addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupshelp-with-circleimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1ShapeoutlookpersonJoin Group on CardStartprice-ribbonShapeShapeShapeShapeImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruserwarningyahoo

FreeThinkers of Fort Worth Message Board Tea Time of the Soul › Pot: What do Freethinkers think about legalization?

Pot: What do Freethinkers think about legalization?

A former member
Post #: 6
I bow to your superior knowledge.

And I remain convinced of the merits of legalization. ;)
A former member
Post #: 17
Ha! I don't know that I'd call it superior knowledge, just experience. The MJ question is deeper than what both sides are admitting to, that's why I asked the question. The pro-pot people keep presenting "evidence" that is being "studied" by groups who are working to provide "information" to justify legalaization. But the "studies" aren't balaced. Similar to the Sugar industry releasing "studies" that prove that sugar doesn't cause hyperactivity in children. Any mom can tell you it does, and the bias of Sugar industry's "study" is blaringly evident in their in the study was not double-blind, not controlled, not structured. That's what the pot studies are doing, they are picking out anomalies and presenting them as absolutes (like FOX news on Democrats). IE, the idea that pot cures cancer. If that were true, no pot smoker would get the cancers pot is said to cure, and you would think there would be clusters in the population (around certain communes or in Amsterdam, for instance) that showed definable numbers to prove it. ".0001% of cancer patients who smoke pot see remission" isn't scientific, or repeatable.

Anyway, it's was a shot to get a conversation going. I'll keep trying, maybe on a lighter subject.

user 21916351
Fort Worth, TX
Post #: 3
To my way of looking at things, the government shouldn't be allowing us to do things, it should be preventing people (and itself) from doing things to us. So, by all means, fire me if my substances make me unfit to work, and put me to death if I (altered or not) do something terribly heinous.

You seem to be saying that things should be (or at least should remain) illegal unless someone can prove a benefit.

Let's imagine there are no benefits to using cannabis. What's the justification for making it illegal that would not apply at least as strongly to McDonald's, sky diving, Colt .45 (the malt liquor or the gun), staying up all night playing video games, Camel (with or without filters), or American Idol?

You express a strong opinion, which I can acknowledge and try not to antagonize unnecessarily. I certainly agree there is shoddy evidence on most sides of most arguments, but where possible, I try to give the benefit of the doubt to freedom.

I look forward to lighter topics. smile

A former member
Post #: 18
Well. With the deregulation of the banking system we got preditory lending, the housing bubble, the near collapse of the world's economy and a nasty unemployment rate. So before deregulation, government was doing it's job to keep banks from killing us all through greed but when the banks were allowed the freedom to maximize their profits at everyone's expense, the world went to hell.

Now, I'm not going to take a slippery-slope approach to pot legalization and say everyone will start using heroine, but we don't know what would happen. I do know that there would be a significant change in the behavior of Americans as people who otherwise wouldn't partake suddenly do and those who already partake, do so more frequently due to availability. You can't assume that people will be responsible for or about their consumption. People are greedy, especially for things tht give them pleasure.

When pot was originally illegalized it was an act against massive social change, a change that has had some benefits to the US, I guess. I can't say it's helped us raise respectful children, but that's an offshoot of Hippies not spanking their kids. (Not say I'm in favor of beating kids, but they do need boundries). Pot has destroyed many societal limits that were important up to the 50s, but it has also gone too far in some ways.

But then again, I'm going to guess that there would be no free-thinkers if we weren't all "experienced" to varying degrees. ;)

I can't figure out why it should be legalized now when it's already so available to those who want it.

Adam M.
user 13510526
Fort Worth, TX
Post #: 8
Carleigh, you're either not hearing us, or ignoring us. I'd really like to respect your position but it hasn't made a lick of sense. You seem as worried about cannabis as Christians are about free-thinking. Meanwhile, you don't seem to have a problem with alcohol at all. If you think cannabis should be illegal, why don't you think alcohol (in all it's consumable forms) should illegal? Furthermore, if you can't think of a reason to legalize it, are you saying that I deserve to go to jail for buying, transporting to my home, and smoking cannabis? I have to take that personal because I haven't done anything harmful to anyone.
A former member
Post #: 19
I hear you just fine, I don't have to agree with you to be hearing you. Comparing alcahol to cannibis is the only argument that those who want to legalize it have to make, but the two chemicals react differently in the body, make people behave differently and therefore really can't be compared. I'm not for or against alcahol, and the debate isn't about alcahol, it's about removing legal restrictions for the use of a Level I substance.

And you may not think you're doing any harm to anyone, but there are hundreds of innocent people being killed in Central and South America to bring you your weed. That's not imaginary. Legalizing won't stop the drug cartels from fighting over their desire to bring mj to you. It's a false assumption that legalizing it will give people in the US jobs and drop American demand for the foreign grown plants. There will always be a demand for the "good stuff" grown in Central and South well as Asia. Is your personal pleasure worth knowing that?

I'm not afraid of the legalization of cannibis, I'm afraid that those who want to legalize it aren't paying real attention to the negatives of that process. No one is addressing, for instance, how the legalizing debate would tie up government and keep it from doing important things, like making sure the world doesn't flail into economic depression and an armagheddon-like free-for-all. There are more important things going on in the world and in this country than pot legalization, and if you can get pot now as things are, why push for something with such an unpredictable outcome?

The position comes up that "I'm not harming anyone by getting high." Answer me this question (not aimed at anyone in particular):

What benefit are you giving to/creating for the world, by getting high? How are you helping mankind by puffing a blunt? It's the rare exception that pot gives infamous inpiration to artists who have the personal drive to see their visions through to a successful career. What does getting high do for anyone but the person who is high?
A former member
Post #: 7
I'll just reiterate the point that has been made already by others: Legalization should not be (and historically has not been) about making the world a better place. Our personal freedoms are just that: personal. I am not obligated by law to help mankind. If I choose to do so, that too is a personal freedom.

It is sad that people are suffering in other parts of the world. It is deplorable that people are violent toward one another. That has nothing to do with the legalization issue. Legalization may amplify that suffering or it may ameliorate it. The current state of the world cannot logically enter into the argument, because no one knows what will happen if the deck is stacked differently.

What I see in this entire debate is that the argument against legalization is entirely based on fear of what might happen, and no one can see into the future. Any predictions about "what will happen if..." are at their core speculation. The argument for legalization assumes some things about the future as well, but the assumptions seem to be based more on level-headed hopefulness than on fear. Predictions are predictions, but for my part, I'm more apt to put stock in a vision of the future that isn't steeped in fear.
A former member
Post #: 20
So those who want to see it legalized are being purely selfish?
user 21916351
Fort Worth, TX
Post #: 4
Is that so wrong? I thought the beauty of capitalism was that everyone being selfish ends up with the invisible hand making everyone as happy as possible (or something like that). Let's let market forces make the decision, not the arbitrary powers of the DEA to determine what should be a Schedule I Controlled Substance.

The argument to keep it illegal seems to hinge on deaths that are happening anyway, your assumption that your co-workers will toke up and leave you with more work, and the inability of your legislators to multitask. Not very much to balance against my right to selfishness.
A former member
Post #: 21
The market forces seem to be happy to ignore the issue. Illegal drug trafficking can be seen as an income source that doesn't interfere with markets, domestic, foreign or international and that's ok with them. In other words, market forces are a moot point. The singular market of marijuana supply and demand, which I contend, because it is a microeconomy, doesn't have enough political influence to make the attempt to legalize it worth the expense of putting the resolution through congress, is best left alone. Economically, illegalization has not stopped the cycle of supply and demand, even in the years when pot is reportedly "scarce" and it becomes cheaper to use other drugs. (LSD ie, has been a common alternative as people can function under its influence as well as they can under the influence of mj, as long as the trip is a happy one.)

The assumption that my co-workers will toke up and leave me with more work isn't an assumption. It's happened too many times, especially in college. In my view, at this point with pot not being legal, smokers have easy access and are forced to smoke privately which is fine with me. I don't have to smell it and I don't have to deal with the results of stoned associates.
Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy