IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New And how would that work, exactly?
Law: "Pot is legal to consume if you use a vaporizer. If not, it's illegal due to the health risk to you and those around you."

Stoner#1: "Man, that's messed up. I don't like vaporizers. It mellows my harsh."

And so, Stoner#1 ends up in the same position as now - breaking the law. How would your proposal be a solution?

I think I've outlined several of my concerns. You view them differently - that's fine. Whether they're resolved in my lifetime is immaterial to the discussion, isn't it?

But you have no goals, you have questions.


Again, I want rational, sensible policy. In my mind, the details of that policy are not clear and I think need to be reasonably clear before radical changes are made.

Remember how things used to be before Sen. Harkin and others decided that the FDA had no business regulating "herbal supplements"? Do you see the differences between then and now? We're bombarded with ads for "5 Hour Energy" and "Vitamins" and so forth that make all sorts of wild claims about "helps promote XYZ health" while at the same time there's the ubiquitous 2 point text "these claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat or cure any disease." What do you suppose the marketplace would be like if pot were handled the same way?

Yes, more questions. But questions in service of the goal of finding a rational, sensible policy.

We seem to be talking past each other, so I'll quit now.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Easy
At that point you can treat the actual issue, not the substance.

Alcohol is illegal to inhale in some areas. Not others.

http://en.wikipedia....ol_without_liquid

The delivery mechanism is what makes it illegal.

We already live in a world with many laws like that.

My flavored rolling papers are illegal if they are sold with tobacco. Federal level. But it is not illegal when sold alone, or with "legal" herbs which can kill you.

Buy any can of paint or solvent and you will see it various illegal uses.

Oh well.


New View it from the other side
Imagine there were no existing laws against marijuana. On what basis would you make it illegal? It may cause unquantified harm to some people when consumed via some delivery mechanisms? That's not enough to ban something. That makes the existing ban a bad law, which should be repealed.

IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof.
--

Drew
New Thought experiments are easy.
I'm sympathetic to the "minimal laws and no more" viewpoint - I really am.

But like it or not, we live in a complicated society. Substances which are addictive (to some substantial fraction of the population), which interfere with judgement, motor control, etc., are different from others. They can destroy societies (and not just because they're illegal - look at the history of opium in China - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars )

It never hurts to ask the question "cui bono?" and see where things lead. Some consequences are easier to foresee than others.

We tried "no laws against marijuana". Similarly with cocaine. Heroin was developed and touted as a safer, non-addictive alternative to morphine - http://en.wikipedia....ki/Heroin#History . There are good (and bad) reasons why we have the drug laws we do - they didn't popup out of no where.

IMO it's the people trying to restrict other people's actions who have the burden of proof.


Logically, maybe. But practically, no. Practically, you have to convince enough legislators and the federal/state executive and the courts that you are right to demand changes. That means addressing their interests and concerns.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New That's a crock
You are comparing heroin to cannabis on addiction potential and lethality.

Wow. No point in discussing, if you pull that type of false equivalence.

$respect--;
New Read me in my posts.
Your persecution complex on this topic is getting in the way of your understanding.

For some people, MJ is addictive (whether psychologically or physically, it doesn't much matter).

For some people, heroin or crack is something they can take or leave and they'll never be addicted with casual usage.

The underlying issue is the same: There are some substances that cause reduction in motor control, blurring of judgement, and in come cases, addiction. They're not like jellybeans.

You have acknowledged that (at least in part).

We (MM and I) don't fully accept the picture that you're painting, and you seemingly don't accept that there are issues that need to be addressed before legalization is considered.

If that's the case, it's a stalemate and as you say, there's no point in continuing.

Cheers,
Scott.
New But the statement is wrong
ALL people who use opiate based narcotics of heroin strength for more than 2 weeks WILL become addicted. No choice. You find a random outlier, it won't matter. This is pretty much a 100% of the population.

A LARGE percentage of them who dabble with it over time WILL become addicted.

Physical, with serious (but rarely fatal) withdrawel symptom. People go nuts during that phase, and the crime rate of this population will definitively jump as they steal for their next fix.

For those that dabble and/or are addicted to opiate based narcotics, they have a decent likelyhood of screwing up their dose and are playing with death, directly, on every injection and crushed oxycontin. I have at least 1/2 a dozen cousin level reltaives that have died via a variety of narcotics. We can all be pretty sure the lethality of random dozing is unknown, but significant.

Cannabis has no lethal dose that a mere mortal can consume by smoking. If someone is playing with concentrated extracts, I'm sure they can hit it sooner or later. Like any other random concentrated substance, you need to be careful with it at that point. Like cinnamon. Like don't consume enough for 10,000 doses, you will be unhappy. Probably won't kill you, but you will be unhappy for a few hours.

No one has EVER died from THC overdose.

While any mood altering substance can be addictive (jelly beans, pistacios, alcohol, cough syrup) we typically limit the attempt of controlling the individual at the point that addiction causes harm, while allowing all access to most substances, as long as they haven't proven dangerous.

This is flipped on cannabis, with a huge amount of assumptions that need to be disproven, which is much more difficult and sometimes impossible.

Why is it up to those in jail to prove this?

Because their cultural method of relaxation pissed the gringoes off, and we are suffering for it this many years later? Because the jazz musicians scared the high class assholes? Because Dupont didn't not want hemp oil competing with petroleum based oil?

Why is it up to the persecuted (when you are threatening to put someone in jail for behavior that does not affect you (at least no more than people buying alcohol and cough syrup) that you don't like, that's persecuting)?

Not up you to accept. But I always want to know why, because why I may not agree with you on a subject, you are at least well read enough to see multiple sides and gather info on it. Demographics will win no matter what, it WILL be legal, it'll just take a while.

I just will correct bullshit on the subject when I see it, and false equivalences is a major bullshit item.


New Different part of the issue
Yes, the practical reality is that legislators would need to be convinced before anything changes. But shouldn't we try to establish some objective facts about the drug itself before deciding what to do about it?

That's where I'm coming from WRT effects, side-effects, addiction, etc. There is plenty of recent research -- granted, much of it conducted outside the U.S. -- showing that marijuana has fewer and milder direct health consequences compared to both tobacco and alcohol, addiction rates nowhere close to the other substances you compared to, intoxicating effects milder than alcohol, and numerous profound positive effects.

As long as people continue denying those facts, or (more commonly) denying that those facts have been sufficiently proven, it's not possible to discuss what laws are needed.
--

Drew
     rc lectures bho - (rcareaga) - (135)
         WH replies can take months - (Another Scott) - (27)
             those 70yo were 25 in 1967, -NT - (boxley) - (26)
                 precisely - (rcareaga) - (22)
                     I would suspect you are correct sir -NT - (boxley)
                     Reminds me of that old ad. - (mmoffitt) - (20)
                         just to clarify - (rcareaga) - (18)
                             Bingo - (crazy) - (2)
                                 I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (boxley) - (1)
                                     Re: I remember a few years ago with my son then 16yo Joe - (jb4)
                             Actually, we have discussed it. - (mmoffitt) - (14)
                                 Every single one of your points is based on illegality - (crazy) - (9)
                                     Read in New Scientist today: - (malraux) - (8)
                                         Yeah, and people like MM will say it is WORSE - (crazy)
                                         Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (mmoffitt) - (6)
                                             Ad hominem -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                 I knew I shouldn't have added a comment. ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                             Re: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. - (malraux) - (3)
                                                 Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                 The Time Mag article is verification of the fallacy I stated -NT - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                                                     So what? - (crazy)
                                 That would be dumb - (crazy) - (3)
                                     hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... -NT - (boxley) - (2)
                                         Re: hmm, picturing you in pearls and heels.... - (lincoln) - (1)
                                             Watch it - (crazy)
                         Nicely programmed - (crazy)
                 Yeah? - (Another Scott) - (2)
                     make up your mind or read what you write :-) -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                         Agreed you found a nit - doesn't change the bigger point. :) -NT - (Another Scott)
         excellent! -NT - (boxley)
         Well.. if he sees it-- - (Ashton)
         victims of federally legalized pot - (boxley) - (1)
             Awwww - (crazy)
         Very sincere... - (folkert) - (94)
             Or kill someone else. - (mmoffitt) - (93)
                 neither a junkie or a user of weed, harmless - (boxley)
                 Where does... - (folkert) - (3)
                     No acknowledgement? - (folkert) - (2)
                         You need to reread your post and my follow up. - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                             Was inferred by the alcohol comment. - (folkert)
                 Remind me: do you drink? -NT - (rcareaga) - (87)
                     Red Herring much? -NT - (mmoffitt) - (86)
                         Nope - (rcareaga) - (85)
                             Steeper? Well, perhaps. - (mmoffitt) - (84)
                                 I don't know offhand about the advanced degrees - (rcareaga)
                                 yup, right up there with fluoride never hurt anybody - (boxley) - (82)
                                     [citation needed] -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                                         Re: [citation needed] - (boxley) - (1)
                                             That's not "fluoridation is bad" - (pwhysall)
                                     Red herring. - (Another Scott) - (78)
                                         Assumes facts not in evidence. - (mmoffitt) - (77)
                                             Mixing up cause and effect - (drook) - (4)
                                                 So, the chicken came first? ;0) -NT - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                                                     According to the chicken, the rooster did -NT - (drook) - (1)
                                                         Yabut the rooster didn't care. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 lrpd that sucker -NT - (boxley)
                                             criminalize (public) conduct, not chemistry - (rcareaga)
                                             It's a quagmire! -NT - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                 No. - (mmoffitt)
                                             "how many years ago was that?" - (rcareaga) - (68)
                                                 That was a good thread. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                     Too bad about the faulty text wrap, though. - (rcareaga) - (2)
                                                         Probably something long in one of the posts. - (malraux) - (1)
                                                             I think it was me. - (Another Scott)
                                                     Seconded. And I'm glad to see... - (mmoffitt)
                                                 After all that... - (folkert) - (1)
                                                     Yup. I chuckled at that. -NT - (rcareaga)
                                                 Holy smokes. Thanks. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                 Wow - (crazy) - (59)
                                                     dunno about anyone else but - (boxley) - (6)
                                                         You show the female response - (crazy) - (5)
                                                             not nesting, invigourated -NT - (boxley) - (3)
                                                                 Then you are not done. - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                     2-5 no difference, after 5 too sore -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                         Longer delay, more prolactin - (crazy)
                                                             nope -NT - (boxley)
                                                     So why not cut out the middleman? - (Another Scott) - (38)
                                                         Because THC alone is BAD - (crazy) - (17)
                                                             Read that link again. - (Another Scott) - (16)
                                                                 Remember, even if you find it - (crazy) - (4)
                                                                     My goals: Rational, sensible policy. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                                                         Seems the right time for this one - (drook) - (2)
                                                                             Excellent. Thanks. - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Seen that one before... - (folkert)
                                                                 Phhh - (crazy) - (9)
                                                                     Here's a couple. - (mmoffitt) - (8)
                                                                         2007 - (crazy)
                                                                         #2: Research CBD - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                             Can't have anyone curing cancer now... - (folkert) - (5)
                                                                                 Hmm... - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                     Puhleeze - (crazy) - (3)
                                                                                         Ad hominem. -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                                                                             Point to something specific for me to prove or disprove and - (crazy) - (1)
                                                                                                 Pick your poison. - (Another Scott)
                                                                 Please don't assume my words - (crazy)
                                                         Better question: Why? - (drook) - (19)
                                                             Because he is terrified of side effects that he can't - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                 Project much? :-p - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                     Hokay - (crazy)
                                                             Just asking the question. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                                                                 But the laws now prohibit doing the science - (drook) - (14)
                                                                     That's an easier law to change than the others. - (Another Scott) - (13)
                                                                         Heh. Even its advocates have questions about its safety. - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                                             Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                                                             Your straw man, not mine - (crazy) - (10)
                                                                                 You talking to me? - (Another Scott) - (9)
                                                                                     I didn't say it was your job - (crazy) - (8)
                                                                                         And how would that work, exactly? - (Another Scott) - (7)
                                                                                             Easy - (crazy)
                                                                                             View it from the other side - (drook) - (5)
                                                                                                 Thought experiments are easy. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                                                                                     That's a crock - (crazy) - (2)
                                                                                                         Read me in my posts. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                                                                                             But the statement is wrong - (crazy)
                                                                                                     Different part of the issue - (drook)
                                                     In a nutshell, then, your argument goes ... - (mmoffitt) - (12)
                                                         Did I expect an actual reponse - (crazy)
                                                         hey during that timeperiod - (boxley)
                                                         You were probably right - (crazy) - (9)
                                                             Oh come on... - (folkert) - (8)
                                                                 Hey, he went attempted personal WAY before me - (crazy)
                                                                 Also, interesting - (crazy) - (6)
                                                                     Do as you wish. Matters not to me. -NT - (mmoffitt)
                                                                     You're both coming across as mardy twats - (pwhysall) - (4)
                                                                         twats is a gendered insult -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                                                             Not when I say it, it's not - (pwhysall)
                                                                         kiss kiss -NT - (crazy)
                                                                         You didn't like the Quagmire picture? -NT - (mmoffitt)
         Looks like my letter did the trick - (rcareaga) - (6)
             Woot! -NT - (Another Scott) - (5)
                 Ok, I'm done - (crazy) - (4)
                     Finally! - (Another Scott) - (3)
                         hehe - (crazy) - (2)
                             Don't assume you know the future. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                 Good point - (crazy)
         Another excellent IGM thread! - (Ashton)

We bought the office.
155 ms