Please define "human spirit." Are you assuming there's more to human beings than chemical reactions?
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Can we talk about marijuana?
- Thread starter Devils Advocate
- Start date
Please define "human spirit." Are you assuming there's more to human beings than chemical reactions?
But that cant be the potheads... theyre all lazy and unmotivated. Not to mention paranoid. B&E and Robbery require way to much work and planning to pull off successfully...
Since the beginning of 2011 there has probably been at least one thread debating marijuana usage per week. Every other just to be sure. WHy could he not have read all of those without the need to insert his own opinion? Hell, most of those threads are still open, he could have picked up on the conversations from there...
Honestly, I don't know if you're here to actually try to participate and help with discussion or just simply stir the pot because people aren't saying what you want them to say
that is the same old tired tactic used by marijuana users, but it is actually hurting them more than it is helping them..
I think part of the problem is that many on here are dealing with hypothetical, while a few like me are dealing with real problems that have came about because of limited decriminalization, for medicinal purposes...
I will try to throw out a couple pointers, from an objective standpoint. If someone does not agree with something, that is your own prerogative, but do not categorically dismiss what I say about the decriminalization issue.
the single most prominent problem with legalization is the image of marijuana users. It is a commonly accepted statistic that 33% of Americans either use marijuana or have in the past. Now let's not try to argue that number because this is the number that NORMAL uses for it's own statistics. .. What should mean to smokers is that they are the minority. If 33% of the population smoke, that means 66% of the voting population does not smoke. The minority must cater to the majority if they wish to get what they want. Just denying dangers that non smokers feel are relevant is an example of this. If non smokers feel there is a danger and it is a concern. it behooves smokers to address this in a mature and scientific fashion. Just saying "that is ridiculous...Pot is harmless" does not get you the votes necessary to decriminalize marijuana. It just stops productive discussion and compromise. Also smokers have to realize that they cannot insult non smokers into voting in their favor. Calling a non smoker an idiot insures that you have you will have opposition when they step into a voting booth.
The best thing smokers could do would be to embrace the dangers, and work towards treatment options. Make it like alcohol and cigarettes instead of a stigma.
Stop trying to use the scare tactic of mexican cartel violence. That is the worst argument you could make. In the 15 years since CA legalized marijuana for medicinal use, cartel violence has increased exponentially. There is a ready supply of marijuana in CA, so the cartels compete more for a smaller market, and focus more on weapons and harder drugs. This argument may sound good when you are not really informed about the situation, but it backfires if you talk to someone who is. More marijuana has meant more violence and more crime. Avoid that topic like it will make your willie fall off
Stop trying to stereotype smokers. if you try to say that smokers do not beat their wives, you have set a precedent for stereotyping. Once that is set, it can be used against you. If you say a stoned person acts in a given way, you imply that all stoned people act in the same fashion. It only takes one criminal to reset that stereotype. Right now the image of the typical pot grower in Northern CA is a tatooed nitwit on welfare. Voters are not going to cast votes to further enable this behavior. The image has to change, and only smokers can do that. Telling the voting majority that what they see is really not how things are, will not change their minds. Smokers have to show non smokers that they can clean up this image, and that smokers are responsible enough to police their own, and be productive. ...By this I do not mean that you should point out that you know someone or multiple someones who are productive. By saying that, you admit that they are the minority, by the fact that you feel compelled to single them out. The image MUST CHANGE all the way across the board
also the non smokers will not vote in favor of that which does not benefit them. Do not hide behind the delusion that they will legalize it, and you will turn your spare room into a grow room, and you will be stoned as much as you want. No one wants a drunk in their neighborhood, and we do not want a stoner either. Realize that non smokers will have a standard they feel is acceptable for use. If you want that to change, you will have to compromise. No one wants to smell a pot farm next door. Understand that congested areas are not best for cultivation. Realize that in order for legalization there will have to be regulation and taxation. Step in and help with that. Come to the table with ideas for treatment plans. It will be abused, so make provisions for that
Lastly...realize that the non smokers DO NOT need you to impose their will. You are NOT in a position to make demands or to throw out insults. You are asking for a privilege act accordingly. When you lose one, act responsible. Do not be like the kid who gets a candy bar taken away for throwing a tamper tantrum, then thinks throwing more of a temper tantrum will help
33% of the population use or have used marijuana, but 50% support legalizing it. Support for the legalization of this drug has been growing steadily for a while now.
But that did not get it legalized in CA, did it?
California's 60+% opposition kept it illegal. Personally I think that those claiming 50% support looked like they had egg on their faces a couple years ago
I believe that NORMAL originally reported that 58% of the population of the state of CA voted in opposition to legalizing. The problem with that statistic was that it was done prior to tabulation of the absentee ballots, and without consideration of margin of error. because those are often older, and more conservative voters, that number was really closer to 63 or 64% opposition (with a given margin of error of course...let's say 2 or 3%..so average to 60% opposition)
also support is falling fast in CA, because of the problems we have had
I cant argue that drug abuse can destroy lives. Ive seen it happen myself, though Ive not ever seen marijuana abuse be that drug. Yes, some of those people did smoke it, but it was a different drug that brought them down and ruined them. Alcohol, in most cases. Other, harder drugs in others.
What I find funny is that Ive tried all of those same drugs in my days. Some of which I like the affects of, and others in which I did not. The ones I didnt like I dropped, and the ones I like Ive used in moderation at various times over the last 10 years. Am I lucky that I dont have an addictive personality? Possibly, but I think it might have more to do with me having the right state of mind and knowing that drug abuse, as a crutch, will only lead me to bad things. Ive seen a good friend serve prison time because of his addiction to opiates. Ive seen people I care about removed from their stable living condition because of an amphetimine addiction. Ive not seen or heard of anyone put into similar situations because of weed (not to say that it hasnt happened to anyone, though).
What reasons do I have for using any of the substances I do? Whatever reasons I could give, none of them amount to much more than "because I want to" and because I can. Ive very much enjoyed my experiences on them and the different perspectives they give me. Sometimes thinking differently can lead to some viable conclusions and even innerreflection. Im not about to avoid them because some others cant handle them.
So why is my situation so much different than theirs? Am I just one toke away from a downward spiral? If the last 10 years of my life have led me to my current position than I am of the opinion that me and pot will be just fine. For the rest of you, be safe.
Definitely. 50% isn't a majority. I don't think anything becomes a majority until around 65% (but I may be wrong). But either way, there has consistently been a trend in the Gallop Poll which shows that more and more people over the years have begun to favor legalizing the drug. And this isn't just in California.
And yes, support is dwindling in California, but I think any reasonable person would realize that your issues have to deal with how they handled "legalizing" it. They just need to make it legal and not play around with it just being a medicinal drug that you need a prescription for.
Surely people who smell like pot and have bloodshot eyes have only been smoking weed all day and have not been abusing m/any other drugs that also lead to bloodshot eyes and other behaviors...
Are you drunk after drinking just a pint? Probably not, though I believe its possible to exhibit signs of impairment depending on ones level of tolerance for alcohol.
I am of the opinion that it works the same with pot.
I dont believe its possible to have a beer or two and be completely sober. Though one may have a higher tolerance and not exhibit signs of impairment they would not be considered sober. Give that person a breathalyzer and they are sure to have a BAC.
You know, its really not necessary for that woman to maintain the ingrown toenail to keep her "prescription". Getting a medical mrijuana card is as simple as going to a "doctor" and stating one suffers from anxiety. And $40.
I cannot explain her reasoning...but she is proud of the fact that she got a prescription for her ingrown toenail.
I have herd her bragging myself
It's about time Matticus rolled up in this joint (pun intended) and went on a posting frenzy aborgman/Brad Johnson style. It was weird how long it went without a peep. You must have been busy working. 
-Mike
-Mike
I dont believe that is true, though I wont claim it as fact. I think there are a proportionate amount of studies funded by lobbyists who wish to maintain marijuana's status quo as an illegal class one intoxicant.
