weed, marry jane, tree, pot, grass, herb, bud, sticky icky
Moderator: Moderators
Post #41
This is an interesting argument. If we were all logical, we wouldn't need drugs to make ourselves happy. The problem is, it's not that simple. Even the Bible tells us that wine is appropriate for certain celebrations, presumably because of the celebratory spirit it gives to everyone.TQWcS wrote:To me your whole arguement is based on this: if you are logical then the drugs are of no harm. The problem is that if you are logical you would not take the drugs in the first place. Therefore anyone who uses drugs is not logical.
I will admit that many people get into drugs as an escape from everyday life. This is not a welcome state of affairs, and many drugs are a dangerous way to escape. There are plenty of ways to escape, from hiking to playing video games to being on this board. So why drugs? Is it more indicative of the lack of fulfillment of what happens in everyday life, or is it just an easy shortcut to getting pleasure out of a situation?
But there are other reasons for taking drugs. In the case of marijuana, it's relaxing. It alters the mind toward seeing things differently. It produces entertaining hallucinations similar to television programs. To paraphrase Aeschylus, wine can accomplish what negotiation can't. As humans, even the most adamantly rational of us like to have fun once in a while. Need fun be logical?
Post #43
I think both are important to the mental health of the individual.TQWcS wrote:what is more important? Fun or logic?
The illogical, as you so term them, suffer the most with regards to most things in life. This is not reason enough to keep a drug banned when there are legal alternatives available that are as bad or worse. The irresponsible suffer the most from alcohol use and tobacco use as well. Yet these are not banned.TQWcS wrote:If you are logical you could balance out the act of having fun and being logical. The illogical would suffer the most from drug use.
Post #44
Tobacco does not cause you to act illogically it is just illogical to use tobaco. Alcohol on the other hand does cause you to act illogical. What if I said I was for prohibition of alchohol and tobacco. Then would that be reason enough to keep it banned?This is not reason enough to keep a drug banned when there are legal alternatives available that are as bad or worse. The irresponsible suffer the most from alcohol use and tobacco use as well.
Post #45
No for the same reason being against abortion is not reason enough to ban it or being for slavery is reason enough to unban it. Just because you oppose or support something on a personal level does not mean that it should be banned on a national level. There has to be a good reason for it, in addition to being opposed to it.TQWcS wrote:What if I said I was for prohibition of alchohol and tobacco. Then would that be reason enough to keep it banned?
It is not the government's responsibility to keep us from harming ourselves; that is where personal responsibility is supposed to take over. If you choose to put a substance into your body, you should take responsibility for the consequences. In the case of marijuana, the only victim of its use is the user. Prohibiting its use is therefore not justified. Just as you do not have to use tobacco or drink alcohol, even though they are legal, you would not have to smoke pot if it were legal, so it doesn't affect you either way.
What right do you have to limit the rights of the people simply because they are hurting themselves?
Post #46
Ha! Damn the logic, fun needs to be fun!ST88 wrote:But there are other reasons for taking drugs. In the case of marijuana, it's relaxing. It alters the mind toward seeing things differently. It produces entertaining hallucinations similar to television programs. To paraphrase Aeschylus, wine can accomplish what negotiation can't. As humans, even the most adamantly rational of us like to have fun once in a while. Need fun be logical?
It seems incredibly two-faced to me that individuals are "permitted" to indulge in certain activities and substances that are acceptable, while others which may have a similarly destructive impact, are prohibited. The fact is, laws concerning the legality of marijuana were established prior to our current understanding of its mechanics and potential. The fact is, marijuana can offer a relaxing and euphoric effect and can be used responsibly. The fact is, there have been more deaths attributed to the legal consumption of alcohol than are attributed to the consumption of marijuana. If fatty foods, alcohol, tobacco, laziness, etc., are all permitted, why draw the line at marijuana use? At the end of the day, I'd much prefer to live in a society which respects my right to my own body, and extends to me both the responsibility for and consequences of my actions. When I visited the Netherlands a few years ago, the "legality" of marijuana certainly hadn't turned the country into a bunch of stoned and unbathed hippies dancing aimlessly to Grateful Dead tapes... in fact, the locals made up only a small portion of the folks in the smoking cafes. As well, the incidence of hard drug use in the Netherlands is lower than in many countries (including the US, if I recall correctly), which kinda raises further doubt about the gateway drug hypothesis mentioned earlier in this thread.
There's an interesting article in the December 2004 Scientific American, "The Brain's Own Marijuana," which describes how marijuana affects the brain's cannabinoid receptors, as well as the fact that the brain produces anandamide and 2-AG, which trigger the same receptors. Much of what you described earlier in this thread about marijauna's effect on the brain is covered in that article. The article describes the medicinal value of regulating the cannabinoid receptors for developing targeted medicines which affect appetite, anxiety, nausea, neurological disorders and pain. So even if marijuana is not used as the only means to treat certain symptoms, its usefulness as a research tool still stands. As do the financial interests of pharmaceutical companies...
Perhaps the different paharmaceutical companies could convince the government that marijuana should be legal, but only the quality control procedures available in currently established, favored, and campaign-contributing capital enterprises are sufficient to ensure its safety? That way the companies could compete with each other in an OTC medicinals market, sorta like Dristan(TM) vs Contac(TM) or Robitussin(TM) vs. Vick's(TM).
Regards,
mrmufin
Post #48
Do you have the same response to the multitude of medicines that the pharmaceutical companies advertise? "Ask your doctor if [insert trendy drug name here] is right for you." And then, in a softer tone and more quickly spoken, "Side effects may include [insert long list of side effects that often sound as miserable as the original symptom]." The advertisements for these medications all too often leave me guessing what symptoms their new concoction treats; folks are shown smiling, dancing, happy, ice skating... Is that what the Purple Pill does? It helps me ice skate better?TQWcS wrote:All the arguments for it seem quite like A Brave New World. We need a drug to keep us happy and content.
If there's some mystique about needing a drug to keep us happy and content, I'll kindly submit that it flows quite freely from the pharmaceutical companies. With trendy, pharmaceutical alleviation for everything from lacka-woody to anticipated indigestion, and the companies targeting consumers rather than medical professionals, I'd say that the legal status of marijuana in the US starts to look pretty darn hypocritical...
Regards,
mrmufin
Post #49
haha... I just went to see Jerry Seinfeld and he did a bit on the pharmaceutical commercials. Funny Stuff. The difference I see between these drugs and recreational drugs is that pharmaceutical drugs try to return things back to the way they should be. Viagra gives a person the erection he used to have. Nexium and Previcid changes the amount of acid so you don't get Pyrosis and ulcers. I don't know of any ice skaters that go into the doctors office and say, "I need Nexium so I can skate better." Those commercials just do that so you connect good images with their drug. If they showed some monster tearing apart small children with evil clowns bouncing around with people screaming in the background and then said, "ask your doctor about Nexium," I doubt many people would want to take Nexium.Do you have the same response to the multitude of medicines that the pharmaceutical companies advertise? "Ask your doctor if [insert trendy drug name here] is right for you." And then, in a softer tone and more quickly spoken, "Side effects may include [insert long list of side effects that often sound as miserable as the original symptom]." The advertisements for these medications all too often leave me guessing what symptoms their new concoction treats; folks are shown smiling, dancing, happy, ice skating... Is that what the Purple Pill does? It helps me ice skate better?
If there's some mystique about needing a drug to keep us happy and content, I'll kindly submit that it flows quite freely from the pharmaceutical companies. With trendy, pharmaceutical alleviation for everything from lacka-woody to anticipated indigestion, and the companies targeting consumers rather than medical professionals, I'd say that the legal status of marijuana in the US starts to look pretty darn hypocritical...
Post #50
Kinda like the way marijuana can help return things to the way they oughtta be --free from naseau-- in chemo patients? Kinda like the way marijuana can return things to the way they oughtta be by restoring the appetite of AIDS patients?TQWcS wrote:The difference I see between these drugs and recreational drugs is that pharmaceutical drugs try to return things back to the way they should be.
Do you think that maybe sometimes the possibility might ever kinda happen that some folks might just kinda be tempted, or perhaps maybe sorta justa little bit swayed by or in some fashion succumb to a subtle li'l bitta power o' suggestion? Come on, you've heard the commercial for whatever-it-is-anol:TQWcS wrote:I don't know of any ice skaters that go into the doctors office and say, "I need Nexium so I can skate better." Those commercials just do that so you connect good images with their drug.
"Are you feeling down? Do you worry that folks think you're a dumb arse? Has life got you all bummed out? Then maybe you should try Ghanjamol! Call your doctor! Do it now! You know ya feel like crap and just wanna die! It'll make ya feeeeel so much better! (Side effects of may include drowsiness, the munchies, giggling, and the urge to play your Santana albums. Ghanjamol should not be taken before driving the schoolbus or grocery shopping.) Call yer doctor... Feel better todaaaay!"
And nobody ever sees that commercial with the sorry lookin' chap all in black'n'white and feeling miserable and blue and worried and think, "Hey, that jerk reminds me a lot of me?" And then he takes Ghanjamol! Then the commercial is in full fall color and he's dancin' and has a hot girlfriend half his age and he's drivin' a convertible to some expensive chalet that's way outta my budget and everything's groovy as long as he's takin' Ghanjamol every four-to-six hours. And when the commercial's over, you're pickin' up the phone and call your doctor and say, "I feel like crap, just like that sorry jerk in the Ghanjamol commercial. Can you call in a prescription for me?" You don't think that maybe --just maybe-- the pharmaceuticals might be playin' just a wee bit of suggestion? Maybe it's just me, but I think that playing prescription pharmaceuticals direct to the consumer on prime time is kinda sleazy.
Yeah. And I don't think many folks would continue to use marijuana if it really was as bad as the folks who made Reefer Madness made it appear.TQWcS wrote:If they showed some monster tearing apart small children with evil clowns bouncing around with people screaming in the background and then said, "ask your doctor about Nexium," I doubt many people would want to take Nexium.
Regards,
mrmufin
