Pot Vote: Legalizing Marijuana Could Be On 2010 Ballot

I don't get your point.

Are you trying to say that marijuana shouldn't be made legal because it's already illegal?

 

The reason that's the case is because one is currently illegal and the other isn't. You're essentially begging the question.

If pot were legal and alcohol weren't, you probably could buy the seeds to grow marijuana in Albertson's, and something like hops wouldn't be available there (assuming it is currently).

That doesn't seem to differentiate them in terms of which one should be outlawed.

 

Also, I thought brewing alcohol was or is illegal is some states/countries.

 

I love smoking the buds.

I master NBA live when I'm stoned. Then again thats the only time I play it. I'm by no means a stoner, but I enjoy puffin the bleezies on a lazy Sunday of football, with take out Chinese or a nice pizza every once in awhile. Nothings better.

Legalize the shit immediately. Not that it really matters though.

 

That is exactly what I'm trying to say. We have enough legal drugs in society to get you feeling however you want to feel. Adding more will only encourage more drug use.

 

Do you have studies to back up your theories stated above, about more crime because of higher pot use, the long term physical and mental effects, and worst of all, it being a gateway drug?

 

I've been arguing that fewer drugs available in society is preferable to more drugs available in society. If alcohol had ingredients that could be controlled, I'd be in favor of making it illegal, too. However, people have been making their own alcohol for millennia. That's not the same with marijuana.

And more people drink. When did I say that there was no marijuana in those areas? All I said was that it was harder to obtain.

It is my argument that it is easier for the average person to obtain the ingredients and more lawful to make homebrew, homemade wine or distill alcohol in one's own home than it is to procure marijuana seeds. Ask the average person to obtain yeast, water and some grain and more people will know how to do that than to obtain a marijuana seed.

 

One has many uses; the other has one (please don't give me the hemp argument as marijuana seeds are a specific strain). The ingredients to make alcohol are made from staples we eat every day.

Again, to me fewer drugs in society for recreational use are preferable to more. It's not an "either/or" argument to me' it's an "and" argument. The number of recreational drugs legally available in my opinion are sufficient. The downside to legalizing marijuana outweighs the upside, in my opinion. That conclusion is in conflict with my political philosophy, but one can't always be consistent.

 

Am I a drug expert? No, I'm a guy posting in a forum. If you want to call yourself the big winner in this debate, you go ahead. I've stated my reasoning. If I cared more, I would go find some. However, I haven't read them, so I would just be posting links.

Like I said, it's simply easier to agree to disagree.

 

I don't know. I think distilling your own alcohol is illegal in many states, but why would you distill your own when you can go to the liquor store and buy some? If we had Prohibition again--which I don't embrace--you couldn't possibly outlaw the input ingredients or the mechanisms to manufacture alcohol. With marijuana, you can outlaw the seed pretty easily. It's not 100% effective, but it's more effective than outlawing yeast and grain.

 

Now I understand, and I see where you're coming from.

 

Most people I knew growing up smoke all the time. In fact, I'm just about the only one of my friends growing up who didn't partake. More power to you.

And as you said, legalizing it likely isn't going to make your acquisition of the product much easier. Such is life in the Willamette Valley.

 

I apologize for not being clearer, but a lot of people were asking me to address a lot of points, so the most fundamental one often gets lost.

 

Sweet, I'll remember in debates with you, that opinion is worth more than fact. Don't ask for sources if I cite stuff as fact, please. I'm sure you'll understand.

 

All I'm doing is offering my opinion. In most other subjects, I care enough to provide definitive proof. And without providing studies yourself, you're just offering your opinion as well. That's why we'll agree to disagree.

 

What do I have to offer studies of? You made a claim. I asked for proof of that claim. Why should I do your work for you?

 

You misunderstand me. Your opinion is that the opposite is true. Until you provide studies that you've read and understand, it's just an opinion, just like mine. That's why it's easier for us to agree to disagree. We both haven't seen enough evidence to change our views.

Did the above explain my position better?

 

Where did I state my claim that the opposite is true? You provided information that I haven't seen proof of, and as you were stating it, I thought maybe you had actually seen proof of this.

 

Then that's my error. I made the mistaken assumption that you were contending the opposite of what I stated. I apologize.

If it makes you happy, later tonight or this weekend, when I'm bored and have some time, I'll provide some links. However, my position is based on logic, not studies.