If marijuana's illegal, why isn't milk?
ruveyn wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Does that make sense?
Yes. Stated in most general terms you want government to deter and punish such activities as theft, fraud and extortion. By the way these activities are more often committed by governments than by private business organizations, firms or private associations of individuals. Why? Because the government has the heavy weapons. In the twentieth century the body count attributable to governments was somewhere between two hundred and three hundred million.
ruveyn
Governments should protect their people. Sometimes that means from the government, sometimes from private organizations, and sometimes from the citizens.
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
Milk is a food and marijuana is not.
ruveyn
ruveyn
but it can be!
So can sh**. Marijuana is not raised primarily as a food source. Milk on the other hand is nature's very own food for young mammals. Humans have learned to tolerate milk and dairy products (particularly cheese) as food for non-infants.
ruveyn
actually, milk can be bad for you. If you stop consuming milk then your body will eventually stop making the enzyme that processes milk. In milk-consuming nations such as the US and parts of Europe the lactose-intolerance rates are 15% or less. In nations where milk is not consumed by non-infants (such as Asian nations) the lactose-intolerance rate is closer to 90%.
And even if you are lactose intolerant you can still eat aged hard cheese. The bacteria consumes the lactose.
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
[quote="Shiggily"]
Governments should protect their people. Sometimes that means from the government, sometimes from private organizations, and sometimes from the citizens.[/quote
First of all the people of a nation are not the property of the government nor are they the wards of government. So the use of the possessive pronoun "their" is totally inappropriate.
Second, how reliably do you expect the foxes to protect the hen house?
ruveyn
ruveyn wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Governments should protect their people. Sometimes that means from the government, sometimes from private organizations, and sometimes from the citizens.[/quote
First of all the people of a nation are not the property of the government nor are they the wards of government. So the use of the possessive pronoun "their" is totally inappropriate.
Second, how reliably do you expect the foxes to protect the hen house?
ruveyn
we use sheep dogs to protect sheep. It is their government and they are its people. The pronoun regards, not ownership, but responsibility. You can say my child, or my brother, my students, my doctor, my patients. But none of those indicates the type of possessiveness that you are implying. It does however, indicate a level of responsibility.
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
I don't advertise anything. Why not stop lying?
You claimed society should approve outlawing marijuana. I indicated a survey that indicates otherwise and you claim the survey is invalid. Prove it.
You also advocate outlawing liquor and tobacco. Outlawing liquor was tried and failed miserably. What are you trying to prove?
You claimed society should approve outlawing marijuana. I indicated a survey that indicates otherwise and you claim the survey is invalid. Prove it.
You also advocate outlawing liquor and tobacco. Outlawing liquor was tried and failed miserably. What are you trying to prove?
I don't advocate outlawing liquor or tobacco. I am saying I don't mind if it was made illegal. I gave you 10 surveys from accurate sources to your one. I am trying to prove nothing, other than this conversation will continue ad infinitum while you quote surveys by Bob's cousin down the street who can't/won't provide his sources or sample information. Not because the marijuana matters, but because the being right and getting what you want matters.
and the "you" in the sentence in a general you, not a specific you. I could replace it with society if it makes you feel better about yourself.
I see. Is Bob's cousin a real estate agent? That might be a problem.
depends. Did Bob's cousin report the "Worst Real Estate Crisis Since Great Depression" despite the fact that Housing data only goes back to 1968 and Census data before 1960 skips to once every 10 years. Which amounts to statistics depending only on the memories of people selling houses in the 1930s? (who also visit the survey website, which is less than 15,000 a month for the real estate site and less than 100 for the survey site that you indicated).
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/40020
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/ ... cline.html
So out of less than 100 people. 83% think that marijuana should be legalized. ........ and that is the majority of the US?
Can you say this isn't the worst real estate collapse since the depression?
Sand wrote:
Can you say this isn't the worst real estate collapse since the depression?
you can say whatever you want. Now if you want to be accurate, you would say the worst housing crisis since 1968. But I don't think this conversation is about accuracy...
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Can you say this isn't the worst real estate collapse since the depression?
you can say whatever you want. Now if you want to be accurate, you would say the worst housing crisis since 1968. But I don't think this conversation is about accuracy...
Quite right. It's about justifying your emotional responses in the light of rational sense.
ruveyn wrote:
Marijuana is not raised primarily as a food source.
You're right. It's primary purposes are better served in the paper and fabrics industries. Not to mention in the industry of casual consumption. However, MJ seeds are actually gaining favor as a grain. Not to mention the seed oil is also great for ethanol-based products.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Allowing ban on substances might allow our society to be "healthier" in a physical sense but it would make for new black markets and opportunities for organized crime [as illustrated by the current war on drugs and the previous war on alcohol] and it makes for more poverty in the community [these items aren't taxable because they aren't legally sold so therefore community projects suffer funding shortages and also it expands cost on the product by falsely inflating cost as the risk of selling the product goes up] and it makes society, in fact, less healthy for those who still consume the products by way of less regulations available to ensure that the products are safe and contain only the products they claim they contain [though cigarettes have fallen a victim to neglect on this front, I would speculate that the nature of disgust and want of prohibition of the product more effects how poorly the product is maintained than a failure only on a part of the FDA].
Bingo! Prohibition never, ever, ever works. Not once. Not ever. It not only does not solve "the problem" but it corrupts the legal system.
ruveyn
Perhaps banning narcotics in order to fight drug addiction is a futile exercise in your multiculti, nihilistic, Blade-Runner-esque society, but suggesting that the same has to be true everywhere is just typical liberal defeatism.
codarac wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Allowing ban on substances might allow our society to be "healthier" in a physical sense but it would make for new black markets and opportunities for organized crime [as illustrated by the current war on drugs and the previous war on alcohol] and it makes for more poverty in the community [these items aren't taxable because they aren't legally sold so therefore community projects suffer funding shortages and also it expands cost on the product by falsely inflating cost as the risk of selling the product goes up] and it makes society, in fact, less healthy for those who still consume the products by way of less regulations available to ensure that the products are safe and contain only the products they claim they contain [though cigarettes have fallen a victim to neglect on this front, I would speculate that the nature of disgust and want of prohibition of the product more effects how poorly the product is maintained than a failure only on a part of the FDA].
Bingo! Prohibition never, ever, ever works. Not once. Not ever. It not only does not solve "the problem" but it corrupts the legal system.
ruveyn
Perhaps banning narcotics in order to fight drug addiction is a futile exercise in your multiculti, nihilistic, Blade-Runner-esque society, but suggesting that the same has to be true everywhere is just typical liberal defeatism.
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana
Sand wrote:
codarac wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
Allowing ban on substances might allow our society to be "healthier" in a physical sense but it would make for new black markets and opportunities for organized crime [as illustrated by the current war on drugs and the previous war on alcohol] and it makes for more poverty in the community [these items aren't taxable because they aren't legally sold so therefore community projects suffer funding shortages and also it expands cost on the product by falsely inflating cost as the risk of selling the product goes up] and it makes society, in fact, less healthy for those who still consume the products by way of less regulations available to ensure that the products are safe and contain only the products they claim they contain [though cigarettes have fallen a victim to neglect on this front, I would speculate that the nature of disgust and want of prohibition of the product more effects how poorly the product is maintained than a failure only on a part of the FDA].
Bingo! Prohibition never, ever, ever works. Not once. Not ever. It not only does not solve "the problem" but it corrupts the legal system.
ruveyn
Perhaps banning narcotics in order to fight drug addiction is a futile exercise in your multiculti, nihilistic, Blade-Runner-esque society, but suggesting that the same has to be true everywhere is just typical liberal defeatism.
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana
He's not familiar with alcohol prohibition here in the states and he's not familiar with what the reality is as far as how the legal status of drugs effects communities because he's sheltered from the real crime areas.
I'd like to see him living some of the neighborhoods I've been in and say that the legal state of drugs is helping things.
_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823
?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson
Let's not forget the tremendous failure of the "war on drugs."
http://www.drugpolicy.org/library/factsheets/effectivenes/
Sand wrote:
Shiggily wrote:
Sand wrote:
Can you say this isn't the worst real estate collapse since the depression?
you can say whatever you want. Now if you want to be accurate, you would say the worst housing crisis since 1968. But I don't think this conversation is about accuracy...
Quite right. It's about justifying your emotional responses in the light of rational sense.
hhahahahahhahaha.....
rational....
I needed that.
I haven't laughed that well since the Colbert Report went reruns.
Don't we always have this conversation where you deny all emotion, claim to be rational, despite contradictory evidence? and then say I am emotional and blah blah blah.
It gets old.
If you have any actual valid evidence for the recreational use of marijuana and not evidence for the medical use, then let me know. Otherwise I can just watch the reruns of all our other conversations and get the same over emotional "I want what I want and no one should be able to stop me from having it" 'rationality'. Or I could go to a toy store and watch a 2 year old scream and kick and bite because they can't have that Barbie that they sooo desperately NEED.
_________________
ADHD-diagnosed
Asperger's Syndrome-diagnosed
ruveyn wrote:
Bingo! Prohibition never, ever, ever works. Not once. Not ever. It not only does not solve "the problem" but it corrupts the legal system.
well, Shiggily seemed to provide an example of Japan and crime rate as well as some countries from Europe regarding gun laws, and well, the rate of US crimes have been stated to be higher, no? and I believe the question lies, what is really the issue or is it more than just plain prohibition?
I see a problem with few simplistic arguments and the issue of ignoring other possible factors to form a better perspective on the issue.
Quote:
Prohibition never, ever, ever works. Not once. Not ever.
Not ever? not even once? perhaps you are right, people keep murdering despite the prohibition of murder.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
Shiggily wrote:
"I want what I want and no one should be able to stop me from having it" 'rationality'.
well, I want what I want because I want it, and because I am the one who wants it and I am the one who enjoys it and I am the one who argues in favor it because I get pleasure out of it, must be reasonable, therefore it must be rationality, therefore it is rationality.
Quote:
Or I could go to a toy store and watch a 2 year old scream and kick and bite because they can't have that Barbie that they sooo desperately NEED.
The 2 year old would assume that having that barbie is the most reasonable thing.
_________________
?Everything is perfect in the universe - even your desire to improve it.?
skafather84 wrote:
Sand wrote:
Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana
He's not familiar with alcohol prohibition here in the states and he's not familiar with what the reality is as far as how the legal status of drugs effects communities because he's sheltered from the real crime areas.
I'd like to see him living some of the neighborhoods I've been in and say that the legal state of drugs is helping things.
I am aware that the actions of the US authorities are not doing a great job in preventing or treating drug addiction in the US. What I object to is people using the US situation to formulate a general rule (“prohibition never works, drug abuse is inevitable, so the best thing to do it to legalize drugs”) that they assume holds for all societies at all times. I thought that was clear from my post, so there’s really no need to tell me about the neighbourhoods you’ve been in, unless you want to show me how streetwise you are.
I cannot count the number of times I’ve seen people repeat the same pro-legalization arguments almost word for word. It’s as if people think that repeating the same counter-intuitive arguments marks them out as belonging to some enlightened in-crowd.
There are plenty of countries with harsh drugs laws and with low levels of drug abuse. Saudi Arabia, with laws against drugs and alcohol, has very low levels of both drug abuse and alcoholism. (Remarkable!) And that’s not an endorsement of Sharia law, just evidence against the “prohibition never works” argument.
Or at least that’s how I see it. Perhaps by liberal logic that escapes mere mortals like me, Saudi Arabia’s drug and alcohol laws are actually a waste of time, and they would solve so many of their social problems by selling crack cocaine in pharmacies.
Well, here are some examples of how liberal drugs policies have worked elsewhere:
Quote:
From http://www.sarnia.com/GROUPS/ANTIDRUG/a ... myths.html
History provides evidence that legalization of drugs in foreign nations has not been successful. For example, opium was legalized in China earlier this century. That decision resulted in 90 million addicts and it took a half-century to repair the damage.
Egypt allowed unrestricted trade of cocaine and heroin in the 1920s. An epidemic of addiction resulted. Even in Iran and Thailand, countries where drugs are readily available, the prevalence of addiction continues to soar.
Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey. Drug problems have forced the city to increase the size of the police force and the city fathers are now rethinking the drug policy.
Dr. K. F. Gunning, president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, cites some revealing statistics about drug abuse and crime. Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.
Sweden legalized doctor prescriptions of amphetamines in 1965. During the first year of legalization, the number of intravenous"speed" addicts rose 88.5 percent. A study of men arrested during the legalization period showed a high correlation between intravenous use and a variety of crimes.
Dr. Nils Bejorot, director of the Swedish Carnegie Institute and professor of social medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, believes the solution to the growing drug problem is consistent social and legal harassment of both users and dealers.
Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well. And British authorities found that heroin addicts have a very good chance of dying prematurely. On the crime front, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics squad 100 percent to combat the crime caused by the "legal" addicts.
The Swiss opened a "legalized drug" area in Zurich seven years ago and local addicts were given drugs, clean needles, and emergency medical care. Unfortunately, the liberal policy backfired and the number of addicts surged to 3,500; violence surged, too. "Needle Park," as it came to be known, was a place of open warfare among rival gangs, and even police faced gunfire. Their cars were attacked and overturned. In February 1995, officials ended the experiment, conceding that it had evolved into a grotesque spectacle.
In April 1994, the mayors of 21 major European cities formed a group called "European Cities Against Drugs," an acknowledgement that legalization had failed.
History provides evidence that legalization of drugs in foreign nations has not been successful. For example, opium was legalized in China earlier this century. That decision resulted in 90 million addicts and it took a half-century to repair the damage.
Egypt allowed unrestricted trade of cocaine and heroin in the 1920s. An epidemic of addiction resulted. Even in Iran and Thailand, countries where drugs are readily available, the prevalence of addiction continues to soar.
Modern-day Netherlands is often cited as a country which has successfully legalized drugs. Marijuana is sold over the counter and police seldom arrest cocaine and heroin users. But official tolerance has led to significant increases in addiction. Amsterdam's officials blame the significant rise in crime on the liberal drug policy. The city's 7,000 addicts are blamed for 80 percent of all property crime and Amsterdam's rate of burglary is now twice that of Newark, New Jersey. Drug problems have forced the city to increase the size of the police force and the city fathers are now rethinking the drug policy.
Dr. K. F. Gunning, president of the Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention, cites some revealing statistics about drug abuse and crime. Cannabis use among students increased 250 percent from 1984 to 1992. During the same period, shootings rose 40 percent, car thefts increased 62 percent, and hold-ups rose 69 percent.
Sweden legalized doctor prescriptions of amphetamines in 1965. During the first year of legalization, the number of intravenous"speed" addicts rose 88.5 percent. A study of men arrested during the legalization period showed a high correlation between intravenous use and a variety of crimes.
Dr. Nils Bejorot, director of the Swedish Carnegie Institute and professor of social medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, believes the solution to the growing drug problem is consistent social and legal harassment of both users and dealers.
Great Britain experimented with controlled distribution of heroin between 1959 and 1968. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of heroin addicts doubled every sixteen months and the increase in addicts was accompanied by an increase in criminal activity as well. And British authorities found that heroin addicts have a very good chance of dying prematurely. On the crime front, Scotland Yard had to increase its narcotics squad 100 percent to combat the crime caused by the "legal" addicts.
The Swiss opened a "legalized drug" area in Zurich seven years ago and local addicts were given drugs, clean needles, and emergency medical care. Unfortunately, the liberal policy backfired and the number of addicts surged to 3,500; violence surged, too. "Needle Park," as it came to be known, was a place of open warfare among rival gangs, and even police faced gunfire. Their cars were attacked and overturned. In February 1995, officials ended the experiment, conceding that it had evolved into a grotesque spectacle.
In April 1994, the mayors of 21 major European cities formed a group called "European Cities Against Drugs," an acknowledgement that legalization had failed.