Dwayne Bowe arrested for speeding and Marijuana possession

[JackBauer]

DrugFacts: Marijuana | National Institute on Drug Abuse

The bolded might explain the weakness of legalisation arguments

Considering the legalization arguments are currently winning in the US and elsewhere, I sort of question just how weak these arguments really are.

As to the NIH, they have a pretty clear agenda on this topic (see: NIH to Spend $2 Million Studying the Negative Impacts of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado and Washington - Hit & Run : Reason.com), so it's really more helpful to look at the entire body of scientific evidence rather than hanging your hat on a single source.

For example: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34110/title/Is-Cannabis-Really-That-Bad-/

Answer me this. Why do people smoke marijuana?

Probably the same reason people use any mind-altering drug.

 

[manxman2601]

Considering the legalization arguments are currently winning in the US and elsewhere, I sort of question just how weak these arguments really are.

As to the NIH, they have a pretty clear agenda on this topic (see: NIH to Spend $2 Million Studying the Negative Impacts of Marijuana Legalization in Colorado and Washington - Hit & Run : Reason.com), so it's really more helpful to look at the entire body of scientific evidence rather than hanging your hat on a single source.

For example: http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/34110/title/Is-Cannabis-Really-That-Bad-/



Probably the same reason people use any mind-altering drug.

Exactly. It's mind-altering and this is somehow harmless? And congrats on using a study from San Francisco to claim cannabis is harmless. Love that irony

As a former Police Officer who has seen the negative effects of cannabis you aren't going to convince me it doesn't have any but as a libertarian, what people do in their own homes is not something I get overly worked up about. And I'm always open to reasoned arguments like yours.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Exactly. It's mind-altering and this is somehow harmless? And congrats on using a study from San Francisco to claim cannabis is harmless. Love that irony

As a former Police Officer who has seen the negative effects of cannabis you aren't going to convince me it doesn't have any but as a libertarian, what people do in their own homes is not something I get overly worked up about. And I'm always open to reasoned arguments like yours.

I used to smoke a fair bit and I don't anymore, so when these debates come up I kinda see both sides. I'd more or less agree with your take, at least as it applies to my own experience -- there were pros and cons to smoking. It wasn't a huge deal, and it never had any significant negative effect on my life. Personally, I think that alcohol is a far 'worse' drug. But there's definitely some negative effects to smoking, and people who can't acknowledge that are usually pushing an agenda of some kind.

That said, almost everything has some negative effects, so that's really no justification for keeping it illegal.

 

[Galeb]

Exactly. It's mind-altering and this is somehow harmless? And congrats on using a study from San Francisco to claim cannabis is harmless. Love that irony

As a former Police Officer who has seen the negative effects of cannabis you aren't going to convince me it doesn't have any but as a libertarian, what people do in their own homes is not something I get overly worked up about. And I'm always open to reasoned arguments like yours.

Every experience we have alters our mind.

 

[BradyFTW!]

I never contested it. But I do think it's a fraudulent argument. And there is nothing outmoded in thinking that something which has proven negative effects on the brain should not necessarily be legalised.

Do you think that it's a fraudulent argument to request some kind of consistency when legislating the use of substances that have negative effects on the brain?

Say what you will about prohibitionists, at least they were consistent in their ideology. What really bothers me is people who argue for marijuana to remain illegal based on health effects, while simultaneously claiming that alcohol should remain legal. If the more harmful substance is to remain legal, then the less harmful substance should be legal as well.

From your previous posts, it sounds like you have a libertarian take on the matter, which is that as long as people are doing it in their own homes and not directly affecting anyone else, then there's no reason to legislate their behavior. If that's the case, then I 100% agree, but the post that I quoted seems to contradict that so I'm a bit confused

 

[Galeb]

<sniff> That glass of wine I had with my lunch <sniff> Man that was faaaaar out.

Please.

Did you quote the correct post in your response? If so, .

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

For a professional athlete, yes. There's nothing wrong with weed, but the league/country begs to differ and generally finds out if you're using it. How can NFL players think they won't get caught?

NFL athletes are going to smoke weed as i agree there is nothing wrong with it at all. Problem is it's still illegal. And even when it does become legal, which it will...the NFL will still probably prohibit it.

I still smoke but not while driving or operating anything. I use to in college but those days are over

 

[manxman2601]

Every experience we have alters our mind.

I'll see your and raise you a

 

[BradyFTW!]

Every experience we have alters our mind.

 

[manxman2601]

Do you think that it's a fraudulent argument to request some kind of consistency when legislating the use of substances that have negative effects on the brain?

Say what you will about prohibitionists, at least they were consistent in their ideology. What really bothers me is people who argue for marijuana to remain illegal based on health effects, while simultaneously claiming that alcohol should remain legal. If the more harmful substance is to remain legal, then the less harmful substance should be legal as well.

From your previous posts, it sounds like you have a libertarian take on the matter, which is that as long as people are doing it in their own homes and not directly affecting anyone else, then there's no reason to legislate their behavior. If that's the case, then I 100% agree, but the post that I quoted seems to contradict that so I'm a bit confused

There's a huge difference between legalising something already prohibited and prohibiting something that is already legal and at the core of societal interactions. Being ideological is one thing (and boy I am) but at the same time certain realities can't be avoided and the fact that alcohol is so important in our society makes any argument about banning it pretty darn silly to be frank.

 

[Deus Irae]

Do you think that it's a fraudulent argument to request some kind of consistency when legislating the use of substances that have negative effects on the brain?

Say what you will about prohibitionists, at least they were consistent in their ideology. What really bothers me is people who argue for marijuana to remain illegal based on health effects, while simultaneously claiming that alcohol should remain legal. If the more harmful substance is to remain legal, then the less harmful substance should be legal as well.

From your previous posts, it sounds like you have a libertarian take on the matter, which is that as long as people are doing it in their own homes and not directly affecting anyone else, then there's no reason to legislate their behavior. If that's the case, then I 100% agree, but the post that I quoted seems to contradict that so I'm a bit confused

Given the boatloads of people who want to ban cigarette smoking while legalizing marijuana, I'd say that this particular argument of yours is weak sauce. That's not that I don't agree with your point, by the way, because I'm a firm believer in the (especially federal) government minding its own freakin' business, and the smoking habits of private citizens is not government business. It's just that the american public is really stupid, and that's when it actually bothers to think instead of just reacting.

 

[Galeb]

I'll see your and raise you a

What I said is truth. Without getting into the nature of the mind and consciousness, scientists have proven that our experiences actually change the DNA in our brain. Memories and mental associations actually create synapses within the brain. These synapses are recorded in our DNA. A good (but sad) example is how single events, if intense enough, can trigger PTSD.

OK, I'll get into the nature of the consciousness a little. Your ego, what you think of as your "personality", is a logical construct. It is an illusion created by the mind to give a sense of permanency that has some useful applications in dealing with the exterior world. The conscious mind is always changing and is never identical from one instant to the next.

 

[Galeb]

I'm pretty sure that is Keanu Reeves, but I don't get the reference.

 

[manxman2601]

What I said is truth. Without getting into the nature of the mind and consciousness, scientists have proven that our experiences actually change the DNA in our brain. Memories and mental associations actually create synapses within the brain. These changes are recorded in our DNA. A good (but sad) example is how single events, if intense enough, can trigger PTSD.

OK, I'll get into the nature of the consciousness a little. Your ego, what you think of as your "personality", is a logical construct. It is an illusion created by the mind to give a sense of permanency that has some useful applications in dealing with the exterior world. The conscious mind is always changing and is never identical from one instant to the next.

I wasn't questioning that, just the notion that the natural chemical changes in the brain that come from everyday experiences can be in anyway compared to the unnatural and deliberate fuddling of the brain brought about by mind-altering drugs.

 

[Galeb]

I wasn't questioning that, just the notion that the natural chemical changes in the brain that come from everyday experiences can be in anyway compared to the unnatural and deliberate fuddling of the brain brought about by mind-altering drugs.

I concede that there are significant differences. That said, there are a helluva lot more similarities than there are differences. Both come from an external source (probably). We do not experience those things directly, rather we experience the chemical representations of them within the brain. Both are temporary conditions that leave a lasting impression on the mind.

Drugs, likes most experiences that are often repeated, can be very harmful if abused. However, in the proper circumstances, both can be the vessels for profound realization and growth.

Sure, differences can be sited on experiences vs. drugs, but the idea that they can not be compared in the way they alter the mind seems very wrong to me. I guess we will have to just agree to disagree.

 

[Deus Irae]

I concede that there are significant differences. That said, there are a helluva lot more similarities than there are differences. Both come from an external source (probably). We do not experience those things directly, rather we experience the chemical representations of them within the brain. Both are temporary conditions that leave a lasting impression on the mind.

Drugs, likes most experiences that are often repeated, can be very harmful if abused. However, in the proper circumstances, both can be the vessels for profound realization and growth.

Sure, differences can be sited on experiences vs. drugs, but the idea that they can not be compared in the way they alter the mind seems very wrong to me. I guess we will have to just agree to disagree.

The impact on the brain (and the method of change) of watching a sunrise is radically different than the impact on the brain of popping pills or smoking weed. Why pretend otherwise?

 

[Galeb]

The impact on the brain of watching a sunrise is radically different than the impact on the brain of popping pills or smoking weed. Why pretend otherwise?

In the way that they alter the mind, I think they are very similar. It is OK if you disagree, but so far you have offered nothing of real substance to contest my claims.

Each experience is different than every other experience we have. Since these experiences are similar across the entire species, and can be crudely measured with sophisticated equipment (EEGs etc), the idea that they can not be compared is absurd.... especially at the neurochemical level.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

dwayne bowe made our forum go into bat**** crazy mode

 

[Deus Irae]

In the way that they alter the mind, I think they are very similar. It is OK if you disagree, but so far you have offered nothing of real substance to contest my claims.

Each experience is different than every other experience we have. Since these experiences are similar across the entire species, and can be crudely measured with sophisticated equipment (EEGs etc), the idea that they can not be compared is absurd.... especially at the neurochemical level.

You offered nothing of substance in the other direction. In fact, one of your claims is misleading, if not downright fraudulent. The claim that they are external sources, when one is being inhaled/injested/injected and the other is merely a visual response trigger....

Come on.

 

[manxman2601]

dwayne bowe made our forum go into bat**** crazy mode

If by "bat**** crazy mode" you mean sparked an interesting debate then I agree.