should marijuana be legal?

[drughate_vegan]

i know this is an over-examined question.
i was just wondering how many sXe people thought it should or should not be.
i, personally, think it is completely rediculous that alcohol and cigs are legal and all other narcotics are not - it is completely illogical. also, i see that since alcohol and cigs are legal, it doesn't make it any easier or harder for underaged people to get their hands on it - as in comparison to them getting their hands on marijuana. so, i suppose the primary concern for legalization would be to gain profits in some way.. yet, another corporation for people to support and aid in their schemes, as opposed to an independent seller making his / her way with the illegal hand-off. so, i say keep it illegal in the respect that some huge corporation will not profit from the supply / demand factor... hmm.. well, then all other drugs too - - if they were legalized would it eliminate a huge portion of deaths related to drug-deals? i am sure it would.. so, i guess the true question is - do we support a corporation profiting from drug sales - or do we support drug dealers and users fighting and killing each other in the streets - or just simply support the independent buisness trade - ... tough call. though, i do agree that hemp should definitely be legal to grow and manufacture paper products and such - as it is much more efficient and far less detrimental to our supply of oxygen. - leave the trees alone.

[SgtD]

I think it should be. This issue interested me alot, i interviewed Marko the singer for Vitamin X about it, because he lives in Holland, and is sxe so i figured it would be interesting.


Holland is known for light drugs being legal. I know that you are pro-legalization.

It’s very simple. We have the smallest amount of drug addicts in the world. That’s the reason. In other countries, drugs are taboo. People are attracted to it because it’s illegal. You know who go to the coffe shops to smoke weed? Tourists. We have education, people know what’s going on. Who get’s involved in drugs? Kids who want to experiment, wanna find something out, what is illegal, what is special, different. And if you’re told don’t do it, you’re gonna, cos you’re a rebel. Or people who are depressed, and find solution in that. in the US, they are putting a lot of money into the „drug war”, in reality their government is the one who distributes the drugs. It’s bullshit. Health care is fucking expensive, we’re paying about 60euros every month for it and it’s crap. If drugs are legalised, it’s immediately solving the crime problem, drug lords etc. but they don’t want that. they say we care about your souls and stuff, but at the same time they are bombing Iraq.

[XvagueprophetX]

i, personally, think it is completely rediculous that alcohol and cigs are legal and all other narcotics are not - it is completely illogical.
first off you're doubly wrong here since alcohol and nicotine are not narcotics and some narcotics are legal. so now that you're wrong does that make it logical? i think the word you wanted was hypocritical.

but i do support legalizing marijuana use by adults except for certain people (PARENTS, law enforcement, government, military, public education, child care, medical, airline etc. personnel). but how do we enforce that, especially for parents? it's bad governing to make a law that can't be enforced. even with the holes in our present drug enforcement policies the law can still be enforced. so it's a lot easier to stay with the status quo rather than tackle something like limited or targeted enforcement. there's an element of corporate profiteering here but the enforcement problem is the real issue preventing action towards legalization.

[xsecx]

first off you're doubly wrong here since alcohol and nicotine are not narcotics and some narcotics are legal. so now that you're wrong does that make it logical? i think the word you wanted was hypocritical.


within accepted and common usage, alcohol and nicotine would be narcotics. ie, definition 1b

Main Entry: 1nar·cot·ic
1 a : a drug (as opium) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not
2 : something that soothes, relieves, or lulls

you have the rather annoying habit of playing word games to try and make the point when you know full well what was actually being said.



but i do support legalizing marijuana use by adults except for certain people (PARENTS, law enforcement, government, military, public education, child care, medical, airline etc. personnel). but how do we enforce that, especially for parents? it's bad governing to make a law that can't be enforced. even with the holes in our present drug enforcement policies the law can still be enforced. so it's a lot easier to stay with the status quo rather than tackle something like limited or targeted enforcement. there's an element of corporate profiteering here but the enforcement problem is the real issue preventing action towards legalization.

why shouldn't parents, law enforcement, government, blah blah blah be able to use it? Should they also not be able to drink or smoke? And doesn't this go against your whole standard conservative line of limited government involvement in peoples lives?

[XvagueprophetX]

within accepted and common usage, alcohol and nicotine would be narcotics. ie, definition 1b

Main Entry: 1nar·cot·ic
1 a : a drug (as opium) that in moderate doses dulls the senses, relieves pain, and induces profound sleep but in excessive doses causes stupor, coma, or convulsions b : a drug (as marijuana or LSD) subject to restriction similar to that of addictive narcotics whether physiologically addictive and narcotic or not
2 : something that soothes, relieves, or lulls

you have the rather annoying habit of playing word games to try and make the point when you know full well what was actually being said.



why shouldn't parents, law enforcement, government, blah blah blah be able to use it? Should they also not be able to drink or smoke? And doesn't this go against your whole standard conservative line of limited government involvement in peoples lives?
yeah, me and my habits again. in a forum where all we have is words isn't it important to be perfectly clear in what we're discussing here?

authority figures should not be permitted because it undermines their authority, legitimacy, decision making etc... and the difficulty in enforcing anything like that (ie extending the reach of government deeper into our personal lives) is exactly why i don't think it will ever happen. and i'd love to see a ban extended to alcohol and tobacco but previous attempts have ended in disaster which, again, is why i don't think it will ever happen.

[xsecx]

yeah, me and my habits again. in a forum where all we have is words isn't it important to be perfectly clear in what we're discussing here?


considering you were nitpicking, how wasn't it clear to you what he was saying?




authority figures should not be permitted because it undermines their authority, legitimacy, decision making etc... and the difficulty in enforcing anything like that (ie extending the reach of government deeper into our personal lives) is exactly why i don't think it will ever happen. and i'd love to see a ban extended to alcohol and tobacco but previous attempts have ended in disaster which, again, is why i don't think it will ever happen.

how does it undermine their authority when done in their off time? How do you reconcile this belief with the rest, since you clearly want to excersize government control over personal responsbility.

[XvagueprophetX]

considering you were nitpicking, how wasn't it clear to you what he was saying?
he was speaking in the context of logic. based on what he said, which is all we have, his facts were wrong and therefore his logic was flawed. speaking in the context of logic is all about "nitpicking". it's the discourse that builds the idea. now, thanks to my nitpicking, he can adjust his argument, strengthen his theory and avoid building it upon a critically flawed base... which is why i suggested he use "hypocritical" rather than "illogical".

how does it undermine their authority when done in their off time? How do you reconcile this belief with the rest, since you clearly want to excersize government control over personal responsbility.
there is no "off time" for authority. we're talking about reducing "government control over personal responsbility". how is limiting the law only to those in authority positions worse than what it is now? it's a limitation on existing government controls and so is easily reconciled with my political theory. i said i supported legalization with a caveat and that the caveat was unenforcable and therefore bad legislation. i suggested the paradox that explains the logic in our present drug control policy. i wasn't drawing the road map for legalization, i was explaining why any map presented to date is a myth. i support the notion but i understand how and why it hasn't been managed yet without just arbitrarily discounting it as "illogical".

[xsecx]

he was speaking in the context of logic. based on what he said, which is all we have, his facts were wrong and therefore his logic was flawed. speaking in the context of logic is all about "nitpicking". it's the discourse that builds the idea. now, thanks to my nitpicking, he can adjust his argument, strengthen his theory and avoid building it upon a critically flawed base... which is why i suggested he use "hypocritical" rather than "illogical".


so you didn't understand what he was saying?



there is no "off time" for authority. we're talking about reducing "government control over personal responsbility". how is limiting the law only to those in authority positions worse than what it is now? it's a limitation on existing government controls and so is easily reconciled with my political theory. i said i supported legalization with a caveat and that the caveat was unenforcable and therefore bad legislation. i suggested the paradox that explains the logic in our present drug control policy. i wasn't drawing the road map for legalization, i was explaining why any map presented to date is a myth. i support the notion but i understand how and why it hasn't been managed yet without just arbitrarily discounting it as "illogical".

how is there no "off time" for authority, when individuals involved have very clearly defined off time where they are completely capable of doing any number of things that would "undermine" their position of authority that they wouldn't be able to while on the job. How is limiting the law only to those in authority positions useful? What would be the end you would try to acheive with it other than dictating personal behavior for arbitrary reasons? How is it a limitation on existing government controls since what you'd like to see would require a far greater invasion into peoples lives to be possible? If it's unenforcable and bad legislation, then why would you even consider it as a possiblity? And most importantly, what other behavior would you outlaw for those in authority positions?

[XvagueprophetX]

so you didn't understand what he was saying?
i assume i understand what he was meaning to say which is why i engaged it. do you understand what i'm saying?

how is there no "off time" for authority, when individuals involved have very clearly defined off time where they are completely capable of doing any number of things that would "undermine" their position of authority that they wouldn't be able to while on the job.
because you're talking about a job and i'm talking about authority, the construct upon which our social hierarchy is based. not the authority granted by a profession but the authority granted by society. yes, the two often coincide but one sometimes stops at the end of the day while the other exists in perpetuity. preschool teachers are "completely capable" of posing nude in hustler on their off time but if they do they stand to lose their job and nobody would think twice because the teacher would have violated the trust granted to her as an authority figure in our society.

How is limiting the law only to those in authority positions useful?
because their authority can not afford to be compromised by the use of today's illicit substances and because the performance of their duties means that any use of marijuana could potentially affect public safety.

What would be the end you would try to acheive with it other than dictating personal behavior for arbitrary reasons?
sanctity of authority and public safety, hardly arbitrary.

How is it a limitation on existing government controls since what you'd like to see would require a far greater invasion into peoples lives to be possible?
what are you talking about? today no one can legally do marijuana. my suggestion is to limit today's laws only to authority figures. explain to me how that is not less and is instead "a far greater invasion into peoples lives".

If it's unenforcable and bad legislation, then why would you even consider it as a possiblity?
that's why i called it a paradox. are they cracking down on considering impossibilities now?

And most importantly, what other behavior would you outlaw for those in authority positions?
why would i do that and what does it (ie taking something that is legal and making it outlawed) have to do with the context of this theoretical discussion on legalizing (ie taking something that is outlawed and making it legal) one specific substance, marijuana.

[xsecx]

i assume i understand what he was meaning to say which is why i engaged it. do you understand what i'm saying?

so yeah. you were nitpicking.



because you're talking about a job and i'm talking about authority, the construct upon which our social hierarchy is based. not the authority granted by a profession but the authority granted by society. yes, the two often coincide but one sometimes stops at the end of the day while the other exists in perpetuity. preschool teachers are "completely capable" of posing nude in hustler on their off time but if they do they stand to lose their job and nobody would think twice because the teacher would have violated the trust granted to her as an authority figure in our society.


Authority is given to a body not individuals, it's the individuals however you're talking about dictating behavior for. If someone sees an off duty cop drunk, how exactly does that undermine his authority when he's on duty and sober? And in your scenario you're over estimating public response. How would the teacher have violated the trust granted to her by posing nude or doing any other act that were legal in her time off and seperate from her duties as an "authority figure"?




because their authority can not afford to be compromised by the use of today's illicit substances and because the performance of their duties means that any use of marijuana could potentially affect public safety.


so could not getting enough sleep or not eating a proper diet, do you also want to regulate that for people in authority as well?



sanctity of authority and public safety, hardly arbitrary.


you've failed to demonstrate how either of those are the case, especially when what's being discuss is off duty behavior.



what are you talking about? today no one can legally do marijuana. my suggestion is to limit today's laws only to authority figures. explain to me how that is not less and is instead "a far greater invasion into peoples lives".


because to enforce it, you'd have to actually have to put those people under surveillance, since you also appear concerned with their behaviors and their percieved sanctity of authority. It's due to logistical problems that you wouldn't want to do it, not because of personal rights.



that's why i called it a paradox. are they cracking down on considering impossibilities now?


yeah except that it isn't impossible. but if you want, we can nitpick on the meaning of impossible.



why would i do that and what does it (ie taking something that is legal and making it outlawed) have to do with the context of this theoretical discussion on legalizing (ie taking something that is outlawed and making it legal) one specific substance, marijuana.

because of your position with it being ok but only for people that aren't in positions of authority. When you throw things around like they can't do it because it would undermine their authority then you'd have to then also consider other things that would also undermine their authority and monitor that behavior as well.

[XvagueprophetX]

so yeah. you were nitpicking.
yeah, i acknowledged that and explained why. what's your point?

Authority is given to a body not individuals, it's the individuals however you're talking about dictating behavior for. If someone sees an off duty cop drunk, how exactly does that undermine his authority when he's on duty and sober? And in your scenario you're over estimating public response. How would the teacher have violated the trust granted to her by posing nude or doing any other act that were legal in her time off and seperate from her duties as an "authority figure"?
what body? like teachers, as a body? teachers have the same authority in our society as individuals as they do as a body so i'm not sure what you're getting at. and if someone sees a cop drunk and off duty, assuming they know he's a cop, yes, that does undermine his authority especially if he's expected to enforce laws against public drunkeness. now, he could back his weakened authority up with a legal mandate of the use of force but that only helps his professional authority not his social authority. public drunkeness and posing nude is considered social deviance. our society is not especially tolerant of social deviance in our authority figures. i'm not debating the merits of this fact, just acknowledging that it exists.

so could not getting enough sleep or not eating a proper diet, do you also want to regulate that for people in authority as well?
they already are regulated. if you're malnourished or sleep deprived and it effects your job performance you get fired. norm enforced.

you've failed to demonstrate how either of those are the case, especially when what's being discuss is off duty behavior.
you're discussing off time (or off duty as you said here) i'm saying it doesn't exist for social authority. i can hardly put my argument in the context of a myth and expect it to stand up.

because to enforce it, you'd have to actually have to put those people under surveillance, since you also appear concerned with their behaviors and their percieved sanctity of authority. It's due to logistical problems that you wouldn't want to do it, not because of personal rights.
why would there have to be any greater surveillance other than the whiz quiz, questionaire and background checks that exist for other authority positions today?

yeah except that it isn't impossible. but if you want, we can nitpick on the meaning of impossible.
how about "unlikely"? you're the one that questioned considering it "as a possiblity".

because of your position with it being ok but only for people that aren't in positions of authority. When you throw things around like they can't do it because it would undermine their authority then you'd have to then also consider other things that would also undermine their authority and monitor that behavior as well.
things that society and/or employers already enforce, so i still don't see your point.

[xsecx]

yeah, i acknowledged that and explained why. what's your point?


that you nitpick as a form of deflection when you know full well what's being discussed.



what body? like teachers, as a body? teachers have the same authority in our society as individuals as they do as a body so i'm not sure what you're getting at. and if someone sees a cop drunk and off duty, assuming they know he's a cop, yes, that does undermine his authority especially if he's expected to enforce laws against public drunkeness. now, he could back his weakened authority up with a legal mandate of the use of force but that only helps his professional authority not his social authority. public drunkeness and posing nude is considered social deviance. our society is not especially tolerant of social deviance in our authority figures. i'm not debating the merits of this fact, just acknowledging that it exists.


the police, the teachers, the government. it's not the individuals that have authority, it's the body that they are apart of. IF they cease to be apart of that body, they don't have authority anymore. The concept that individuals some how carry authority on their own is a pretty weird one, since it's completely granted on their job and not themselves. So if an offduty cop is drunk, I can then not listen to him when he isn't? And what social authority?
Have you forgotten about the cases brought by people who have been let go based on outside activities that had no bearing on job performance? I think you might want to talk to an employment attorney before you make claims like these.




they already are regulated. if you're malnourished or sleep deprived and it effects your job performance you get fired. norm enforced.


so the same would be true of any other behavior, why would you need to outlaw it for specific groups then?



you're discussing off time (or off duty as you said here) i'm saying it doesn't exist for social authority. i can hardly put my argument in the context of a myth and expect it to stand up.


so your argument doesn't stand up.



why would there have to be any greater surveillance other than the whiz quiz, questionaire and background checks that exist for other authority positions today?


not all the groups you listed go under that level of scrutiny. you'd have to give regular drug tests and you'd have to test anyone that's a parent. so how isn't it?




how about "unlikely"? you're the one that questioned considering it "as a possiblity".


right, because if you didn't think it was possible would you even consider it. but hey, who am I to nitpick?



things that society and/or employers already enforce, so i still don't see your point.

well no, because you're talking about activities outside of the job not their effect on the persons ability to do the job. like alcohol and "legal" marijuana use that don't actually effect on the job performance. It's only their abuse that causes a problem in that scenario, not their use.

[XvagueprophetX]

that you nitpick as a form of deflection when you know full well what's being discussed.
deflecting what? it was my first post on this thread.

the police, the teachers, the government. it's not the individuals that have authority, it's the body that they are apart of. IF they cease to be apart of that body, they don't have authority anymore. The concept that individuals some how carry authority on their own is a pretty weird one, since it's completely granted on their job and not themselves. So if an offduty cop is drunk, I can then not listen to him when he isn't? And what social authority?
Have you forgotten about the cases brought by people who have been let go based on outside activities that had no bearing on job performance? I think you might want to talk to an employment attorney before you make claims like these.
if a cop is publicly intoxicated (ie breaking the law) when he is off duty people may be less inclined to respect his authority. social authority is the authority granted by one's role in society rather than that granted by institutions. do you have any figures on how many of the cases you mention actually find for the employee? anybody can file suit for anything in our litigation happy world so it's irrelevant.

so the same would be true of any other behavior, why would you need to outlaw it for specific groups then?
i'm not suggesting outlawing it for a specific group. i'm saying legalize it for a majority.

so your argument doesn't stand up.
not in your mythical context, no.

not all the groups you listed go under that level of scrutiny. you'd have to give regular drug tests and you'd have to test anyone that's a parent. so how isn't it?
parents are the one exception as far as i know but the most important otherwise you'll have infants jacked up on contact highs because of moron parents (not that this doesn;t already happen on a limited scale). but most adults are subject to the occasional whiz quiz even in a minimum wage joe-job. this also lends itself to the paradox.

right, because if you didn't think it was possible would you even consider it. but hey, who am I to nitpick?
can you rephrase that first part? are you meaning if i thought it was impossible i wouldn't consider it?

well no, because you're talking about activities outside of the job not their effect on the persons ability to do the job. like alcohol and "legal" marijuana use that don't actually effect on the job performance. It's only their abuse that causes a problem in that scenario, not their use.
if you want me to be more specific you'll have to be more specific. what kind of activities are you suggesting? which jobs? define "legal marijuana use.

[drughate_vegan]

deflecting what? it was my first post on this thread.
but it was the second post of all on the thread - leaving you deflecting my original post here. it just seemed like you were picking on me about terms and such when you knew good-and-well what i meant instead of discussing the issue.


if a cop is publicly intoxicated (ie breaking the law) when he is off duty people may be less inclined to respect his authority. social authority is the authority granted by one's role in society rather than that granted by institutions.
right - people may see him as less authoritative for his hypocritical actions.. i agree. i also see it that people have the right and choice to do what they want - when they want - so long as it causes no negative interferance with another being. so, i see your point to why people who uphold the law should not do things illegal - but you said that legalizing marijuana was a good idea - assuming that ideology became reality, the enforcers of the law would not be breaking the law - that's speaking in circles and in hypocricy.


i'm not suggesting outlawing it for a specific group. i'm saying legalize it for a majority.
what's the difference?

[XvagueprophetX]

but it was the second post of all on the thread - leaving you deflecting my original post here. it just seemed like you were picking on me about terms and such when you knew good-and-well what i meant instead of discussing the issue.
it was the third post on the thread (sorry to nitpick). i pointed out a flaw in your argument but then still engaged the topic. or did you not read the second part of the post? i guess for now on i just won't insist on clarity from you.

right - people may see him as less authoritative for his hypocritical actions.. i agree. i also see it that people have the right and choice to do what they want - when they want - so long as it causes no negative interferance with another being. so, i see your point to why people who uphold the law should not do things illegal - but you said that legalizing marijuana was a good idea - assuming that ideology became reality, the enforcers of the law would not be breaking the law - that's speaking in circles and in hypocricy.
assuming that ideology became a reality given the caveats i talked about (and that you obviously didn't read) it would indeed be breaking the law.

what's the difference?
one imposes a new limited law and one limits existing law.

[xsecx]

deflecting what? it was my first post on this thread.

the point being discussed. by focusing on the words and not the meaning, which you do quite often, you purposely attempt to dismiss what's being said for how it's being said. which is bullshit.



if a cop is publicly intoxicated (ie breaking the law) when he is off duty people may be less inclined to respect his authority. social authority is the authority granted by one's role in society rather than that granted by institutions. do you have any figures on how many of the cases you mention actually find for the employee? anybody can file suit for anything in our litigation happy world so it's irrelevant.


Except that it isn't his authority, it's the body that he's apart of. The retired cop doesn't have any more authority than anyone else. You might percieve that they do, but they don't. Do you have any figures, since you're the one that brought it up in the first place that no one in our society cares? in your world it'd be fine to dismiss a gay preschool teacher because of "social deviance" Where did you come to your conclusion that no one cares?



i'm not suggesting outlawing it for a specific group. i'm saying legalize it for a majority.


uh. you want to outlaw it for parents. how would that be for a majority?



not in your mythical context, no.


how is this my mythical context at all? This is your weird inconsistent view, not mine.



parents are the one exception as far as i know but the most important otherwise you'll have infants jacked up on contact highs because of moron parents (not that this doesn;t already happen on a limited scale). but most adults are subject to the occasional whiz quiz even in a minimum wage joe-job. this also lends itself to the paradox.


Most adults? I've never had a job where I've been subject to drug testing. What are you basing this on? And how is this a paradox? It's a case of you having a wacky idea that is completely stupid, not a paradox. I also guess you'd retract your whole it wouldn't involve any more involvement in peoples lives since there is now, since you want to drug test and essentially decide who can and can't be a parent based on drug tests.



can you rephrase that first part? are you meaning if i thought it was impossible i wouldn't consider it?


yes.


if you want me to be more specific you'll have to be more specific. what kind of activities are you suggesting? which jobs? define "legal marijuana use.

assume the laws the same for alcohol as marijuana use, but then again, we're not talking about my view, we're talking about yours. You want to limit legality based on parental or job roles. You want to arbirtrarily say that smoking marijuana, while legal for the rest of the population, to somehow make someone unfit to perform their role. Not actually their actions in that job. So I'm saying, while you're doing that, what else are you going to start checking people for? What precendence do you have for this kind of legislation?

[XvagueprophetX]

the point being discussed. by focusing on the words and not the meaning, which you do quite often, you purposely attempt to dismiss what's being said for how it's being said. which is bullshit.
did i or did i not engage the meaning in the very same post where i pointed out the flaw in his argument?

Except that it isn't his authority, it's the body that he's apart of. The retired cop doesn't have any more authority than anyone else. You might percieve that they do, but they don't. Do you have any figures, since you're the one that brought it up in the first place that no one in our society cares? in your world it'd be fine to dismiss a gay preschool teacher because of "social deviance" Where did you come to your conclusion that no one cares?
a retired cop has plenty of authority. all things being equal, who is more likely to be elected to public office, average joe or retired cop? your habit of trying to turn the request for sourced information around on me is crap. so what you're saying is you can't prove your point. and now you're trying to paint me as a homophobe when you know full well what is actually being said. way to deflect.

uh. you want to outlaw it for parents. how would that be for a majority?
it's already outlawed for parents, just like everbody else. and are the majority of adults in this country parents?

how is this my mythical context at all? This is your weird inconsistent view, not mine.
well, obviously it's weird and inconsistent in your mythical context. i've explained how it's consistant and why that makes legalization highly unlikely without just crying about it being "illogical". what's the problem?

Most adults? I've never had a job where I've been subject to drug testing. What are you basing this on? And how is this a paradox? It's a case of you having a wacky idea that is completely stupid, not a paradox. I also guess you'd retract your whole it wouldn't involve any more involvement in peoples lives since there is now, since you want to drug test and essentially decide who can and can't be a parent based on drug tests.
well that surprises me. i haven't had a job that does not require urinalysis since i got out of the mall and the same is true of most folks i know which is what i'm "basing this on" as if you have to ask. you keep suggesting that i want to do these things as if you never read my first post. the paradox is that legalization can not be across the board and that limited enforcement would be too difficult to make it feasible and so we remain in the status quo. that's how i look at the situation to understand it rather than just shrugging it off as illogical. i'm sorry you think that's "completely stupid".

yes.
then you're wrong.

assume the laws the same for alcohol as marijuana use, but then again, we're not talking about my view, we're talking about yours. You want to limit legality based on parental or job roles. You want to arbirtrarily say that smoking marijuana, while legal for the rest of the population, to somehow make someone unfit to perform their role. Not actually their actions in that job. So I'm saying, while you're doing that, what else are you going to start checking people for? What precendence do you have for this kind of legislation?
again, you're not reading my first post. the only thing i'd like to see is legalization, but i understand why it hasn't happened and likely will not and why these reasons are not simply illogical. you're jumping on my case like i'm proposing some kind of platform for office. if it'll help keep you from "deflecting" what i said i'll repost it:

but i do support legalizing marijuana use by adults except for certain people (PARENTS, law enforcement, government, military, public education, child care, medical, airline etc. personnel). but how do we enforce that, especially for parents? it's bad governing to make a law that can't be enforced. even with the holes in our present drug enforcement policies the law can still be enforced. so it's a lot easier to stay with the status quo rather than tackle something like limited or targeted enforcement. there's an element of corporate profiteering here but the enforcement problem is the real issue preventing action towards legalization.

[xsecx]

did i or did i not engage the meaning in the very same post where i pointed out the flaw in his argument?


point being that bringing it up was irrelevant but you did it and continue to do so anyway.



a retired cop has plenty of authority. all things being equal, who is more likely to be elected to public office, average joe or retired cop? your habit of trying to turn the request for sourced information around on me is crap. so what you're saying is you can't prove your point. and now you're trying to paint me as a homophobe when you know full well what is actually being said. way to deflect.


so being able to be elected to public office is somehow a reflection of authority?

how is it crap, since it was your statement that no one cares and your original statement that sparked this? How am I turning anything around when I'm asking you to prove your own initial statement? My point is that the EEOC exists for a reason, unless you can tell me that it doesn't? I'm just wondering where and why you think that no one cares when people are terminated for supposed "moral" reasons but then think it's deflecting when there is a clear history of homosexual behavior being used in the exact same way, so how is that deflecting anything?



it's already outlawed for parents, just like everbody else. and are the majority of adults in this country parents?


yeah, except you're talking about changing the law, so what's in place now is irrelevant.
yes, http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-8.pdf



well, obviously it's weird and inconsistent in your mythical context. i've explained how it's consistant and why that makes legalization highly unlikely without just crying about it being "illogical". what's the problem?


you keep saying my mythical context, how is it my mythical context? your views are inconsistent within your own context. You can't claim to be against big government and then be in support of increased government roles in peoples lives. That's inconsistent and has nothing to do with any mythical context.



well that surprises me. i haven't had a job that does not require urinalysis since i got out of the mall and the same is true of most folks i know which is what i'm "basing this on" as if you have to ask. you keep suggesting that i want to do these things as if you never read my first post. the paradox is that legalization can not be across the board and that limited enforcement would be too difficult to make it feasible and so we remain in the status quo. that's how i look at the situation to understand it rather than just shrugging it off as illogical. i'm sorry you think that's "completely stupid".


Of course it suprises you, you clearly have an extremely narrow world view and must not have spent any time working in the non public professional sector or know or talk to anyone that does. You make statements that are ancedotal at best as if they are fact, i.e. people take drug tests and most people don't care if people are terminated for social deviance. Legalization can easily be done across the board, the same as it now with alcohol, but you put the stupid rules in and then try and say that it's a paradox, even though there are already things in place to deal with any issues with people abusing the substance the same as they do with alcohol. That's not a paradox, it's a sloppy thinking and inconsistent politics.


Companies Which Drug Test Employees
Business Category Testing of New Hires Testing of All Employees
Financial Services 35.8% 18.8%
Business & Professional Services 36.0% 18.4%
Other Services 60.3% 34.7%
Wholesale & Retail 63.0% 36.8%
Manufacturing 78.5% 42.2%

Source: American Management Association, A 2000 AMA Survey: Workplace Testing: Medical Testing: Summary of Key Findings (New York, NY: American Management Association, 2000), p. 1.



then you're wrong.


then you must really like wasting your time considering things you think are impossible to begin with.



again, you're not reading my first post. the only thing i'd like to see is legalization, but i understand why it hasn't happened and likely will not and why these reasons are not simply illogical. you're jumping on my case like i'm proposing some kind of platform for office. if it'll help keep you from "deflecting" what i said i'll repost it:

but i do support legalizing marijuana use by adults except for certain people (PARENTS, law enforcement, government, military, public education, child care, medical, airline etc. personnel). but how do we enforce that, especially for parents? it's bad governing to make a law that can't be enforced. even with the holes in our present drug enforcement policies the law can still be enforced. so it's a lot easier to stay with the status quo rather than tackle something like limited or targeted enforcement. there's an element of corporate profiteering here but the enforcement problem is the real issue preventing action towards legalization.

see, here's the problem you say you're for legalization and then go on to talk about ways to still criminalize it, which not really legalization. How am I deflecting when I'm taking what you're actually saying and because it's full of holes, incorrect and sloppy as hell? You say except certain people and then go on to list the vast majority of adults. Your statement meaning that you want to legalize it, but still criminalize it for the people on your list. Now how am I deflecting anything by pointing out the flaws in your political beliefs and that statement? The bottom line is that you're inconsistent within your own beliefs.

[XvagueprophetX]

point being that bringing it up was irrelevant but you did it and continue to do so anyway.
so your answer is yes, i did engage the meaning in the very same post where i pointed out the flaw in his argument. you're the one dwelling on it.

so being able to be elected to public office is somehow a reflection of authority?
being "able"? no. being suited by social standards, yes.

how is it crap, since it was your statement that no one cares and your original statement that sparked this? How am I turning anything around when I'm asking you to prove your own initial statement? My point is that the EEOC exists for a reason, unless you can tell me that it doesn't? I'm just wondering where and why you think that no one cares when people are terminated for supposed "moral" reasons but then think it's deflecting when there is a clear history of homosexual behavior being used in the exact same way, so how is that deflecting anything?
i didn't say "no one cares" i said "no one would think twice" because it's expected and anticipated. it's not news because in our society it's judged to be a reasonable reaction. so you're deflecting a point i didn't even make.

yeah, except you're talking about changing the law, so what's in place now is irrelevant.
i'm talking about what would have to happen for legalization to exist based on a logical understanding of what's in place now. so no.

yes, http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-8.pdf
adding up all the figures of adults with children under 18 i came up with 34.9%. what was your figure and where did you get it from in that report?

you keep saying my mythical context, how is it my mythical context? your views are inconsistent within your own context. You can't claim to be against big government and then be in support of increased government roles in peoples lives. That's inconsistent and has nothing to do with any mythical context.
i'm not in support of "increased government roles". i'm in support of legalizing marijuana but understand that it's not likely to happen because of the need for "increased government roles" given the caveats i use to understand why it isn't legal already. what's inconsistant about that?

Of course it suprises you, you clearly have an extremely narrow world view and must not have spent any time working in the non public professional sector or know or talk to anyone that does.
yeah, you pegged me. i have a narrow world view. that's why i speak 3 languages and have a degree in middle eastern studies. and i'd be happy to provide you with my employment history if it would keep you from deflecting the subject by attacking my legitimacy for discussing it. but i'm afraid i'm not at liberty to reveal the employment history of everyone i "know or talk to" (which, by the way, includes you since we're talking here).

You make statements that are ancedotal at best as if they are fact, i.e. people take drug tests and most people don't care if people are terminated for social deviance. Legalization can easily be done across the board, the same as it now with alcohol, but you put the stupid rules in and then try and say that it's a paradox, even though there are already things in place to deal with any issues with people abusing the substance the same as they do with alcohol. That's not a paradox, it's a sloppy thinking and inconsistent politics.
but now you're finally getting around to the subject. how can legalization be easily done across the board and why hasn't it happened yet? try not to be sloppy or inconsistent or i might end up nitpicking and deflecting again.

Companies Which Drug Test Employees
Business Category Testing of New Hires Testing of All Employees
Financial Services 35.8% 18.8%
Business & Professional Services 36.0% 18.4%
Other Services 60.3% 34.7%
Wholesale & Retail 63.0% 36.8%
Manufacturing 78.5% 42.2%

Source: American Management Association, A 2000 AMA Survey: Workplace Testing: Medical Testing: Summary of Key Findings (New York, NY: American Management Association, 2000), p. 1.
i'm not sure what this says since your cut and paste seems to have messed up the allignment but if you're trying to say i must be out of touch because i've always had drug tests in every job since i got out of retail then i guess you're right.

then you must really like wasting your time considering things you think are impossible to begin with.
maybe it's another of my habits, but i find it incredibly ironic that you think someone who wastes their time considering impossibilities has a narrow world view.

see, here's the problem you say you're for legalization and then go on to talk about ways to still criminalize it, which not really legalization.
yeah, you just outlined the paradox you keep criticizing me for.

How am I deflecting when I'm taking what you're actually saying and because it's full of holes, incorrect and sloppy as hell? You say except certain people and then go on to list the vast majority of adults. Your statement meaning that you want to legalize it, but still criminalize it for the people on your list. Now how am I deflecting anything by pointing out the flaws in your political beliefs and that statement? The bottom line is that you're inconsistent within your own beliefs.
i'm sorry you think it's incorrect. just what is the correct way to legalize marijuana? i didn't realize you were so passionate about the subject. maybe i'm just distracted by all my nitpicking and deflecting. go through it for me one more time, what is flawed and inconsistant about this statement:

but i do support legalizing marijuana use by adults except for certain people (PARENTS, law enforcement, government, military, public education, child care, medical, airline etc. personnel). but how do we enforce that, especially for parents? it's bad governing to make a law that can't be enforced. even with the holes in our present drug enforcement policies the law can still be enforced. so it's a lot easier to stay with the status quo rather than tackle something like limited or targeted enforcement. there's an element of corporate profiteering here but the enforcement problem is the real issue preventing action towards legalization.

i'll break it down barney style...

1) i support legalizing marijuana
2) however only if it remains illegal for some
3) but this is not enforcable without big government
4) and therefore bad government
5) so it's easier for the government to just keep it illegal for everybody
6) and we're back to square 1 ie a paradox

[xsecx]

so your answer is yes, i did engage the meaning in the very same post where i pointed out the flaw in his argument. you're the one dwelling on it.


how could you point out the flaw when you pretend to not to have understood what he was saying?



being "able"? no. being suited by social standards, yes.


which is why so many elected officials have never been involved in just about any form of public service prior.



i didn't say "no one cares" i said "no one would think twice" because it's expected and anticipated. it's not news because in our society it's judged to be a reasonable reaction. so you're deflecting a point i didn't even make.


so how exactly is it different between a teacher posing nude and being homosexual? How are no one cares and "no one would think twice" different? If it's judged to be a reasonable reaction, I'm asking you to prove what you mean by that and where you came to draw that conclusion.



i'm talking about what would have to happen for legalization to exist based on a logical understanding of what's in place now. so no.


except that what you're talking about isn't in place now to begin with on anything?



adding up all the figures of adults with children under 18 i came up with 34.9%. what was your figure and where did you get it from in that report?


so it's people cease being parents when the kids aren't under 18? 273.6 million people live in households meaning at least 1 family member or more. Are you going to try and argue that most married couples aren't parents and that the single parent stats don't exist? And if you are, what is your supporting data for that?



i'm not in support of "increased government roles". i'm in support of legalizing marijuana but understand that it's not likely to happen because of the need for "increased government roles" given the caveats i use to understand why it isn't legal already. what's inconsistant about that?

yes you are and no you're not. you're putting the caveats yourself and your problems with your caveats isn't because of governments control is wrong, but because of the feasiblity of it.



yeah, you pegged me. i have a narrow world view. that's why i speak 3 languages and have a degree in middle eastern studies. and i'd be happy to provide you with my employment history if it would keep you from deflecting the subject by attacking my legitimacy for discussing it. but i'm afraid i'm not at liberty to reveal the employment history of everyone i "know or talk to" (which, by the way, includes you since we're talking here).


So is that why you're out of touch and are completely wrong about this? Since you try and claim to have your finger on the pulse of the working world but yet can't seem to understand that your ancedotal evidence is super offbase. I wasn't aware that speaking languages and having a degree in middle eastern studies some how equates to you not having a limited world view when you've repeatedly demonstrated that you do.



but now you're finally getting around to the subject. how can legalization be easily done across the board and why hasn't it happened yet? try not to be sloppy or inconsistent or i might end up nitpicking and deflecting again.


Why would it need to be treated any differently than alcohol? The issues with legalization are political and not logistics. I'm sure if you make up some more ancedotal evidence you can come up with some makebelieve logistical problems and talk more about my mythical context.



i'm not sure what this says since your cut and paste seems to have messed up the allignment but if you're trying to say i must be out of touch because i've always had drug tests in every job since i got out of retail then i guess you're right.


i guess seeing breaks and aligning things is hard for someone with a middle eastern studies degree and speaking 3 languages. ps, thanks for deflecting again.



maybe it's another of my habits, but i find it incredibly ironic that you think someone who wastes their time considering impossibilities has a narrow world view.


why, because the 2 aren't related?



yeah, you just outlined the paradox you keep criticizing me for.


do you even know what a paradox is? you're not actually for legalization.



i'm sorry you think it's incorrect. just what is the correct way to legalize marijuana? i didn't realize you were so passionate about the subject. maybe i'm just distracted by all my nitpicking and deflecting. go through it for me one more time, what is flawed and inconsistant about this statement:

but i do support legalizing marijuana use by adults except for certain people (PARENTS, law enforcement, government, military, public education, child care, medical, airline etc. personnel). but how do we enforce that, especially for parents? it's bad governing to make a law that can't be enforced. even with the holes in our present drug enforcement policies the law can still be enforced. so it's a lot easier to stay with the status quo rather than tackle something like limited or targeted enforcement. there's an element of corporate profiteering here but the enforcement problem is the real issue preventing action towards legalization.


i guess you just like repeating yourself but not actually reading what you write. You are "for legalization" but you want to put in a ton of restrictions that aren't in place today for alcohol, fail to explain WHY you would do so and also why itwould be necessary. You create these caveats, not someone else, yet if they could be implemented, you would be happy for them to. You claim to be for small government, but would prefer governmental supervision over "authority" figures to make sure they're not smoking weed. That is inconsisent and flawed.




i'll break it down barney style...

1) i support legalizing marijuana

no you're not


2) however only if it remains illegal for some

the vast majority. which isn't really legalizing.


3) but this is not enforcable without big government

which you're ok with because you created number 2.


4) and therefore bad government

then why would you think it was a good idea and need number 2 then?


5) so it's easier for the government to just keep it illegal for everybody

no real explanation as to why it should be, and alcohol kind of fucks this one up for you.


6) and we're back to square 1 ie a paradox
nope, sloppy and inconsistent.

[XvagueprophetX]

how could you point out the flaw when you pretend to not to have understood what he was saying?
now you're just making shit up.

which is why so many elected officials have never been involved in just about any form of public service prior.
how many?

so how exactly is it different between a teacher posing nude and being homosexual? How are no one cares and "no one would think twice" different? If it's judged to be a reasonable reaction, I'm asking you to prove what you mean by that and where you came to draw that conclusion.
if you can't see the differences for youself then they can't be explained to you. are you saying it is not judged to be a reasonable reaction in our society?

except that what you're talking about isn't in place now to begin with on anything?
what are you talking about? marijuana is illegal now.

so it's people cease being parents when the kids aren't under 18? 273.6 million people live in households meaning at least 1 family member or more. Are you going to try and argue that most married couples aren't parents and that the single parent stats don't exist? And if you are, what is your supporting data for that?
when the kids are over 18 they're adults. i went by the statistics you provided and adding all the parents, married and single came up with 34.9%. since you didn't answer my question i assume you're acknowledging you're wrong, didn't actually read the source you cited and/or can't perform simple addition.

yes you are and no you're not. you're putting the caveats yourself and your problems with your caveats isn't because of governments control is wrong, but because of the feasiblity of it.
this makes no sense.

So is that why you're out of touch and are completely wrong about this? Since you try and claim to have your finger on the pulse of the working world but yet can't seem to understand that your ancedotal evidence is super offbase. I wasn't aware that speaking languages and having a degree in middle eastern studies some how equates to you not having a limited world view when you've repeatedly demonstrated that you do.
here you go making shit up again. and maybe you just have an unconventional definition of "limited world view" so you'll have to expand on that for me.

Why would it need to be treated any differently than alcohol? The issues with legalization are political and not logistics. I'm sure if you make up some more ancedotal evidence you can come up with some makebelieve logistical problems and talk more about my mythical context.
so it's exactly the same? how refreshing. go ahead and outline your plan for implementing legalization along the lines of alcohol.

i guess seeing breaks and aligning things is hard for someone with a middle eastern studies degree and speaking 3 languages. ps, thanks for deflecting again.
hey, anything i can do to help when you don't present your facts in an orderly manner that can be interpreted with any expectation of accuracy. you still didn't explain those figures... or can you?

why, because the 2 aren't related?
are you askingme or telling me?

do you even know what a paradox is? you're not actually for legalization.
yes, should i post the definition for you? so i'm against legalization?

i guess you just like repeating yourself but not actually reading what you write. You are "for legalization" but you want to put in a ton of restrictions that aren't in place today for alcohol, fail to explain WHY you would do so and also why itwould be necessary. You create these caveats, not someone else, yet if they could be implemented, you would be happy for them to. You claim to be for small government, but would prefer governmental supervision over "authority" figures to make sure they're not smoking weed. That is inconsisent and flawed.
since you keep ignoring my explanations i won't torture you with them any more.

no you're not

the vast majority. which isn't really legalizing.

which you're ok with because you created number 2.

then why would you think it was a good idea and need number 2 then?

no real explanation as to why it should be, and alcohol kind of fucks this one up for you.

nope, sloppy and inconsistent.
well i made it as simple as i could and it still apparently boggles your mind. there's nothing else i can say...

[drughate_vegan]

so it's exactly the same? how refreshing. go ahead and outline your plan for implementing legalization along the lines of alcohol.
why would legalizing marijuana not be just as similar as the legalization of alcohol or cigs?
i.e. you must be of age to legally consume.

well i made it as simple as i could and it still apparently boggles your mind. there's nothing else i can say...
i think it seems clear that you say you want it legalized and yet you want all of these nit-picking agendas to go along with it - like no parents or cops or the president can smoke it.. that is not legalizing marijuana -- it's specifically prescribing to certain individuals that it's okay - and to other's it isn't - based on -- i have no idea what you are basing that on. not age, that's for sure - so what?

[xsecx]

now you're just making shit up.

well, no that's your deal.



how many?


clinton, lbj, fdr, hoover,coolidge,harding,wilson, for a start and that's just presidents, not to mention every small town council and mayor in the country.



if you can't see the differences for youself then they can't be explained to you. are you saying it is not judged to be a reasonable reaction in our society?


so you can't explain the differences, nor did you make any attempt to. I'm asking you to back up your statement as to why you think it's a reasonable reaction in our society? What lead you to this belief?



what are you talking about? marijuana is illegal now.


your weird caveat system. It isn't in place with any legal or quasi legal drug now.



when the kids are over 18 they're adults. i went by the statistics you provided and adding all the parents, married and single came up with 34.9%. since you didn't answer my question i assume you're acknowledging you're wrong, didn't actually read the source you cited and/or can't perform simple addition.


Oh wait, so people cease being parents when their children are over 18? You never actually said anything other than parents, and if you include parents, you know that thing you are and will continue to be well after your kids are over 18, that makes up far more than half of the country, hence the majority. now any time you want to admit you're wrong, please, go ahead. I'd also imagine you'd want to restate and include grandparents and a few more segments of society as well. Now, if you're care to explain how you think it won't be a majority of people included in your little scheme, then please go ahead. A full break down with estimations of the populations in each effected group would be great, thanks.



this makes no sense.


of course not, let me spell it out nice and simple for you. Who created the weird criteria for who can and couldn't use marijuana under your "paradox"?



here you go making shit up again. and maybe you just have an unconventional definition of "limited world view" so you'll have to expand on that for me.


considering you think everyone has had the same experiences as you, that pretty much fits the standard definition of limited world view.



so it's exactly the same? how refreshing. go ahead and outline your plan for implementing legalization along the lines of alcohol.


I just did? Now explain to me why it couldn't/shouldn't be handled in the a way similar to alcohol?



hey, anything i can do to help when you don't present your facts in an orderly manner that can be interpreted with any expectation of accuracy. you still didn't explain those figures... or can you?


I guess lining up things in columns is just too much for you? Also what part didn't you get, since those figures are pretty self explanatory?



are you askingme or telling me?


telling.



yes, should i post the definition for you? so i'm against legalization?


you're not for legalization, your for making it so a very small subset of the population can do something while restricting it for the majority.



since you keep ignoring my explanations i won't torture you with them any more.

well i made it as simple as i could and it still apparently boggles your mind. there's nothing else i can say...

your explanations don't make any sense. you say you're against big government and yet you create a scenario FOR big government and then call it a paradox. Your shit is sloppy and not well thought out.

[Twelvelookslikeu]

Who here has actually smoked pot before?

[xsecx]

Who here has actually smoked pot before?

quite a few, why?

[Twelvelookslikeu]

Just wondering.

[drughate_vegan]

Just wondering.
well.. yeah.. some people here have. so, that being said.. what did you want to say?

[Twelvelookslikeu]

Like I said before I was just wondering. Can't I wonder?

[drughate_vegan]

Like I said before I was just wondering. Can't I wonder?
cool.. yeah.

[xsecx]

Like I said before I was just wondering. Can't I wonder?

it's not so much the wondering and other people wondering why you're wondering.

[drughate_vegan]

i wonder. i wah wah wah wah wonder.. why.

[SgtD]

i wonder. i wah wah wah wah wonder.. why.
hahaha we used to cover that song and play it at practice! good times, sweet memories...

[drughate_vegan]

hahaha we used to cover that song and play it at practice! good times, sweet memories...
damn good tune.

[kelly]

You know, I thought about it, and I think maybe they should make marijuana legal as an experiment. Everyone keeps saying that legalizing drugs will make crime go down, and make drug use go down. I'm not too sure about this, but weed seems like a fairly harmless drug to test that out with.

[drughate_vegan]

You know, I thought about it, and I think maybe they should make marijuana legal as an experiment. Everyone keeps saying that legalizing drugs will make crime go down...
well, yeah.. crime would go way down - posession is one of the top rating crimes of all.. and that's exactly why it won't be legalized. it's so fucking rediculous! the states make too much money on the war on drugs - and it keep racism alive and "fair" in their eyes, too. for crimes sake, i do wish it were legalized.

..and make drug use go down. I'm not too sure about this, but weed seems like a fairly harmless drug to test that out with.
i don't think it would make drug use go down at all. look at how many people (of age and under age) drink and smoke - people are gonna use drugs if they want to - whether they arelegal or not.. and if anything, i think it would actually increase the use of marijuana use. easier to get and all, being legal. plus, kids might actually see it as morally okay to use since the law says so.. you know how people are.