If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cracked)   Five pro-marijuana arguments that aren't helping: "It's safer than deepthroating a cactus"   (cracked.com) divider line 206
    More: Amusing, hemps, BB gun, marijuana, Cannabis  
•       •       •

17839 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jul 2011 at 11:26 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



206 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-07-08 07:04:03 AM
That... actually sums up the credibility problem of the legalization movement pretty well. You can't cancel out a dumbshiat law by being a dumb shiat in an opposed political direction, essentially.

Pot is kind of a strange issue. Generally, while there are always stupid people on your side of any given argument making you look bad (global warming discussions seem to attract them like bloody flies, for instance) the overall majority of morons seem to usually be on the wrong side of these "why are we even still discussing this?" issues. Marijuana advocacy is the only issue I can think of where the weight of the idiots falls on the side of the obviously correct answer to the question.
 
2011-07-08 07:06:37 AM

Dire: Then they turn to the firearms business, trafficking in submachine guns, fully auto rifles, grenade launchers, etc.. What now, legalize all of those?


Ermm, those are already legal.
 
2011-07-08 07:06:46 AM
Recently, our daily recommended food intake was changed from a pyramid to a plate. Every few years, there is a different take on the benefits of a glass of wine, in spite of most Europeans beings drunks. Do you have any idea the plethura of BS lab rats have been put through to make a point about anything.

Basically, I am saying with confidence that there are more reasons to legalize marijuana than to keep it criminalized. The arguments for and against are equally misguided. The biggest reasons to legalize marijuana? It was a stupid idea to make it illegal in the first place; because life sucks and it has been proven to be 90% less harmful for you than propaganda has led anyone to believe.

Criminalization of marijuana was built on enormous lies. Decriminalization/legalization is as simple as changing the recommended food intake. You just do it. Pyramid to plate.
 
2011-07-08 07:25:57 AM
Gyrfalcon: "Just because murder is worse than aggravated battery doesn't mean that battery should be legal, yes?"

Well, you would have a pretty fooked up system if murder was legal and battery was illegal. "You better not punch anybody, boy. But if you do punch somebody, you'd better finish the job."
 
2011-07-08 07:48:01 AM

Myria: hubiestubert: There WILL be economic benefits. New industries, new jobs. New products, and new entrepreneurs. Not to the point of "saving" the economy, but coupled with the shaving off of state and Fed budgets for chasing down pot heads, it adds up to savings that could go to better things.

Sadly, I don't believe that this is true. There are far more jobs created by having marijuana illegal than there would ever be in the new recreational weed and hemp industries. Many more police officers, judges, prosecutors, law clerks, prison guards and forensic technicians owe their job to the illegality of marijuana than legalization would ever create.

/legalize it anyway, since those jobs are leeches off tax dollars
//doesn't partake in the wacky tobaccy either


Marijuana was criminalized for economic reasons. There is a huge profit in keeping it illegal, but those folks have gamed the system to create those profits, as opposed to letting the market decide.
 
2011-07-08 07:53:12 AM

Barakku: RealAmericanHero: cepson: Oh yeah, and here's another argument people don't seem to spend a lot of time talking about: under what definition of "freedom" does a "free" country get to tell me whether or not I can use a substance that is not as harmful as a lot of other things that are perfectly legal?

You know how I know you didn't read the article?

Just because the article says it doesn't mean the article is correct. I thought this one was pretty lame. They basically assume the strawman of "pot does good things" to the extreme and then say that since pot isn't farking magic unicorn farts it has no redeeming qualities at all and it should never be argued as such.


This is the exact same impression I got. Poorly written article is poor.
 
PJ-
2011-07-08 08:21:28 AM
As for the whole 'marijuana will save the economy part', sure 6.2 billion or whatever quoted won't be enough. I was just wondering if he factored in the amount of money saved by cutting out marijuana from the whole 'war on drugs' thing.
 
2011-07-08 08:36:14 AM

darkscout: cyclebiff: It's illegal.

If you don't want to face repercussions, don't do things that are illegal.

Why is this so hard to understand?

So is sitting in the front of the bus like whitey.
So is going to the same school as whitey.
So is women voting.
So is alcohol.


This. And going 56mph in a 55mph zone is also illegal...good luck with that.
 
2011-07-08 08:42:17 AM
I know marijuana is still illegal, but lets talk about real crime. I mean, how much shiattier could the writing in that article be? That's the real crime. He just sounds like a whiny douche that likes arguing with people. If you've ever walked into any coffee shop you've met a dude like that. He's the same guy who will pull up wikipedia on his smart phone to prove he's right, but if somebody does it to prove he's wrong he tells you wikipedia isn't always accurate and shouldn't be trusted. We need to legalize beating these douches with telescoping batons.
 
2011-07-08 08:44:18 AM
Stop calling weed a drug when it's the fibrous hemp we all hate!

/synthetics babeee
 
2011-07-08 08:44:24 AM
I just like to get baked with my wife and friends, and wish that the government would stop spending millions of dollars trying to make me quit.
 
2011-07-08 08:46:04 AM

rohar: MmmVomit: rohar: MmmVomit: I agree with all points in the article, except number two.

We have a system where some drugs are legal and some are illegal. If we're going to be objective about the how we restrict drugs, then pointing out that illegal X is safer than legal Y shows an incongruity in the law based on that criterion. As the article points out, one of the logical actions is to ban Y, but it's equally consistent to legalize X.

As a person that recovered from heroin addiction and never got terribly farked up on pot, I'd like to say fark you.

So fark you.

I'm confused. Why are you angry at me?

Some shiat just shouldn't be legal. Worse, it shouldn't be available. My history > your libertarianism.


You are weak and stupid; therefore everyone else must suffer? I regularly smoke opium, but have the brains to not shoot heroin. Even more than that though I smoke pot. Either way, no drug should be illegal. Weak fools such as yourselves should just be allowed to kill themselves with weakness and stupidity. Consider: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

You don't deserve to have heroin kept from you, or to keep it from others.
 
2011-07-08 08:46:42 AM
Aside from "It's good for you" those are all reasonable arguments. How bout the author STFU?
 
2011-07-08 08:59:27 AM

Zombie DJ: I don't care either way, but I have to say, EVERY person I've ever worked with that smokes it has either flaked out on the job and cost the station money or screwed up so bad they fired them.


I would venture that they would have been that way regardless of whether or not they used pot. I know plenty of lawyers and (gasp!) a few doctors who use it, some on a regular (i.e. daily) basis, and they perform their jobs just fine and are taxpaying, home-owning, kid-raising (in some instances), upstanding citizens.
 
2011-07-08 08:59:48 AM
It's a bullshiat, back-door argument. And, again, it makes everything they say seem invalid -- the same as when states that do legalize for medicinal use immediately see half of the patients use it, not for cancer, but mysterious "chronic pain" or "stress relief." In other words, they lie so they can get medicinal weed, not caring that it makes the entire campaign seem like a lie.

That argument is at best disingenuous, since many people lie to get other medications with intoxicating effects that are much more dangerous in quiet many ways.
 
2011-07-08 09:00:24 AM

thelordofcheese: It's a bullshiat, back-door argument. And, again, it makes everything they say seem invalid -- the same as when states that do legalize for medicinal use immediately see half of the patients use it, not for cancer, but mysterious "chronic pain" or "stress relief." In other words, they lie so they can get medicinal weed, not caring that it makes the entire campaign seem like a lie.

That argument is at best disingenuous, since many people lie to get other medications with intoxicating effects that are much more dangerous in quiet quite many ways.

 
2011-07-08 09:01:21 AM
ecx.images-amazon.com

Stealth.
 
2011-07-08 09:13:33 AM
Here's the problem as I see it: Why in the world do we need an ironclad argument to make something legal?

The burden of proof should be on the people who want to take away freedom. Not the other way around.
 
2011-07-08 09:14:36 AM
Article smells pretty bogus.

#5 in particular where he suggests that billions of dollars is a small sum of money when compared to trillions of dollars.
Its our habit for spending lots of small "billions" over the last four decades that got us to the trillions in debt. Spending less, collecting more, can fix it.
Yes we still need cops, but we can use them to do more than chase their tails arresting pot heads.

#2, Tobacco and Alcohol have been proven to be far worse for their effects on society. Especially since the companies that make smokes are unscrupulous about the crap they grind into their mix.
That makes his #1 point pretty much invalid.
We've got people that are addicted to lots of things that aren't deadly. That doesn't mean its ok to make their habits into billions of dollars worth in black market activities and the related crimes it encourages.
 
2011-07-08 09:27:59 AM

CharlieW: As a senior executive of a major financial corporation, I am in favor of legalizing marijuana. The first thing that will happen -- within a decade -- is that the price will plummet. This is because growing the stuff is no harder than growing tomatoes. It's far easier, cheaper, and safer, than operating a home distillery, brewery, or winemaking operation.

Once home growing is widespread, rates of marijuana use in the adult population over 25 will go from the current 3% to well over one-third. True, there will be no tax revenues from legalization, but that's never been the point, Rather, I favor legalization because keeping a significant share of the population stoned out of their minds or at least impaired, will make it much easier to tolerate permanent unemployment of 25% (the current rate), and the destruction of what's left of the liberal welfare infrastructure that sucks up my taxes, which are too high.

The only downside I can see is that it will be harder to find qualified Americans to staff our specialized functions. But that has already been happening; video games, television, and general sloth have made it necessary for us to import most of the technical brains from East Asia. We've been doing it for years. We'll just do more of it, and the general population will be too stoned to notice or care.

I've been surreptitiously donating big amounts of money to legalization. I am hardly alone. In a short while, people are going to be shocked to see the Republican Party be the prime mover on the issue. It will be sold as a money saving move. The actual motive is control. I must say that I am endlessly amused at how few "progressives" see this, but one can rarely overestimate the stupidity of this country's liberals.


dude, hook me up with whatever you're smoking... it must be farking amazing.
 
2011-07-08 09:33:04 AM
so to sum the article up: fight hyperbole and false equivalency with hyperbole and false equivalency!

to sum the thread up: I know someone who smokes pot and they're annoying so fark pot smokers.
 
2011-07-08 09:35:40 AM

Dr.Gonzo7719: Zombie DJ: I don't care either way, but I have to say, EVERY person I've ever worked with that smokes it has either flaked out on the job and cost the station money or screwed up so bad they fired them.

I would venture that they would have been that way regardless of whether or not they used pot. I know plenty of lawyers and (gasp!) a few doctors who use it, some on a regular (i.e. daily) basis, and they perform their jobs just fine and are taxpaying, home-owning, kid-raising (in some instances), upstanding citizens.


this. lazy, smelly assholes are going to be lazy, smelly assholes whether they smoke pot or not.
 
2011-07-08 09:46:46 AM

Zombie DJ: I don't care either way, but I have to say, EVERY person I've ever worked with that smokes it has either flaked out on the job and cost the station money or screwed up so bad they fired them.


Generally, if you are not a roadie for a rock band, if you are aware that a co-worker smokes pot, they have a problem.
Likewise, if you are palpably aware that a co-worker drinks, they likely have a problem.
On the other hand, you are, by definition, unaware of those co-workers whose pot-smoking or drinking you are unaware of.
In other words, don't draw conclusions based upon incomplete information.
 
2011-07-08 10:09:57 AM

hubiestubert: Marijuana was criminalized for economic reasons


WRONG. MJ was criminalized because of racism, specifically against Mexicans and later to include African Americans. Read more history.
 
2011-07-08 10:12:27 AM
Now, once again, it's widely believed that pot is much easier to quit than smoking, booze, heroin, and just about every other drug out there. But the belief that "it's not addictive" is bullshiat. Want an easy way to see if you're addicted? Give it up for a year.


I've done that multiple times throughout my life. Right now I haven't toked up in over two years, and that's after spending nine months doing the old wake-and-bake, spending a good portion of each day high. I've been like that since college. Enjoy it for a while, then get tired of it and put it down.

I only wish I could quit cigarettes.

Pot is not addictive. If anyone is "addicted" to it, it's a problem with their personality, not the drug. Tobacco, on the other hand, is highly addictive. I've given nicotine up for several months before, and the urge to light up never went away. But I've never had a craving to smoke a bowl.
 
2011-07-08 10:13:25 AM

CharlieW: As a senior executive of a major financial corporation, I am in favor of legalizing marijuana. The first thing that will happen -- within a decade -- is that the price will plummet. This is because growing the stuff is no harder than growing tomatoes. It's far easier, cheaper, and safer, than operating a home distillery, brewery, or winemaking operation.

Once home growing is widespread, rates of marijuana use in the adult population over 25 will go from the current 3% to well over one-third. True, there will be no tax revenues from legalization, but that's never been the point, Rather, I favor legalization because keeping a significant share of the population stoned out of their minds or at least impaired, will make it much easier to tolerate permanent unemployment of 25% (the current rate), and the destruction of what's left of the liberal welfare infrastructure that sucks up my taxes, which are too high.

The only downside I can see is that it will be harder to find qualified Americans to staff our specialized functions. But that has already been happening; video games, television, and general sloth have made it necessary for us to import most of the technical brains from East Asia. We've been doing it for years. We'll just do more of it, and the general population will be too stoned to notice or care.

I've been surreptitiously donating big amounts of money to legalization. I am hardly alone. In a short while, people are going to be shocked to see the Republican Party be the prime mover on the issue. It will be sold as a money saving move. The actual motive is control. I must say that I am endlessly amused at how few "progressives" see this, but one can rarely overestimate the stupidity of this country's liberals.


i759.photobucket.com
 
2011-07-08 10:17:19 AM
Subby and author have obviously never inhaled or known a "stoner" well enough to see that weed isn't teh devil.
 
2011-07-08 10:17:53 AM

Jim_Callahan: That... actually sums up the credibility problem of the legalization movement pretty well. You can't cancel out a dumbshiat law by being a dumb shiat in an opposed political direction, essentially.

Pot is kind of a strange issue. Generally, while there are always stupid people on your side of any given argument making you look bad (global warming discussions seem to attract them like bloody flies, for instance) the overall majority of morons seem to usually be on the wrong side of these "why are we even still discussing this?" issues. Marijuana advocacy is the only issue I can think of where the weight of the idiots falls on the side of the obviously correct answer to the question.


As I've stated earlier, I know plenty of lawyers and doctors and other professionals who partake. But they don't advocate because of the (wrong) stigma/public perception of pot users as useless hippies or criminals.

The advocacy movement would certainly benefit from having more "normal" users as the public face of the cause, but those folks are not willing to have their employers and/or law enforcement scrutinize them as would inevitably happen if they were vocal and public advocates for legalization... I would love to be an open advocate for legalization. I can't, because I work in politics -- for Republicans, in the Deep South no less. I'd never work again if folks thought I was a smoker.
 
2011-07-08 10:21:56 AM
The rebuttals in TFA are at least as bad as the arguments.

Maybe legalization wouldn't fix the entire economy, but I'd just as well not spend tens of billions a year to prevent victimless "crimes" when the prohibition itself leads to so many actual crimes, and for no rational reason whatsoever.

And I never have and likely never will smoke anything in my life.
 
2011-07-08 10:31:31 AM

HumanBeingsSuck: Now, once again, it's widely believed that pot is much easier to quit than smoking, booze, heroin, and just about every other drug out there. But the belief that "it's not addictive" is bullshiat. Want an easy way to see if you're addicted? Give it up for a year.


I've done that multiple times throughout my life. Right now I haven't toked up in over two years, and that's after spending nine months doing the old wake-and-bake, spending a good portion of each day high. I've been like that since college. Enjoy it for a while, then get tired of it and put it down.

I only wish I could quit cigarettes.

Pot is not addictive. If anyone is "addicted" to it, it's a problem with their personality, not the drug. Tobacco, on the other hand, is highly addictive. I've given nicotine up for several months before, and the urge to light up never went away. But I've never had a craving to smoke a bowl.


The problem is that folks use the word addictive to mean two different things: Physically dependent and psychologically dependent.

You can become psychologically dependent on anything. Maury Povich, World of Warcraft, carrots.

You cannot become physically dependent on pot.
 
2011-07-08 10:32:17 AM
I just want it legalized so that the potheads will shut up about it. I don't smoke pot and never have but I have plenty of friends that do smoke it. They all live productive lives and when they come over I have no problem letting them smoke a few joints on my deck. Unfortunately after a few tokes they will get all philosophical about pot and how once it is legalized the world will all be unicorns and rainbows. The arguments about how it is better than booze (which they are normally also consuming at the time) and how the taxes on pot will pay for all sorts of things (despite many of them growing their own weed) and how pot cures all sorts of problems all get trotted out for a few laps around the bullshiat session track. I've been around pot heads long enough to believe that pot isn't great for anybody but it isn't any worse than the other vices we let adults choose to allow themselves. So why can't we just legalize it and at least save those of us that don't care one way or the other the torture of listening to a guy frybagged out of his mind rhapsodizing about the wonders of hemp tote-bags?
 
2011-07-08 10:35:59 AM
his tax argument was comparing state deficit arguments against the size of the federal deficit, and he started talking about the paper industry when in fact it was the cotton industry that was originally involved in opposition to hemp. that's where i stopped reading.

basically, his arguments weren't any better than the ones he was complaining about.
 
2011-07-08 10:38:19 AM

Dr.Gonzo7719: hubiestubert: Marijuana was criminalized for economic reasons

WRONG. MJ was criminalized because of racism, specifically against Mexicans and later to include African Americans. Read more history.


Right. Hearst had nothing to do with it...
 
2011-07-08 10:43:01 AM

rohar: MmmVomit: rohar: MmmVomit: I agree with all points in the article, except number two.

We have a system where some drugs are legal and some are illegal. If we're going to be objective about the how we restrict drugs, then pointing out that illegal X is safer than legal Y shows an incongruity in the law based on that criterion. As the article points out, one of the logical actions is to ban Y, but it's equally consistent to legalize X.

As a person that recovered from heroin addiction and never got terribly farked up on pot, I'd like to say fark you.

So fark you.

I'm confused. Why are you angry at me?

Some shiat just shouldn't be legal. Worse, it shouldn't be available. My history > your libertarianism.


Look, just because you can't handle your Horse doesn't mean that plenty of people out there shouldn't be allowed to smoke a legal Doobie every now and then.

Your history is not more imporatant than everyone else. In fact, it's only important to YOU.
 
2011-07-08 10:51:33 AM

zephypyre: [ecx.images-amazon.com image 242x500]

Stealth.


What is that thing?
 
2011-07-08 10:56:03 AM

leftteffticle: CharlieW: As a senior executive of a major financial corporation, I am in favor of legalizing marijuana. The first thing that will happen -- within a decade -- is that the price will plummet. This is because growing the stuff is no harder than growing tomatoes.
[blah blah blah]

dude, hook me up with whatever you're smoking... it must be farking amazing.



srs
How many people not only have suitable environments in which to grow tomatoes, but how many that do use those resources for other things (usually superficial in order to make themselves appear a certain way to those in their community)?

FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT IS FALLACIOUS
/I was going to go with invalid, but the comment actually seemed a bit malicious because of some underlying ignorance and contempt
 
2011-07-08 10:57:18 AM

RoyFokker'sGhost: Dughan: We have a war going on down in Mexico that is largely fueled by the ILLEGAL drug market, including marijuana. IF you want to help end the violence, then support legalization.

Go read up on your Mexican history and current affairs. There's been a war going on for well over a century and a half between the indigenous natives and the 'colonials'. The war is about land, not drug profits. Drug profits do fuel the war, but even if they dried up due to every illegal drug in the US and Canada being legalized, they'd still find some way to fund the war, probably through foreign investment.

Many of the illegal immigrants that are currently crossing the border are involved in drug trafficking. IF you want to help with illegal immigrant, then support legalization.

Drug trafficking is not the cause of illegal immigration, a crappy economy is. Illegal immigrants come to the US to take insanely crappy jobs like harvesting fruits and vegetables in 100+ degree weather for 12+ hours a day for maybe $10 a day. I grew up in the Central Valley of California, I saw how the system worked. Ranch bosses can get 3 or 4 illegal immigrants for the price of one legal worker. UFW doesn't do jack to improve the pay conditions, they just make sure that the chemicals used in the field aren't too toxic. And the sad thing is, this is an improvement in their lives. Illegal immigrants come here to take the jobs no-one wants, the cartels just take advantage and turn it into a 'Hey, while you're going out' beer run kind of thing that the immigrants have no chance to refuse.

It would help to create cottage industries, beyond what it already has. It would lower the prison population. It would allow resources to be devoted to true "epidemics" such as Meth.

The cottage industries would last only until the major corporations had their product on the market. They'll produce it faster, cheaper, and stronger than home growers. Then they'll raise the price to whatever they feel like because there are no other options. And to prevent small time competition, they'll get the FDA to help them out by enacting so many safety regulations, small growers won't be able to compete legall, all in the name of keeping the product safe. The lowering the prison population argument is debatable since there would still be a black market to sell weed cheaper than the legal stuff.

It would have an overall net positive effect on society in general... with states, counties and cites being allowed to set whatever reasonable restrictions they wish, of course.

Right, because the patchwork approach to legalizing gay marriage is working out just fine without any problems at all. And San Francisco's ban on handgun sales means that no guns are going into The City and thus no gun deaths, right?

Here's a scenario for you: you leave San Francisco, where there is no limit on possession of legal pot, with a couple baggies of pot. You drive down I-5 for a couple hours on your way to LA and get pulled over by by the CHP. Smelling the pot, the officer checks and finds out that you're in violation of California's restrictions on how much pot you can have on hand. Or even worse, you get pulled over by local sheriffs or cops in Fresno or Tulare counties where conservatives reign and they've decided that you can only have one or two joints in your possession. But hey, you can always add an extra couple hours to your drive by going down PCH, it'll probably just cost you and extra $20-$30 bucks in gas. Each way.

What is the downside to legalization, is anyone would care to explain?

Legalization solves none of the problems that advocates say it will and cause a whole host of new problems. I work in the tobacco industry, and legalizing pot means that it's going to fall under the same kind of governmental oversight that tobacco does. Trust me, you do not want the FDA all up in your shiat. Or city and county health inspectors making sure that you're not selling to minors. And let's not forget about the ATF, the inevitable increasing taxes at the Federal, State, and Local level to fund health ca ...


If you think that the current conflict down in Mexico, along with SOME of the illegal immigration, is not directly died to the "Drug War" then it's you who needs to read up on history. You are the person claiming that the "Bloods and the Crypts" date back to reconstructionist policies that winked at Jim Crow laws... yes in a VERY round-about way you are correct, but the funding for the conflict CURRENTLY is coming from the sale of illegal drugs, much of which takes place in the United States.

Human trafficking is not JUST about jobs, it's about drugs and sex too. It's a lovely fantasy we have woven for ourselves that it's the "hard workers seeking a better tomorrow" sneaking across the border, and no one else, but that is just not true. UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, the U.N. Council on Human Trafficking ALL agree that up to 10% of the women coming across border are being shipped in for the purposes of prostitution. They are also VERY likely to be smuggling drugs with them at the same time. The drugs are not the source cause, but they are a major contributing factor, and by eliminating the profit from the smuggling, we help to reduce the chances that someone will be forced to do something against their will as part of the deal with the Coyote. The Coyote are known for modifying their deals on the fly, either increasing costs, demanding various services (from smuggling to sex) or just plain driving you out into the middle of the desert and dropping your ass off where you can die a slow, miserable death. Drugs are part of this system, and you cannot argue otherwise unless you think they are funded entirely by ____________? (I have no idea)

Oh, and it is your RESPONSIBILITY to know the local laws and regulations if you are going to an area. Just like you need to learn customs and behaviors when you travel, different states have different laws regarding EVERYTHING, and if you choose to be willfully ignorant of this fact, then it's not just Pot you need to worry about. It's alcohol, it's music volume, it's driving rules and regulations. If you drive in CA, you can use any lane as long as you want, in TX, the left lane is the passing lane. You use it like you were in CA, you get a ticket. That is how it works now, and you seem to be suggesting that is just too difficult for folks?! That is how law already works, so are you then suggesting we default to ONLY federal regulations?! I'm confused, man.

I doubt I would personally ever buy industrial pot. I've smoked good tobacco, and I've smoked a Marlboro... there is a WORLD of difference. Have you ever had properly cured and stored pipe tobacco, the kind that doesn't burn too hot at all, and fills your mouth not with burning but that almost syrupy sweet taste... nothing like that in the world in a manufactured cigarette. Now, SOME people might prefer the corporate stuff, but like those of us who still shop at the local tobacconist, there will be a market for the cottage industry. The micro breweries across the country counter your argument, in fact. PEOPLE PREFER LOCAL.

You argue about over-regulation. Oh, farking, well. If, in order to do things legally and properly, the industry needs to have some stupid rules, then that is the cost. OBVIOUSLY these rules do not overly hinder local breweries, and there are enough independent smoke shops that seem to carry smaller brands that the tobacco industry is not totally choked out. While I will scream at the moon when those stupid rules get in place, attempting to get them altered; but I would much rather see that fight be above board and totally legal, rather than the debate that currently goes on about if we should legalize it or not. If legalization requires growing pains (Look, I made a funny!) then so be it.

Now, unless you have something more to bring to the table, I think I have countered your points as you have presented them. I await the coming counter response!

/Debate, I love it when the other guy has a brain!
 
2011-07-08 11:08:59 AM
i55.tinypic.com
 
2011-07-08 11:12:44 AM

LabGrrl: and breathing in smoke is never going to be safer than not breathing in smoke.


just like he dumbfark author of this piece of shiat article you don't seem to understand that IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE SMOKED.

farking idiots are out in full force today.

Dr.Gonzo7719: WRONG. MJ was criminalized because of racism, specifically against Mexicans and later to include African Americans. Read more history.


you're both right. There were numerous reasons for the criminalization of cannabis. Not wanting those filthy Jazz musicians raping our white women, Mexicans get all crazy when they use the mota, it'll destroy the textile industry, it'll rape your dog and eat your parents.
 
2011-07-08 11:16:07 AM
I think if it was legalized, you would have the majority produced regionally and sold and regulated in government stores (like in a ABC type store). Manufactures would label thc and cannaboid percentages by volume. As far as regulating it for safety reasons (ie, driving), im sure state by state would impose some sort of bloodtest guidelines or even a simple sobriety check by police officers.

Yea, people will grow it at there house. But i dont think that would have a very large impact on the market. You can grow tobaco and make alcohol at your house too, but how many people would rather just go to the store and buy it?
 
2011-07-08 11:16:11 AM

Bloody William: The Fark Filter: Many, if not most, stoners don't say "marijuana has some good effects"; they say "marijuana is harmless". They don't say "legalizing marijuana will improve the economy"; they say "legalizing marijuana will solve all of our problems". That's what the article's criticizing: stoners are making absurd arguments instead of rational ones.

TFA also ignores the mental health benefits of it. A friend of mine in CA suffers from bipolar disorder. You know what keeps it in check and keeps in a functioning member of society? Prescription pot.

For fark's sake, I've seen what legitimately prescribed psych drugs can do if the prescription is just a little off, and even the harmless ones tend have unwanted effects. Pot is a viable alternative to these for treating bipolar disorder, anxiety, depression and obsessive compulsive disorder.

And, of course, until New York legalizes it I can't even consider it as a viable treatment, myself, even if it helps a friend with similar problems more than anything I've ever taken.


I don't think that's necessarily true for everyone. It's certainly not true if you smoke on TOP of psych medication. Pot actually will negate the effects of anti-psychotic medication, therefore making you essentially un-medicated.

Link (new window)(one of many that I could find immediately)

/brother is a drug addict + has bipolar disorder
//smokes constantly on top of meds, is not getting any better
 
2011-07-08 11:18:52 AM
For all the anti-combustion people, the pills work so much better and last longer anyway. I had half a cookie (Yaz Greenie - Indica, I was out of pills) and it affected me for over six hours. I usually take the pills for sleeping, but I do, on occasion, enjoy it for the high. I can't usually recreationally use it because I have responsibilities but on the rare days I do not, I see no problem with it.

I do not smoke pot but I have legally been consuming daily it since November of 2010 for sleeplessness.

I have received a promotion as well as other commendations during this time. You would never know I consumed Marijuana unless I told you. I'm no different from anyone else so I'm certain I'm not an anomaly.
 
2011-07-08 12:07:34 PM

CharlieW: Beer, for example, costs aboutr $1.50 a six-pack for the ingredients alone. There is a lot of labor involved; a lot of equipment; a lot of waiting time (admittedly, this factor is the same for pot); and a lot of uncertainty about the final outcome.


I think you overestimate the growing ability of a huge portion of our population. Sure there are dozens of forums dedicated to gardening... but the same goes for beer brewing.

I guarantee I could kill a pot plant. Sure they're near indestructible and grow anywhere yadda yadda yadda. But one touch of my black thumb and it'd be done with in a week.
 
2011-07-08 12:58:23 PM
Dr.Gonzo7719 2011-07-08 10:09:57 AM

hubiestubert: Marijuana was criminalized for economic reasons

WRONG. MJ was criminalized because of racism, specifically against Mexicans and later to include African Americans. Read more history.


Okay Dr. Gonzo you are delusional on so many levels / similar to the author of the article..

MJ was shut down becuase it could wipe out other businesses that people were making big money on ( oil, paper, cotton, etc )
 
2011-07-08 01:15:05 PM

glower: Dr.Gonzo7719 2011-07-08 10:09:57 AM

hubiestubert: Marijuana was criminalized for economic reasons

WRONG. MJ was criminalized because of racism, specifically against Mexicans and later to include African Americans. Read more history.


Okay Dr. Gonzo you are delusional on so many levels / similar to the author of the article..

MJ was shut down becuase it could wipe out other businesses that people were making big money on ( oil, paper, cotton, etc )


To be fair, it WAS used as an excuse then to crack down on some folks that the powers that be didn't like. Of course, for a drug that was hailed as driving folks to schizophrenia and violence, it was then--by the same folks who testified to its crazy making properties--argued that pot would make folks too pacific to fight America's wars. But initially, it was about the economics, and then folks realized that they had a political gold mine on their hands. I do sort of giggle at Our Beamish Boy calling on folks to read MOAR HISTORY when it's fair obvious that he failed to do his own...
 
2011-07-08 02:02:33 PM

if_i_really_have_to: As I've said previously, it would also help if stoners got up off their lazy stoner arses, showed the courage of their convictions, and committed themselves to changing the law. Demonstrate (real demonstrations, not sitting around on a lawn at college acting like you're tough for toking in public). Lobby. Get all those Americans you guys keep claiming are silently pro-MJ and get them to sign petitions.


Yes. Losing our jobs because we admitted and promoted the use of illegal substances will really help us pot smokers change the law...

/How can we lobby if we'll get in trouble for it?
 
2011-07-08 02:03:11 PM
Dughan:

If you think that the current conflict down in Mexico, along with SOME of the illegal immigration, is not directly died to the "Drug War" then it's you who needs to read up on history. You are the person claiming that the "Bloods and the Crypts" date back to reconstructionist policies that winked at Jim Crow laws... yes in a VERY round-about way you are correct, but the funding for the conflict CURRENTLY is coming from the sale of illegal drugs, much of which takes place in the United States.

Nowhere in my response did I mention the Crips or Bloods, or any aspect of American gang culture for that matter. That's a completely separate issue from the situations in Baja California, Sonora, and Chihuahua States. They are linked through a symbiotic relationship (drug trafficing), but even if legalization was enacted, both would survive in their own ways. Your original point dealt with the violence in Mexico, which will not decrease if the drug money is suddenly gone. The violence in the Mexican States deal with a) indigenous uprisings, and b) conflict between the two corrupt ruling parties (PRI and PAN). The conflicts would continue and find new ways of funding, such as increased kidnapping and ransom in the DF, extortion of businesses, higher fees charged by border guides, donations from Mexican nationals living abroad, and ransoming of families of migrant workers living abroad. The IRA managed to fund itself primarily from overseas donations, especially areas with large Irish immigrant communities like New York and Boston, with little of it's funding coming from drug trafficking. Also, Slobodan Milosovich funded his insanely expensive legal team for this war crimes trial from money extorted from Bosnian and Croatian immigrants in the US and Canada, as well as money donated by Serbs both home and abroad. There are ways for raise funds illegally other than via drugs; drug trafficking just happens to be cheap and profitable.

Human trafficking is not JUST about jobs, it's about drugs and sex too. It's a lovely fantasy we have woven for ourselves that it's the "hard workers seeking a better tomorrow" sneaking across the border, and no one else, but that is just not true. UNICEF, Human Rights Watch, the U.N. Council on Human Trafficking ALL agree that up to 10% of the women coming across border are being shipped in for the purposes of prostitution. They are also VERY likely to be smuggling drugs with them at the same time. The drugs are not the source cause, but they are a major contributing factor, and by eliminating the profit from the smuggling, we help to reduce the chances that someone will be forced to do something against their will as part of the deal with the Coyote. The Coyote are known for modifying their deals on the fly, either increasing costs, demanding various services (from smuggling to sex) or just plain driving you out into the middle of the desert and dropping your ass off where you can die a slow, miserable death. Drugs are part of this system, and you cannot argue otherwise unless you think they are funded entirely by ____________? (I have no idea)

10% of women being shipped into America for sex slavery is still a low percentage overall; and no, I am not saying sex crimes should be overlooked. Additionally, the sex slavery rings are more prevalent in Easter European and Asian illegal immigration; one would think that the higher numbers in those demographics would skew the results overall and not necessarily reflect similar percentages in female Latino and Hispanic illegal immigrants. Finally, in my experience, there are far more men that immigrate illegally from Mexico and Latin America than women, maybe by as much as 2 or 3 to 1. Unfortunately, Googling for specific numbers leads only to demographic research papers that are readable only through participating libraries (which I am obviously not). I fully admit this is a guess on my part and will accept anyone with real numbers. The fact is, though, that the majority of illegals don't obtain permanent work in the US and stay only for the various agricultural harvesting seasons before returning home.

Oh, and it is your RESPONSIBILITY to know the local laws and regulations if you are going to an area. Just like you need to learn customs and behaviors when you travel, different states have different laws regarding EVERYTHING, and if you choose to be willfully ignorant of this fact, then it's not just Pot you need to worry about. It's alcohol, it's music volume, it's driving rules and regulations. If you drive in CA, you can use any lane as long as you want, in TX, the left lane is the passing lane. You use it like you were in CA, you get a ticket. That is how it works now, and you seem to be suggesting that is just too difficult for folks?! That is how law already works, so are you then suggesting we default to ONLY federal regulations?! I'm confused, man.

I agree with you that you are responsible for knowing the local laws and regulations. My point is that patchworking regulations never works out smoothly. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter at all if a State legalizes pot as long as it is illegal at the Federal level. Marijuana possession and dealing then becomes a Federal crime, and instead of doing a few months or years in a State Facility, you're going to a Federal Penitentiary. Federal legalization is an absolute must, which then leads to Federal regulation and oversight.

I doubt I would personally ever buy industrial pot. I've smoked good tobacco, and I've smoked a Marlboro... there is a WORLD of difference. Have you ever had properly cured and stored pipe tobacco, the kind that doesn't burn too hot at all, and fills your mouth not with burning but that almost syrupy sweet taste... nothing like that in the world in a manufactured cigarette. Now, SOME people might prefer the corporate stuff, but like those of us who still shop at the local tobacconist, there will be a market for the cottage industry. The micro breweries across the country counter your argument, in fact. PEOPLE PREFER LOCAL.

I work at a tobacco store dealing with cigars and pipe tobacco, so yes I know the difference well. We would be considered a local brand since we're a private label. However, the majority of our customers that walk into our store are still looking for brand names. They want Cohiba, Montecristo, Upman, Olivia, Opus X, ect., and we have to market our cigars to how they compare to those brands. And we still don't do the same amount of business that a store carrying name brands does.

Another example:there's a local restaurant in my area named Val's. They serve the best burgers in the world, hands down and I will gladly take the Pepsi Challenge with anyone else's burger. They have the advantage in quality, yet they still don't see as many customers in a day than the McDonald's half a mile away. People overall prefer things that are a) brand names, b) cheap, c) convenient. Local growing would only meet one or two of those while corporate growing will meet all three, every time.

You argue about over-regulation. Oh, farking, well. If, in order to do things legally and properly, the industry needs to have some stupid rules, then that is the cost. OBVIOUSLY these rules do not overly hinder local breweries, and there are enough independent smoke shops that seem to carry smaller brands that the tobacco industry is not totally choked out. While I will scream at the moon when those stupid rules get in place, attempting to get them altered; but I would much rather see that fight be above board and totally legal, rather than the debate that currently goes on about if we should legalize it or not. If legalization requires growing pains (Look, I made a funny!) then so be it.

These rules and regulations are more than just a pain in the ass. They are pushed by big corporations to the exclusive benefit of those corporations at the detriment of smaller competitors. A direct example: in July of last year, the FDA was given oversight of retail tobacco for the first time ever. The first edict from the FDA was a total ban on all flavored cigarettes with the exception of menthols, under the reasoning that flavored cigarettes entice kids to smoke with the sweeter flavors. As a result, many smaller brands, mostly European, stopped selling in the US because most of their product line was flavored. Djarum managed to survive by reformulating their *entire* product line to fit the FDA's classification of cigar tobacco, and even then the FDA resisted giving them approval for another two months and a costly legal challenge. You know who wasn't hurt at all? RJ Reynolds and Philip Morris, because they never made flavored cigarettes and their menthol lines were 'safe'. But a lot of their smaller competitors had to leave the market, thereby increasing the market share for those two.

Another example of how Federal regulation will hurt the small growers? With the latest rounds of Federal taxes on tobacco products, the area hardest hit was rolling tobacco. Taxes on cigars already approaches 50% of the wholesale cost, so we had to raise the prices on our cigars by about $1 each across the board; not great but not terrible. Conversely, the taxes on rolling tobacco skyrocketed so much that a pouch of Bali-Shag that retailed for $7 would now be retailing for $14, with the same margin of profit for the retailer. There will be some excuse, safety, quality or otherwise, that the FDA will use to tax the small growers' product to where it just won't be profitable to buy that product.

But. you say, the small growers will simply be cottage industries that sell to local customers. Nothing has stopped the FDA from regulating small organic farms and nothing will stop them from regulating such small growing operations. You want to sell pot you grow yourself, you need to submit to the regulations. You don't actually sell it, you just give it to friends and take 'donations'? You'd better believe there will be ATF sting operations to put an end to those plans; the government want's it's money.
 
2011-07-08 03:03:14 PM

jingks: Smeggy Smurf: Jjaro: jtown: I'll go out on a limb and say it's a lot safer recreational drug than alcohol. When's the last time you heard of a pothead toking up then beating his wife and kids? And I've never had pothead neighbors who get high and race their cars up and down the street or have raging parties until 3am. They sit inside with the windows and doors closed.

What's wrong with raging parties til 3am?

I read that as raping parties.

Okay, then what's wrong with raping parties til 3am?


They end so early. 3am? Please. That's only a couple of teens and a granny worth of rape time.
 
2011-07-08 03:08:18 PM

burndtdan: his tax argument was comparing state deficit arguments against the size of the federal deficit, and he started talking about the paper industry when in fact it was the cotton industry that was originally involved in opposition to hemp. that's where i stopped reading.

basically, his arguments weren't any better than the ones he was complaining about.


His argument is that the arguments he's complaining about are bullshiat and are hurting the pro-MJ case by making it seem like the movement is based on lies and exaggerations. That's it. He didn't make a single argument against legalization, only against the arguments used in favor of legalization. Why the fark is this so hard to understand?
 
2011-07-08 04:40:49 PM

hubiestubert: ZAZ: Two of them at least are right on. Marijuana will make no significant difference to tax revenue or the general quality of medical care. I vote for medical marijuana or decriminalized marijuana out of libertarian instincts and a hope for backdoor legalization.

I will respectfully disagree there. Taxes on alcohol and cigarettes make for fair portions of revenue.


And they also require money being poured into law enforcement to regulate them. People who;ve been getting it tax-free all their lives aren't suddenly going to start paying taxes on it out of the goodness of their hearts or civic responsibility.
 
Displayed 50 of 206 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report