"If you support cannabis being illegal but think it’s ok to consume alcohol" That's pretty much how I always argue it. "Do you think alcohol should be illegal? What's the real difference between alcohol and marijuana that means the use of one should be legal, and the use of the other should trip you from your civil rights?" I've never got an answer that had an inkling of sense.
cooperati
· 10 months ago
And where do you draw the line?
(To use a term presented by the authors of our prior generations, what would be your "gateway drug"?)
Should alcohol be included in the list of banned substances, being that it alters , and reduces, one's ability to render judgement and logic in public, as well as private, situations?
What restrictions would you use to control the use of cannabis as a mind altering substance? Do you believe everyone would agree with you? Would you see an uprising of 16 year olds if you put a cap on those that can carry, distribute, or buy cannabis at age 17?
The restrictions placed one this "drug" is arbitrary, and still it doesn't prevent those teenagers and anyone else from getting access to it. In fact, what would youre reaction be if the restrictions were to prevent 16 year olds from being able to abuse cannabis, and 10 year olds started carrying it?
Go one step further, and fully lift restrictions, and explain to be the benefits this would have on educational scores.
I know people who shouldn't have alcohol. And I know people that shouldn't use marijuana. And those people often use both, simultaneously, which results in their temporary imprisonment, and release on the grounds that they get plugged in to social services program.
And lets establish that Abraham's "hemp" was a weaker mind altering substance that today's nicotine laced cigarette's.
For a good account of why today's tobacco vice is so much more addicting and destructive, I recommend watching "The insider" with Russell Crow, which depicts the real drama surrounding the Phillip Morris' research on the effects of using an additive, arsenic, and their subsequent attempt to bury the research, and attack on the researcher's character in and out of courts, basically to shut him up.
Peace,
-=T=-
Michael S Black
· 10 months ago
OK, couple of statements here.
Regardless of the Cannabinoid content of the "sweet hemp", the base compounds are identical. Studies have shown that smokers self-regulate based upon mental/physical effects, not the potency of the substance. Hence, Lincoln likely would would have smoked until he was "pleasantly stoned".
Also, please remember the fact that this is a natural product, with NO processing and/or refinement. This is NOT similar to alcohol and/or cigarettes. Both of these are considerably refined from their raw states. In the case of tobacco, unless you are smoking loose leaf that is untreated, it has been chopped, processed, and then treated with various chemical sprays to enhance the uptake of nicotine and suppress any "negative" transitory effects.
This is a natural plant that was banned originally due to racial fears and then later, pure politicking (anyone ever examined Anslinger's actions?) and counter-lobbying actions. The fact that the human brain has receptors made solely for Cannabinoid, combined with the fact that our bodies NATURALLY produce these same chemicals, should lead any rational person to re-evaluate the idea of cannabis prohibition.
kurt
· 7 months ago
i would love this too be true but there is just no way to tell if it is or not. There is no dout in my mind that marijuana should be legal ... and it will soon i assure you. Alcohol however is a different story. Alcohol would be illegal if prohibition worked but it doesn't. If a shame really ... humanity disgusts me.
Ken
· 7 months ago
All people who do "this" should do "that"... why? because you thought of it! You might want to slow down a little. There might be more information you might want to consider than is in your mind appealing to your attention at this time. Not to say that what you're bringing up isn't important, but people aren't going to kill themselves because you think they should. The truth is that people will never in general, see the World the way you do, whether you have Truth on your side or not. Also, we cannot pound those into thinking "the right way" (our way) because people don't work like that. We are left with continuing with expectations that don't mesh with the majority and continue to suffer because of the expectations, or join some aspect of society that is more mainstream. I do not know of one instance where, for lack of a better phrase, "societal engineering" worked.
At best your comment is a loosely related set of emotional appeals. It won't go far in convincing anyone, or me. If you want to attempt to convince someone, they have to first be interested in being convinced.
Last comment. Could I convince you away from any of your views if I wrote similar things in a similar tone, but in the opposing viewpoint? If it doesn't work on you, then it won't work on "them."
All Comments
That's pretty much how I always argue it. "Do you think alcohol should be illegal? What's the real difference between alcohol and marijuana that means the use of one should be legal, and the use of the other should trip you from your civil rights?" I've never got an answer that had an inkling of sense.
(To use a term presented by the authors of our prior generations, what would be your "gateway drug"?)
Should alcohol be included in the list of banned substances, being that it alters , and reduces, one's ability to render judgement and logic in public, as well as private, situations?
What restrictions would you use to control the use of cannabis as a mind altering substance? Do you believe everyone would agree with you? Would you see an uprising of 16 year olds if you put a cap on those that can carry, distribute, or buy cannabis at age 17?
The restrictions placed one this "drug" is arbitrary, and still it doesn't prevent those teenagers and anyone else from getting access to it. In fact, what would youre reaction be if the restrictions were to prevent 16 year olds from being able to abuse cannabis, and 10 year olds started carrying it?
Go one step further, and fully lift restrictions, and explain to be the benefits this would have on educational scores.
I know people who shouldn't have alcohol. And I know people that shouldn't use marijuana. And those people often use both, simultaneously, which results in their temporary imprisonment, and release on the grounds that they get plugged in to social services program.
And lets establish that Abraham's "hemp" was a weaker mind altering substance that today's nicotine laced cigarette's.
For a good account of why today's tobacco vice is so much more addicting and destructive, I recommend watching "The insider" with Russell Crow, which depicts the real drama surrounding the Phillip Morris' research on the effects of using an additive, arsenic, and their subsequent attempt to bury the research, and attack on the researcher's character in and out of courts, basically to shut him up.
Peace,
-=T=-
Regardless of the Cannabinoid content of the "sweet hemp", the base compounds are identical. Studies have shown that smokers self-regulate based upon mental/physical effects, not the potency of the substance. Hence, Lincoln likely would would have smoked until he was "pleasantly stoned".
Also, please remember the fact that this is a natural product, with NO processing and/or refinement. This is NOT similar to alcohol and/or cigarettes. Both of these are considerably refined from their raw states. In the case of tobacco, unless you are smoking loose leaf that is untreated, it has been chopped, processed, and then treated with various chemical sprays to enhance the uptake of nicotine and suppress any "negative" transitory effects.
This is a natural plant that was banned originally due to racial fears and then later, pure politicking (anyone ever examined Anslinger's actions?) and counter-lobbying actions. The fact that the human brain has receptors made solely for Cannabinoid, combined with the fact that our bodies NATURALLY produce these same chemicals, should lead any rational person to re-evaluate the idea of cannabis prohibition.
At best your comment is a loosely related set of emotional appeals. It won't go far in convincing anyone, or me. If you want to attempt to convince someone, they have to first be interested in being convinced.
Last comment. Could I convince you away from any of your views if I wrote similar things in a similar tone, but in the opposing viewpoint? If it doesn't work on you, then it won't work on "them."