing glue or gas?

 

[Cope]

What's better?

Sniffing glue or gas?

Only if it is Elmers

 

[freakazoid]

Except driving without a seat belt isn't a felony.

Actually, where I live, the marijuana laws are pretty lenient, but I understand your point. Montana has medical marijuana, and up until recently, they weren't prosecuting cases of less than 2 ounces in Missoula(for those without a card). This was a law voted on by the locals, and was not the case in the rest of the state. Our wonderful lawmakers decided to overturn this just a few weeks ago, saying that the law had to be consistent throughout the state. I mean who cares if a majority of the people voted to make marijuana a low priority for law enforcement? Our lawmakers always know best, so we should just trust them and fall in line.

The lawmakers also made it more difficult for people to get a medical card as well. The people of Missoula have already collected enough signatures to put it back on the ballot next year to reject the repeal of the law, LOL. Missoula is a perfect example of a place where the lawmakers care more about their own opinions than they do about actually representing the people.

 

[Cope]

Actually, where I live, the marijuana laws are pretty lenient, but I understand your point. Montana has medical marijuana, and up until recently, they weren't prosecuting cases of less than 2 ounces in Missoula(for those without a card). This was a law voted on by the locals, and was not the case in the rest of the state. Our wonderful lawmakers decided to overturn this just a few weeks ago, saying that the law had to be consistent throughout the state. I mean who cares if a majority of the people voted to make marijuana a low priority for law enforcement? Our lawmakers always know best, so we should just trust them and fall in line.

The lawmakers also made it more difficult for people to get a medical card as well. The people of Missoula have already collected enough signatures to put it back on the ballot next year to reject the repeal of the law, LOL. Missoula is a perfect example of a place where the lawmakers care more about their own opinions than they do about actually representing the people.

Jason Christ's name ring a bell ? (Not the REAL Coach but from Montana?)

This guy has called me no less than 6 times in the past 3 years looking for Physicians to help him with his business. At first he said what it was for but just last week he called and said he has a telemedicine business now. When I let him know our company won't provide services for Physicians that deal with Maryjane he said its a medicine, ect.

The guy is shady and gives Medical Maryjane a bad name. If you are interested just google his name and see what comes up....

 

[Cope]

Oh and by the way Freak.. if you live in Montana outside of maybe Kalispell & Missoula I feel bad for you.

I will say this.. Glacier National Forest is 10 times better than Yellowstone for anyone that wants a nice vacation next summer.

 

[Nate505]

I think any pot head can tell you that after smoking weed their cravings are for funyons, pizza, gummy bears and the like, and not at all for meth.

And, like you said, statistically, very few cannabis users "graduate" to amphetamines, opiates or other drugs of abuse.

Absolutely. Here are the total stats for what I would call the Big 3 of hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogenics) and for pot users. NIDA doesn't list a category for meth, but includes it under a category called "psychotherapetuics," which includes all prescription drugs, but I'll include that as well.

https://oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k10NSDUH/2k10Results.htm#Ch2

Past month users (2010 data)

Cannabis: 17.4 million
Psychotherapeutics: 7.0 million
Cocaine: 1.5 million
Hallucinogenics: 1.2 million
Heroin: 200 K

So past month coke users represent 8.5% of monthly pot users. Past month acid/mushroom users represent 7% of monthly pot users. Past month heroin users represent 1% of monthly pot users. Past month "psychtherapetuic" drug users represent 40% of monthly pot users. And combined all other monthly illicit drug users represent 57% of monthly pot users. However, the vast majority of that use is from prescription drugs and not street drugs (though meth is mixed in with the scrpit drugs even though it's really a street drug...I can't help the dumb way NIDA decides to classify things). Regardless, with the popular street drugs less than 10% of users for all of them go to the number of monthly pot smokers. If pot were some sort of gateway drug I would think the number would be significantly greater.

 

[Cope]

I know there isn't 'data' or 'proof' that its a gateway but think about it...

As a teenager what do you start with?
Cigs, Alcohol, Weed

Not in any order but that is the majority of what Teenagers/Highschoolers use right..

Well after using all that you graduate to harder drugs or at least try them.



I've pretty much done every drug in the book outside of Heroine. Not proud of it by anymeans and completely clean now including Alcohol.

I started drinking and smoking ciggys in Jr. High. Graduated to Weed in High School and by the time I was 21 I had experiemented with Pain Pills (Had a surgery and got addicted), Shrooms, Meth, Coke, ect. Cocaine by far was my 'favorite' because as I progressed with work it was something I could simply do and be normal (Or so I thought). Could lay out a line or 2 at work and get by talking to clients, bosses, ect. Again, not proud of it but did it many. Weed was always part of it as I smoked when I got home but it eventually turned into being high was being normal. I felt funny if I wasn't high.

I seen the response of caffene is a gateway drug... absoultely... its something that is addicting. Even today I drink about 4 cokes a day... if I don't have my cokes I get headaches and on edge.

The problem is the word 'gateway'. There are too many 'gateways' to everything to say Weed or Alcohol is the 'gateway'. It could be social pressures, peer pressure, ect.

I guess my point is that doing a simple poll of pot users isn't going to give you a clear answer.

I feel it is a gateway to at least try other drugs.. my opinion through experience.

I also feel it is addictive... my opinion.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I smoked weed first in 8th grade, but didn't start smoking regularly until junior year of HS. Drank first in 10th grade, didn't start drinking regularly until college. Never regularly smoked Cigs, but I think the first time I tried one was senior year of HS. I only started smoking pot so much because at work at the end of the night it was just me and two other dudes closing up. We would always smoke a joint after closing.

 

[Bronco70]

I have friends who use marijuana in a recreational manner, and have for years, without ever "graduating" to narcotics. Does anyone really believe that the key to eliminating hard drug addiction is to keep pot out of people's hands? If we were able to curb all non-medical marijuana use, would abuse of cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. cease? Would it decrease? I have a difficult time believing that.

Again, I believe that legalizing and instituting a well regulated system has myriad benefits; increased tax revenue, less marijuana related crime, less burden on our judicial system and prisons, and a greater ability to control access (including making it more difficult for minors to obtain), among many others. Or is it better to hang your hat on a small handful of people who might use, but not if it's illegal?

 

[colton]

I think after I went to bed last night GVC asked me in the thread to spell out when civil disobedience is justified (sorry for not locating his post to quote it).

Coincidentally, just a few days ago I re-read the LDS statement on governments, written by Oliver Cowdery in 1835 and included in the LDS Doctrine and Covenants as section 134. https://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/134?lang=eng.

My opinion fairly closely matches what is said in that statement. I'll quote some things:

2. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

5. We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

6. We believe... that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror...

7. We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief...

11. We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property...

Executive summary: a just government has certain responsibilities towards its citizens. A partial list of these responsibilities is found in the the quoted verses: to secure free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life; to protect the citizens' inalienable rights (in Thomas Jefferson's words, these include life, liberty, pursuit of happiness); to protect the citizens' free exercise of religion; and to allow for redress of wrongs. If the government fulfills those obligations then the citizens' obligation is to respect the laws enacted by the government... even if one does not personally agree with those laws.(*) If not, anarchy reigns.

For me it is clear that the government (the southern states' governments in particular) was not fulfilling its obligations towards blacks prior to the civil rights movement, and consequently civil disobedience was absolutely warranted. I hold the individuals that did so in the utmost respect.

However, I think it's a big stretch to say that if a government doesn't allow an individual to use marijuana, the government has failed so much in its basic obligations that civil disobedience is the answer. Therefore if one really believes that the marijuana laws are bad, one should work to change the laws while still obeying them.


(*) I will readily admit that although this is my belief in theory, my beliefs in practice don't always follow suit. So I'm not 100% consistent; such is life. (As someone else brought up in the thread, speeding on the highway is an easy example of this.)

 

[Nate505]

I know there isn't 'data' or 'proof' that its a gateway but think about it...

As a teenager what do you start with?
Cigs, Alcohol, Weed

Not in any order but that is the majority of what Teenagers/Highschoolers use right..

Well after using all that you graduate to harder drugs or at least try them.

So if the point is that most people do a more socially acceptable, more available, and more mild psychoactive drug before a less socially acceptable, less available, and stronger psychoactive drug then yes I'd agree. But to me that isn't much of a point, more like common sense.

For example, the first time I went to an amusement park I didn't go right to the Tower of Doom (the ride that lifts you up about 100-200 feet and then drops you straight down) and ride that first. I think I went to a merry go round, then a Ferris Wheel, then a roller coaster. By that time I decided that the Tower of Doom was too extreme for me so I didn't ride it (I'm not a fan of the full on free fall effect...I also tend to like old wooden roller coasters over the newer metal coasters that are bigger and faster). But regardless, the progression of rides when from mild to more thrilling, because most people tend to not like experience anything full on.

So for anyone who is willing to user heroin or coke (which is not me), I imagine the process that went through their lives is that they came across pot first, as pot being the most widely used illegal drug means it's the most available. They probably knew the general effects of pot, that it's not extremely addicting or extremely powerful for most people, and also a lot more socially acceptable than taking heroin, and tried it. And I also imagine if they guy had some heroin they would rightfully be frightened to try it, so they would try the more mild drug first.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

So if the point is that most people do a more socially acceptable, more available, and more mild psychoactive drug before a less socially acceptable, less available, and stronger psychoactive drug then yes I'd agree. But to me that isn't much of a point, more like common sense.

For example, the first time I went to an amusement park I didn't go right to the Tower of Doom (the ride that lifts you up about 100-200 feet and then drops you straight down) and ride that first. I think I went to a merry go round, then a Ferris Wheel, then a roller coaster. By that time I decided that the Tower of Doom was too extreme for me so I didn't ride it (I'm not a fan of the full on free fall effect...I also tend to like old wooden roller coasters over the newer metal coasters that are bigger and faster). But regardless, the progression of rides when from mild to more thrilling, because most people tend to not like experience anything full on.

So for anyone who is willing to user heroin or coke (which is not me), I imagine the process that went through their lives is that they came across pot first, as pot being the most widely used illegal drug means it's the most available. They probably knew the general effects of pot, that it's not extremely addicting or extremely powerful for most people, and also a lot more socially acceptable than taking heroin, and tried it. And I also imagine if they guy had some heroin they would rightfully be frightened to try it, so they would try the more mild drug first.

Not really getting the analogy. The reason some one smokes pot is completely different than the reason someone shoots heroin. I find most people smoke pot just to relax and chill. People who do heroin are taking it (I assume) usually because they are depressed (extremely), then find themselves even more depressed after they have done it (dependency).

Also, F wooden roller coasters. The last one I rode killed my balls.