If marijuana's illegal, why isn't milk?

Post Reply New Topic

You're an idiot.

What are you, 4?

People against the legalisation of marijuana and supporting the continued legal distribution of alcohol and tobacco could easily say, "because now that they're legal, making them illegal would just make things even worse." And then refer to efforts in many parts of the Western World in the early part of the 20th century to make alcohol illegal.

Nobody laces other expensive drugs with marijuana, unless they're charging extra for it and you request it. It's simply not cost-effective. I guess most people just don't want a bunch of lazy bastards running around. And keeping it illegal prevents those who would otherwise try/use marijuana but don't because of legalities from using.

It is very cost effective if you're a dealer looking to increase your demand. Ask anyone who was around in the 60's and 70's if today's pot is anything even remotely close to the pot of their time. Pure marijuana is not addictive and doesn't even get you very high. It has evolved quite a bit over the years with all sorts of nasty and dangerous additives, making it much more powerful and possibly addictive. The demand is always higher for the "good" stuff and a hefty premium is paid for such. I'd be all for legalizing pure marijuana, but the crap on the streets today could actually be more dangerous than most people realize.

You have no idea how ignorant you sound. I was addicted to marijuana for 5 years. Physical dependence is not the only indicator of addiction. I don't know what "pure" marijuana you've been smoking but here in cali we call that schwag.

If the addiction is not caused by physical dependance, then it solely due to the individual. Some people have addictive natures and some do not. We certainly cannot ban all things or activites that certain people get addicted to. Food, sex, and video games would all be illegal. To argue that we should ban something with an associated physical dependence and negative public health impacts, such as cigarrettes and alcohol, would at least be logical. I will also add that I have no further interest in discussing this topic if a respectable level of maturity cannot be maintained.

tobacco should be illegal. There is no benefit and it is highly addictive and unhealthy.

marijuana should be allowed medically, but you are forgetting the all important mind-altering property. Which means should not be legal for commercial consumption.

alcohol in small quantities is actually good for you. Red wine contains chemicals that are beneficial for heart health is consumed in small quantities (1/2 glass every day)

wtf is up with the milk thing is the head desk/face palm response.

The argument that marijuana should be legal completely ignores basic logic, assumes that people believe that alcohol or tobacco should be legal, and that marijuana contains mind-altering substances that compare with prescription drugs. If you legalize marijuana then you open the door to have people argue in favor of "self-medicating" with a wide variety of other prescription drugs, like anti-depressants, pain killers, amphetamines and sleep aids, all of which have both beneficial and non-beneficial properties.

I find poetry and films can be mind altering. Should they be illegal?

People already do self medicate with otc and prescription drugs legally. Insurance companies have virtually done away with covering therapy visits and will only cover the drugs. My own mother who had severe mental illness along with dementia was only allowed to call her doc for refills and adjustments on her meds - no actual visits. She literally decided what drugs she wanted and didn't want. I won't even go into all of the horrible and potentially fatal side effects that go along with these FDA approved drugs. The bottom line is that you could easily die from excessive alcohol, smoking, and pill popping. No one has ever overdosed on marijuana. The thought of someone rotting in prison for 5, 10, or more years for marijuana possession while the rapist and the wife beater in the next cell get out after 2 years says a little something about how out of whack our priorities are.

they technically do not qualify as a drug, which by definition is a substance other than food ingested into the body and intended to affect the structure or function of the body.

otherwise if you are arguing reductio ad absurdum, sure, and while you are at it... life is mind-altering... you can make that illegal as well.

people do self-medicate, thought with prescription drugs it is illegal. With OTC it technically is warned against on the label. I don't necessarily agree with all the drugs that the FDA approves because I have some issues with the FDA. I also have issues with the current prison system, but their are mitigating factors that are not addressed in your statements that influence sentencing (such as previous history, etc.)

People don't overdose on cigarettes. They die of cigarette related illnesses. But since we are on the topic of banning things you can overdose on... did you know that you can overdose on water?

maybe we should ban water since it has the potential to be so dangerous. I vote for that... ban water and legalize marijuana. We should only be allowed things that will cause long term damage but that we can't kill ourselves with immediately.

I'm just pointing out that mind altering is not an issue.

not if you are arguing for what you want personally and not what is best for a person. If you want to argue the health benefits of marijuana, it falls under de-criminalization for medical purposes. If you want to argue that you want it legalized so you personally can have something you want, well then be honest. Just don't confuse the two, they are not the same. You can't argue the points of de-criminalization for medical purposes but want the result of legalization for commercial and recreational use. That is like someone advocating for allowing the ownership of assault rifles because people hunt squirrels with other guns. Yes, other people hunt with other guns. But people have no purpose to hunt squirrels with a fully automatic weapon. They want it because they want it.

People want marijuana legalized not because they need it, but because they want it. They argue that it should be legalized because other people need it. But if they needed it, they would argue that it be allowed for medical use only. But since they have no justifiable medical purpose for using it, they have to pretend that they are being helpful by standing up for people who might need it for medical uses.

You need to argue why marijuana should be legalized for commercial recreational use. You can't argue why other things should be illegal, or why people might use it for medical purposes. You have to argue for the merits of marijuana on its own terms for use in nonmedical circumstances. It only boils down to "because I want it"

and that is not a very convincing reason.

If I don't kill people with marijuana and I don't harm myself for using it and I get a kick out of using it why the hell shouldn't I get it if I want it? What's so nasty about wanting something?

it is not in the wanting but in the arguing of usefulness and purpose of needing that bothers me. If you want to want it, then that is your concern. But not all people have (perhaps) a good level of self-control that one or two members of the population have. If they did, then we wouldn't have issues with many of the things that are illegal (or legal, considering the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and credit cards). And just because you want it doesn't mean that you should have it. Primarily because of the behavior of the majority of people around things that are easily abused and are legal (gambling, spending, blah blah blah) and how those things influence people who don't use them. Look at how uncontrolled spending has influenced the entire economy. You could argue that people should be allowed uncontrolled access to credit cards and loans because they want things and they should be allowed to make their own decisions. But then look what happens when you allow people unrestricted access to things they want but do not need.

Wanting something is not nasty. Giving people whatever they want, however, can be nasty.