?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

SL, The Dreamy Kiwi Jedi

Sean look at your argument.


1. You don't want people breaking the law at all.
2. You don't want police being hurt / killed
3. You'd prefer we all get along happily (I'm assuming this as most
people in your position would claim it)


Now the only thing stopping this from happening is one other belief:


1. Stoners should be stopped.


Unfortunately you then launch into an argument using the three desires
to support the believed cure.


Try this:


Desire 1. Accomplished by de-criminalising drugs.


Desire 2. Possibly accomplished, at least in the lower class drugs, as
the violence tends, in most studies, to be shown to be initiated by
suppliers / transporters rather than users and, in the studies showing
user instigated violence, is usually shown as financially motivated. De
criminalisation leads to lower prices in all cases I can think of
(Amsterdam, US prohibition period) thereby reducing financially
motivated crime.


Desire 3. Probably never going to be accomplished.


All by changing the belief.


Prohibition has never worked in any circumstance. Your arguments are the
same used by the supporters of the Alcohol prohibition. We have learned,
as a society, to allow alcohol and construct laws which are more
intelligent regarding the use thereof.


net result is a happier, less "criminal" society.


Now I assume that you will now move to the gateway argument which I will
argue pre emptively.


You will posit:


Marijuana is a gateway to other drugs.


Now this is not proven / disproven in any manner which will satisfy
everyone involved so.


This pro of this argument is based on human tendencies.


The same tendency will of course apply in another situation. Crime. I
posit as a corollary to this:


Petty crime is a gateway to serious crime.


You will agree with that I can almost guarantee. So by maintaining the
criminalisation of minor drugs you are actually increasing the number of
serious criminals. Have you considered that?


sl

Comments

( 28 comments — Leave a comment )
ragdoll13
May. 29th, 2001 09:48 pm (UTC)
Yes, Uncle Simon is a dreamy hunka.
krysto4
May. 29th, 2001 10:53 pm (UTC)
Decriminalization
Excellent arguments! Marijuana is a gateway drug only in that those who are using it recreationally are forced to purchase from the black market - the supplier threads are similar to those of "harder" drugs - also, factor in an individual's desire to "escape" their reality - and the motivations for that desire - if such an individual feels s/he needs a bigger high than marijuana can provide - that person will find it, regardless.

Also - it's interesting to note that law enforcement officials complain that there's no test for one's ability to drive while under the influence of THC - well, why the hell haven't studies been done? Or if they have been done - or are being done - why aren't such sobriety tests being developed?

Could it be that cotton/growers feel threatened by the use of cannibas as a fabric source? Could it be that timber producers feel threatened by the fact that hemp can produce paper more cheaply and efficently than trees? Do ya think maybe THIS is the real reason why marijuana is still illegal in the 21st century? Hmmmm?
maddening
May. 29th, 2001 11:00 pm (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
1/4 of the land mass, 1/5 of the pollution of processing with trees, 100 day planting cycle, hemp seeds are the best and healthiest source of protein, and the material from the plants has such an enormous range of uses that it could literally just take the place of trees and cotton in the textile and paper industries.


Unwarranted fear of a drug means that we cannot reap the benefits of that drug's cousin.
Pathetic pathetic pathetic.
(Deleted comment)
kmo
May. 30th, 2001 04:31 am (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
You ask, "Why replace trees and cotton?"

Better ask, "Why not let market forces decide which crops produce the best returns on invested land, labor, fertilizer, etc? Why use the coercive power of government to enforce your notions about the ecconomic viability of hemp?"

Check out the great piece that Cocomama just posted on the topic of hemp.

Here are a few of my favorite Drug War quotes:



``It's the money, stupid.'' After 35 years as a police officer in three of the country's largest cities, that is my message to the righteous
politicians who obstinately proclaim that a war on drugs will lead to a drug-free America. About $500 worth of heroin or cocaine in a source
country will bring in as much as $100,000 on the streets of an American city. All the cops, armies, prisons, and executions in the world cannot impede a market with that kind of tax-free profit margin. It is the illegality that permits the obscene markup, enriching drug traffickers,
distributors, dealers, crooked cops, lawyers, judges, politicians, bankers, businessmen.

-Joseph D. McNamara



**********************************************


Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.

-Daniel Webster



**********************************************



[T]he contemporary World War on Drugs is nothing more nor less than the modern manifestation of the millennial struggle between state power and
individual freedom... It is the Pharmacratic Inquisition, distinguished from outcroppings of brutal bigotry in other areas only by the choice of scapegoat, and with a pseudoscientific veneer of rational civility which, however ingenuously constructed or vociferously defended, remains
far too small and transparent to conceal the ignorant superstition and unrestrained cruelty which fuels it.

-Jonathan Ott




**********************************************



Drug prohibition reflects a failure to learn from history. We repealed the prohibition of alcohol because it produced crime, corruption, and social chaos. Now we are making the same mistakes and suffering the same consequences.

-David Boaz



**********************************************



What I find especially immoral, and exceedingly uncivilized, is the refusal of people to learn. Earlier prohibitionists did not have the benefit of experience. We do. I could forgive their blind
intentions. I cannot forgive our knowing blunders, and our increasingly gross negligence bordering on malice.

-Jake Sapiens




(Deleted comment)
maddening
May. 30th, 2001 01:52 pm (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
I wasn't going to say anything about all the other hideous misspellings, but could you at least, give it an effort? I'm just an uneducated stoner and I don't manage NEARLY the tortured grammar that you seem to be a pro at.


But, since you insist on research, and really, since YOU are the one here who has decided to turn my journal into a fucking debate forum, post your sources.
I want sources and references.
Do YOUR OWN research and prove it.
q
May. 30th, 2001 02:14 pm (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
Um, what am I misspelling? I don't see it. I'm an engineering major, not an english major.

And I'm not trying to post a big debate, after all it takes two to argue.

Most of my sources are from a research paper I wrote last year (it was assigned)... only one (very one-sided one) is on the web:

http://www.estreet.com/orgs/dsi/Hemp/HempFacts.html
maddening
May. 30th, 2001 02:25 pm (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
rediculous.
premeses
surverely


They were glaringly obvious.
kmo
May. 30th, 2001 02:16 pm (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
Heh, I like how you avoided the question. Why not let market forces decide and demonstrate the ecconomic viability of cannibus sativa? Why use violence and the threat of violence to prevent people from honoring the millenia-old relationship between humans and this plant?

Why give police and the feds carte blanche to spy on private citizens, seize private property, stop and harrass drivers on the basis of skin-color, and intrude into every area of our lives rather than put your dogma to the test?
q
May. 30th, 2001 02:53 pm (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
What kind of crack are you smoking here? What the hell are you talking about, feds and skin color and crap? Threats of violence? What will you say next, "RODNEY KING" or some shit? I fail to see the connection you're trying imply.

Why not let market forces blah blah blah? because a) there is no market that the other (100% legal) hemps haven't already filled, and b) it's difficult to decriminalize just one member of the cannabis phylum without decriminalizing the rest!
Ignorance and Bigotry on Parade - kmo - May. 30th, 2001 04:55 pm (UTC) - Expand
you just don't get it - q - May. 30th, 2001 05:15 pm (UTC) - Expand
maddening
May. 30th, 2001 01:48 pm (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
I don't believe the point is really *replacement* but supplementing.
Why deny an energy source?
Why not utilize every single one we can, especially one that is more renewable and cleaner than anything we are currently burning?


Just seems rather... inane actually... not to take advantage of every resource we can, especially considering our depency on fossil fuels and the knowledge that we *will* run out.
(Deleted comment)
krysto4
May. 30th, 2001 06:59 am (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
...All the more reason to develop THC sobriety tests...

maddening
May. 30th, 2001 01:53 pm (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
Sounds like your friend Curt is pretty stupid, and probably a pretty bad driver.


Don't befriend stupid people.
That's my advice.
q
May. 30th, 2001 05:22 pm (UTC)
Re: Decriminalization
Yeah, curt is pretty stupid, and a bad driver too. I don't hang out with him anymore. He wasn't always so stupid.
(Deleted comment)
kmo
May. 30th, 2001 04:44 am (UTC)
Addicts Piss Me Off
Absolutely! That's why we need to imprison all those pathetic tv-watching couch potatos. Television remains the brain-killing drug with the largest addiction base. How many hundreds of millions of addicts are slouched motionless and slack-jawed in front of it right now?

I assume you've already disposed of YOUR idiot box, G. If not, clean your own house before you go looking to imprison pot smokers.

q
May. 30th, 2001 01:06 pm (UTC)
Re: Addicts Piss Me Off
Heh, I like how you carefully don't include pot smokers as a class of addict =P
kmo
May. 30th, 2001 01:39 pm (UTC)
Re: Addicts Piss Me Off
Well, I admit that most pot smokers do watch a lot television and so, in that respect, they qualify as addicts in the same why that loveless loser trekkies qualify as addicts.











Note to fans of Star Trek: I'm just pulling Q's chain here. I have nothing against Trek. At its worst, Star Trek is no more vapid and insulting than your average hour of TV mind-rot. At it's best, it tackles important topics in a thoughtful and imaginative way.
q
May. 30th, 2001 01:54 pm (UTC)
Re: Addicts Piss Me Off
Heh.

I don't really care too much about pot. In my opinion, in moderation it's no worse than cigarettes or alcohol. I care about addiction, because nothing hurts like watching a good friend go from being fun, inspiring, and intelligent to a guy who sits around (indoors) all day taking hits off his "hoo-kah". This has happened more than once to people I know. It's a disease, like alcoholism - its just that people tend to be addicted to pot much more easily, and moderation turns into abuse, and I've got one more man-breasted glazed-eyed moron to pretend to have fun around. Then they feel the necessity to justify their addiction.

I just argue about hemp because most people who are "hemp activists" don't know what the hell they're arguing for. They're fighting to legalize jute, sisal and flax -- which are already legal and grown as a crop!
maddening
May. 30th, 2001 02:30 pm (UTC)
Re: Addicts Piss Me Off
Not all pot smokers and 'addicts.'
I think you know that.
I don't really feel the need to justify my pot smoking to anyone.
It's something I do.
I enjoy it.
I don't plan on stopping.
It's within my own acceptable parameters.
::shrug::
Anyone who doesn't like it, well, they don't HAVE to. And if you have that much a problem with your friends, then get different friends. Or maybe TALK to them about what you think is their problem.
maddening
May. 30th, 2001 02:10 pm (UTC)
If you were to see the whole argument in context, you would understand that it is not just one "big fallacy."
ANd of course they're one sided, Brain boy, they're ONE SIDE of the argument. I excerpted just this chunk because instead of the screaming and ranting that tends to go on in arguments such as this (you know, the way you've responded here?), Simon took the time to respond intelligently and calmly.


You have a difference of opinion apparently.
That's fine.
I wish you would stop your little tantrum for a second to actually realize that I wasn't inviting a debate on the topic. I was admiring someone *else's* debate and the way in which it was handled.


I have very little tolerance for people who get up in arms without knowing what they're actually getting upset over, and even less for those who would use a forum such as this (*my* journal) to pound on and expound their beliefs.


Thanks for giving me permission to 'ruin' my 'own pathetic life.' However, because you obviously didn't understand (probably didn't even take the time to think about) what was written in the original post and what it said about *decriminalization or legalization* and decided to make an anti-drug rant, I find it hard to take you seriously at all.


I smoke weed.
I think it should be legal.
I think that it's illegality is just as insane as the *legality* of semi-automatic weapons for civilians.
I think that alcohol is and always has been more of a detriment to the person, the family, the community and the world at large.
I think that YOU have no right to bluster onto MY journal and make comments about MY views and MY life without knowing A FUCKING THING about me.
And whether you meant it to be directed at me or not hardly matters because I doubt that I am anything different in your mind than your very tiny stereotypical view of the average pot smoker.


You're welcome to keep replying and debating.
Now that it's started, I might as well encourage it. But it was presumptuous, rude, and quite frankly, totally and utterly HEAD UP YOUR ASS to start it.


Continue the debate.
GO on.
q
May. 30th, 2001 02:44 pm (UTC)
Good grief!

I WASN'T ATTACKING WEED. I was responding to the comment, "Stoners should be stopped." The argument (IMHO) makes it look like people who are anti-drug all think that people who do take drugs are bad people. I don't think that at all.

1) Yes, I'm sharing my beliefs. I don't expect you to believe them.
2) No, I don't care if you smoke weed. Because,
3) IMHO smoking weed doesn't make you a bad person
4) I was arguing about HEMP, not POT. someone *else* brought it up, so don't yell at ME.
5) I have nothing against pot, or potheads. I have a problem with ADDICTS.
6) I don't think your life is pathetic.

Have you ever seen ruin their life? Someone so high (on weed) he cheated on his wife, or maybe a friend who dropped out of school to smoke weed? Any of your friends ever wrap their car around the front of someone else's doing 65 on the freeway, put himself and a total stranger in the hospital for a week? It wasn't the weed -- it was the people. But that doesn't excuse the role the weed played, just like it wouldn't excuse alcoholism.

Out of respect, I've deleted all my other comments. If you didn't want a flame-war, just say so and please don't yell at me like I'm some bible-thumping fathead politician. I'd have to take my piercing out of my dick and give up my own addictions (wanking and LJ), and we just can't have that, can we?
maddening
May. 30th, 2001 05:38 pm (UTC)

I WASN'T ATTACKING WEED. I was responding to the comment,
"Stoners should be stopped." The argument (IMHO) makes it look like
people who are anti-drug all think that people who do take drugs are bad
people. I don't think that at all. >>>

As I said, in it's context, the argument made perfect sense. He was responding to Sean, an establishment toady on our mailing list who has actually told me before that anything I have to say on the topic is invalidated because I smoke weed, and that makes me a criminal and nothing a criminal says can be trusted.
He really does think that drug users are bad people.
Well, he thinks that users of *illegal* drugs are bad people. Alcohol drinkers and just fine by him.
So in the context it was a perfectly acceptable thing.


4) I was arguing about HEMP, not POT.
someone *else* brought it up, so don't yell at ME. >>>

You were actually arguing about both.
And I'll yell at you if I like. I wouldn't do it on your journal, but considering that this is my journal, I really don't think it's a problem.

5) I have nothing
against pot, or potheads. I have a problem with ADDICTS.>>>

If you had made that distinction to begin with it would have been incredibly helpful.

6) I don't
think your life is pathetic. >>>

That's probably a good thing, considering you don't know anything about it.


Have you ever seen ruin their life? Someone so high (on weed) he cheated
on his wife, or maybe a friend who dropped out of school to smoke weed?>>>

Have you ever had to help a heroin addict shoot up because they couldn't find a vein and were going to keep trying, turning their arm into a bloated, stabbed and bleeding mass of flesh, until they got their fix?
Have you ever sat in the emergency room with a friend you dragged there literally trying to rip his own face off and screaming and twitching and puking because of an overdose of meth that was laced with pcp?
I know about the ruin of lives due to drugs, emotional dumbfuckery, abuse, self destructive tendencies and the vagaries of poverty and neglect.

Any of your friends ever wrap their car around the front of someone
else's doing 65 on the freeway, put himself and a total stranger in the
hospital for a week?>>>

Any of your friends ever purposefully overdose on amps, hit the interstate and have a heart attack while driving, wipe out 6 cars, kill 3 people, and walk out of the wreckage unharmed?

It wasn't the weed -- it was the people. But that
doesn't excuse the role the weed played, just like it wouldn't excuse
alcoholism. >>>>

Those are irresponsible people. Those are people who decided that their indulgence was more important than everyone else's safety. It's the exception, not the rule.


Out of respect, I've deleted all my other comments. If you didn't want a
flame-war, just say so and please don't yell at me like
I'm some
bible-thumping fathead politician.>>>

When I post something in my journal and someone comes back screaming about it and very very derogatory, do you expect me to just say 'okey dokey' and smile and laugh?
Believe it or not, I wasn't actually yelling at you. I was just being as adamant about my point as you were.
It's good that you have strong opinions. Most people don't. Most people are 3/4 dead. MOST people can't be bothered to express an opinion at all.
I'm glad that you don't have that problem.
And I'm not even being sarcastic.
Thanks.
kmo
May. 30th, 2001 05:13 pm (UTC)
Mea culpa
You wrote:

"I have very little tolerance for people who get up in arms without knowing what they're actually getting upset over, and even less for those who would use a forum such as this (*my* journal) to pound on and expound their beliefs."

I realize that I stand just as guilty of expounding my own views in a less than level-headed way here (in your LiveJournal) as Q.

I apologize.

If you like, I will be happy to desist and give Q the last word in this exchange.
maddening
May. 30th, 2001 05:42 pm (UTC)
Re: Mea culpa
At first I was rather annoyed at the whole thing.
Now that I've had some hours to go away and occupy myself with other things, I am more open to it.
You two can really debate all you like, and anyone else who wants to join in.
It was rather inane of me to admonish anyone over this.
If it fosters the cross pollination of ideas, it's a good thing, no matter what the forum.
mjfgates
May. 30th, 2001 12:39 pm (UTC)
So, why are you posting Simon's words?
And why *here*? Were you planning to have the whole drug prohibition flamewar erupt in your journal, or just recording one of the few rational posts in that immense pile of crap?

Anyways, I'll have to tell Simon that he's caused much fulmination and acidic commentary on lj, and maybe try to make him feel guilty about it. (Of course, what he'll *actually* do is laugh evilly.)
maddening
May. 30th, 2001 02:12 pm (UTC)
Re: So, why are you posting Simon's words?
I honestly just appreciated the level headedness of his post.
Had I known I had an establishment toady with a need to rage on my friend's list, I wouldn't have.. or well.... I would have posted it with a disclaimer or removed the comment possibility.


And yes, Simon would only rub his hands together and giggle.. you know that.
mjfgates
May. 30th, 2001 03:31 pm (UTC)
Re: So, why are you posting Simon's words?
Ah. Yes, I can see that... though if you disagreed with him, you might choose not to NOTICE the level- headedness, it is there. ACK NO DON'T EAT TH9E KEY89B9





JU why do you think I plan to tell him? :P
( 28 comments — Leave a comment )

Profile

NewYorkNewYork
maddening
A Non-Newtonian Fluid

Latest Month

March 2010
S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow