I'm 100% FOR the legalization of marijuana, but one argument used here by many is very very lame

[Clintonista2]

The "it's safer than alcohol/tobacco!" is, in my humble opinion, a terrible argument. This is because the principle of the argument ought to be that the government has no right regulating what adults do with their bodies. To draw a parallel, saying that pot should be legal because its safer than alcohol/tobacco, is kind of like arguing that abortion should be legal only because its safer than using a coat hanger. Pot, and abortion, should be legal not because it is safer than the alternative, but because autonomy over one's body is a basic human right.

[leftstreet]

1. Yep, it's a Human Rights issue

:thumbsup:

[Captain Hilts]

2. I'd rather my pilot had one cocktail than one mj cigarette. They're not the same. nt

[Taverner]

4. I'd rather my pilot had one mj cigarette than one drink

The MJ cigarette, while dangerous in the sense that it opens the mind to be distracted easily

But your reaction time isn't slowed - like it is with the cocktail

[crikkett]

13. Your reaction may not be slowed physically but it would be more difficult to remember

what that blinking light is for.

[Taverner]

18. I've never forgot what the blinking lights do in any situation - and I smoke

[crikkett]

39. Good for you. I still won't fly with you if you're high. n/t

[Taverner]

40. Oh I don't even drive when its 4:20

Although the pantry gets raided a lot

[roguevalley]

28. I want my pilot to have neither. Both are against regs.

[rudy23]

5. Apples to oranges comparison. I'd rather my pilot have one poppy seed than one cocktail.

You're comparing much different amounts of each thing.

[Dora]

6. I'd rather my pilot had none of the above. The difference is irrelevant in your example.

Pilots shouldn't be flying while using perception-altering drugs - period - including alcohol.

[sandnsea]

7. I'd rather mine have neither

But that's just me I guess.

Regardless, nobody should go to jail for possessing alcohol or possessing pot.

[Posteritatis]

10. Excellent straw man (nt)

[endarkenment]

12. Uh yeah, one impairs reaction time and dulls cognitive functions

the other one doesn't, but might make you eat more and worry too much.

[devilgrrl]

17. I'd rather have it the other way around.

But that's just me.

:eyes:

[Clintonista2]

25. I'd rather my pilot have no legs than no arms.

I fail to see your point.

[RandomKoolzip]

48. Do you REALLY think a pilot's gonna do bong hits right before a six-hour flight?

Come on. :eyes:

If he's smoking weed during recreational hours, then what's the harm? There's no motor-skills-impairing hangover (like you get from booze), and the stuff wears off in a couple of hours. I've heard that same stupid fantasy scenario ("I'd rather my pilot be drunk as fuck than mellowed out on ganja!" As if professional pilots are out there testing all the street drugs they can shove into their systems RIGHT before a big flight, passing around needles in the cockpit, or huffing paint during cruising altitude) from thousands of drug-prudes since I was 12 and it's NEVER cut the mustard as a sane rationale for pot prohibition.

The only people scared of pot legalization are people who've never smoked the stuff. Either that, or they've had a weird reaction to it and think their subjective experience is common across the board.

And for your information, I'd rather my pilot not be drunk OR stoned while flying; thankfully 99.9% of professional airline pilots are pretty smart people.

[Taverner]

3. I agree - but then again, I support 100% legalization of all drugs

Even Meth, Roofies and PCP

[JFN1]

29. Me too

The argument that "if we legalize everything then people will become addicts," is a false argument.

People with the propensity for addiction will ALWAYS find their addiction product of choice. It is the wisdom of futility in action; people will be addicts, if they are addicts. Simply outlawing the product they select to feed their addiction does nothing whatsoever to address the existence of, and problem of, addiction itself. If we truly want to solve the problem, we should medically and psychologically treat addicts, instead of simply throwing them in jail.

[Taverner]

31. Exactly - treat, don't punish

[spanone]

8. although i believe those statements are true, you are correct on the argument

[Believing Is Art]

9. Not disputing you, just playing devil's advocate

Some people support legalizing pot but not other drugs because it is relatively safe. It also puts pot into perspective when debating those who are against legalizing it. Also, "it's safer than alcohol/tobacco" is a pragmatic point, and some people find it easier to argue with that kind of tool than the ideology that we have the right to do what we want with our bodies.

[Clintonista2]

15. The right wing gets around that argument anyways, by simply saying

"it's a gateway drug!"

[Believing Is Art]

19. And that can be disputed by showing studies disproving that n/t

[Clintonista2]

20. When have studies ever convinced the majority of americans of anything?

Didn't you hear? Science is the devil :sarcasm:. Seriously, we're dealing with a country in which more than half of the population still don't believe in evolution.

[Believing Is Art]

32. Ugh, don't remind me about that

I'm still hanging my head in shame over that one.

[hootinholler]

22. When Alcohol is the gateway. n/t

[Oldenuff]

50. there is another popular argument,and that is:

What message would we be sending to our kids?

I have mentioned several times on the board,that the "Gateway" argument only holds true because when kids try it and find out that they don't turn into murderous psychopaths like the government has told them,they then assume that the government has been lying to them about other drugs as well.

Should kids be using Cannabis?Probably not,but they do anyway.Would we be better off telling them the truth instead of lying to them?Methinks yes.

[Posteritatis]

11. I find the "marijuana is a panacea" argument lamer, but that one's a close second (nt)

[martymar64]

23. I don't like the panacea term either, "extremely versatile and useful" is more apropos

:smoke:
Just like petroleum or Swiss Army Knives . . . "A million and one uses".

[Warren DeMontague]

14. "the principle of the argument ought to be that the government has no right regulating what adults

do with their bodies"

:applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause::applause:


I would have to agree; as a baseline philosophical point more people ought to be making.

Nevertheless, it is ALSO true that marijuana is a great deal safer than alcohol/tobacco. And I say that as someone who has done all of them, and doesn't do any of the three, anymore.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elocs]

21. I always say that arguments that disagree with my positions are lame too.

In fact, my best argument against those that disagree with me is that their arguments are lame. Of course they are free to believe that my argument is lame also.

[damntexdem]

24. And if an industry manipulated an addictive substance and marketed it to young people, that's fine?

That's tobacco. The industry gets young people hooked early, and later adults find it very hard to quit.

And if the substance is harmful to those around who choose not to use it? Once again, that's tobacco.

But then, few support prohibition of tobacco. I certainly don't. But I do DEMAND control of where it can be smoked, and preventing its sale to minors.

Of course, alcohol is less-dangerous than tobacco; but it can still be very dangerous. That's why most people with any brains support laws against DWI. Still, we know from experience that prohibition of alcohol doesn't work.

And of course marijuana, though much-less dangerous than tobacco or booze, can still be dangerous -- thus laws against DUI. And we have learned that prohibition doesn't work, but the idiocy of laws against it continues.

But it is still totally relevant that marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol! In fact, this is an excellent argument to use, because tobacco and alcohol are kept legal. They both have large industries that ensure their continued legality. Thus, pointing out that they are more dangerous than marijuana shows the hypocrisy of the outlawing of the latter. Oh, but marijuana has a large industry behind it, too -- one with profits that are enhanced by keeping it illegal. In fact, one of the strongest arguments against use of marijuana under current circumstances is that this supports the illegal-drug industry; and that argument would be made irrelevant to legalization of marijuana. Thus, we have industries whose interests are in keeping toxic substances legal and toxic industries (drug lords and the DEA) whose interests are in keeping other substances illegal; and this entire hypocritical situation is reflected in, summed up in, that fact that marijuana is less dangerous than tobacco or alcohol!

And autonomy over one's own body has nothing to do with those arguments -- is in fact only a further reason to oppose prohibition of all types.

[JFN1]

26. But its not simply apples and oranges, as your argument suggests

Pot use IS, for the most part, harmless. There is no other drug on the planet with such a safety record, not even children's aspirin.

The "safety" argument exists because the anti-drug crusade has made it part of the dialogue that marijuana use is dangerous.

To suggest that we should legalize something perceived as "dangerous" makes the argument to legalize pot much more difficult to win, for our society sees a need to protect people from themselves; we're the ultimate "daddy" state...

And comparing pot legalization to abortion is, well, an unfair argument at best, and completely wrong, at worst. Abortion is an entirely different prospect from smoking a joint, with a whole number of risks that don't translate to the other side of the argument.

Pot SHOULD be legal, and one very important reason it should be legal is because it is a much, much safer alternative to alcohol. This is an argument that is true, and one we cannot drop, for the other side will continue to insist pot use is dangerous. Until we rid the world of that particular meme, we are stuck with the "safer" argument.

[MellowDem]

27. Horrible argument...

No one has complete freedom when it comes to "autonomy over one's body". It is not a basic human right. Meanwhile, the argument that it is less harmful than other legal drugs is a great argument. Especially considering we have examples of trying to prohibit something like alcohol and how well that went. Same applies to weed.

Considering we are a society that is built on doing what is best for everyone, if you decide to trash your ass, it has an effect on society as well, not just you. It definitely has a cost to society. The abortion, right to privacy argument (which in and of itself is a horrible argument), is a horrible new direction to take. Just like alcohol, we all realize abortion will continue whether it is legal or not, just like prostitution. It's just that one is legalized for the positive effects of having government regulation while the other is stupidly not. And abortion had some bullshit reason made up for it to legalize it, because no one wants to face the facts that it's just better for society because it will happen none the less.

[Clintonista2]

35. Wait... so people won't do drugs if it's illegal?

:eyes:

[MellowDem]

43. They will do them...

that's the point.

[scarletwoman]

42. Wait just a damned minute! Autonomy over one's body is NOT a basic human right?!?!

Excuse me? If control over my own body isn't mine, then whose is it? What kind of weird authoritarian mindset would make such a statement that autonomy over one's body is not a basic human right? Once someone is an adult, the only acceptable restriction on personal freedom is that you cause no harm to others. Period.

sw

[MellowDem]

44. Exactly...

for example, if you smoke, you have restrictions put on you. You can only smoke in certain places, you get slapped with higher insurance rates, etc. Obviously that means you do not have complete autonomy over your own body. Doing things to your body can cost society at large. That's why there are consequences for what you do to your body imposed by society at large. That fundamentally means there is not such thing as absolute autonomy over your own body. Even with abortion you can only go so many trimesters before society considers it illegal. And why can't you be a prostitute? After all, it is control over your own body.

If it were a human right, you'd be living in a society where no matter what you did to your body, there would be no consequences imposed by society at large. We don't live in such a society. Hurting yourself is, in essence, hurting society. "Harm to others" has a lot of different interpretations. I'm not commenting on this myself, I'm just telling you how it is in society.

[scarletwoman]

46. Wrong. The reason society steps in is to protect the autonomy of those who might be harmed by you.

That is the ONLY legitimate role for societal restrictions on your own autonomy.

[MellowDem]

47. Like I said...

it has wide interpretations.

[Warren DeMontague]

51. "It is not a basic human right."

It fucking well should be.

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. But it is safer than alcohol or tobacco

:shrug:

[mdmc]

33. ah..

:shrug:

[Greyhound]

34. A very good point, put very badly. Thanks for making it. n/t

[BalancedGoat]

36. That argument losses it's effectiveness when followed to it's logical conclusions.

It's no better of an argument for legalizing pot than it is any of the harder drugs such as cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. If we're going to argue it from that perspective than what right does that government have regulating what drugs pharmaceutical companies can bring to market. Should we than do away with prescriptions altogether? I mean what right does the government have to tell me I can't go pick up a nice supply of morphine if I so choose?

In general, I've always thought that the "slippery slope" argument was a crock, but your justification isn't even a slope; it's a nice steep cliff.

[odinsgirl]

37. ideally, you are correct; however

our society insists upon making smoking, drinking, et. al., a moral issue, as if smokers, drinkers, and other assorted oddments are bad people...and morality is subjective, not only from culture to culture, but also from person to person...until we see these things merely for want they are (i.e. habits), our judgemental society will never come to an agreement on how to act upon them.

[RiverStone]

38. You would still suggest age limits to buy?

While I agree, weed is a gateway drug to other drugs for kids. I know this first hand working in the public schools for 20 years.

How ever you look at it, it would be a shame if the ad companies started peddling it to kids - just like the beer companies do already.

We would be best to still try and encourage kids NOT to use it.

[JFN1]

41. Absolutely put an age limit on it

...One of the consequences of teen drug and alcohol abuse is addiction. Most teens don't think that they will become addicted, and simply use drug and alcohol to have a good time...

... Most teens who are addicted won't see a problem with their behavior or their drug use. Drugs make them feel good, and are a way to relieve the stress of school, problems at home, disagreements with friends, etc...

...Because it is unlikely that teens will want to stop using drugs, it is important for friends and parents to look for the signs of drug use in their loved ones... (Source: http://www.teen-drug-abuse.org -- emphasis added)

[Clintonista2]

49. of course!

[cbc5g]

45. No it's not a terrible argument

It's part of a whole stream of valid arguments on why it should be legal. If marijuana caused cancers and brain rot then I doubt many would be advocating for it's legalization.

[ismnotwasm]

52. I don't know

"It's completely harmless" is lame as well. It's not. Certain people can and do function perfectly when stoned. Certain people shouldn't operate heavy machinery or drive while stoned. Or try to talk for that matter. That's where personal autonomy gets a little fuzzy.

Personally, I don't mind a comparison argument. Legalization proponents have had to fight anti-marijuana propaganda for years and now tend to use a kind of pot can do no harm argument. Marijuana causes chemical changes like any other drug and differs only in the type of changes. Bullshit has been spread about what pot does and does not do now it seems like forever. More and more we are finding well researched benefits for medical uses of pot, and the US keeps it's insane laws. Why?

My favorite conspiracy theory, (-or is it? a conspiracy theory that is--) is one reason that it's still illegal is to feed the prison industry. The government want to save money in prisons? Legalize pot. Keep child molesters in for the 20 years or so instead. Simple intent to sell sentences have been feeding privatized prisons for a long time, and is strangling government funded prisons.


Anyway, comparison argument has it's uses. Because the real question is WHY pot is still illegal? Why? I'm no pot cheerleader, and yet I realize it needs to be legal, and it's not my business who's lighting up anymore than it's my business if my neighbor drinks a few beers after work.