- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Give me one good reason why marijuana should be illegal while alcohol shouldn't
Posted on 12/18/14 at 9:32 pm to benhamin5555
Posted on 12/18/14 at 9:32 pm to benhamin5555
Too difficult to tax marijuana... (at least that's what I was told when I asked this same question)
0
Posted on 12/18/14 at 9:33 pm to onmymedicalgrind
Here's just some stuff from a quick search.
LINK
quote:
Marijuana is the most commonly used illicit drug in the United States. When smoked, it begins to effect users almost immediately and can last for one to three hours. When it is eaten in food, such as baked in brownies and cookies, the effects take longer to begin, but usually last longer.
LINK
quote:
Alcohol use: If you drink, keep it moderate
Alcohol use can be a slippery slope. Moderate drinking can offer some health benefits. But heavy drinking can have serious consequences.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 9:39 pm to Jimbeaux
No, my issue was not regarding whether marijuana has immediate effects. The relative level of impairment argument is BS, and totally depends on the person.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 9:42 pm to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Resistance will melt away when the baby boomers start dying off.
I am far from being a baby boomer.
quote:
The lack of testing measures isnt a significant reason why most oppose it
It is the single best and most logical reason to oppose it.
Not to come across as showboating, but I will make you an offer. Meet me at work and we will get in a personnel basket attached to a crane that is going to lift us 150 feet in the air. Maybe the crane operator will be stoned, maybe he won't. We have no way of telling for sure because there is a "lack of testing measures" as you put it. You see no problem here?
Posted on 12/18/14 at 9:58 pm to benhamin5555
Because I said so. Now get to bed.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 10:09 pm to benhamin5555
money and control, like everything else.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 10:11 pm to StrangeBrew
quote:
If marijuana became legal, give me one good reason why cocaine and heroin should remain illegal
There's no reason any of those three should be illegal.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 10:14 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
That chart is laughable.
"Overall harm score"!
quote:
Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 10:43 pm to benhamin5555
quote:
I'm sorry that I think it's stupid that something remains illegal when nobody can provide a half decent justification for why.
Because the law says it's illegal
Posted on 12/18/14 at 10:45 pm to onmymedicalgrind
quote:
Who told you EtOH is more addictive than heroin? Bc they lied
No one told me that. It's just my observation the reason ethanol is legal and one of the most popular drugs globally and though human history. But I guess it's how you define addictive (and I know I'm not using the word correctly).
After a long hard week of work, on a Friday after noon I quite often think, "man I could slam a few beers down".
That might not meet the medical definition of addictive but it does meet the aspect of craving. Craving ethanol is very popular in the human species.
ETA: lol, a Budweiser banner ad popped up on my computer because of this thread.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 10:47 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 10:59 pm to reverendotis
quote:
Not to come across as showboating, but I will make you an offer. Meet me at work and we will get in a personnel basket attached to a crane that is going to lift us 150 feet in the air. Maybe the crane operator will be stoned, maybe he won't. We have no way of telling for sure because there is a "lack of testing measures" as you put it. You see no problem here?
What about a coworker with a prescription for pain pills who abuses them on the job? Where's your oxycodone breathalyzer, so you can test them in real time? Out of all of the legal substances that exist that can be abused with or without a prescription, alcohol is the only one I'm aware of that has a real-time breathalyzer type test (i.e. no blood work).
Also, what you're saying is that this scenario can't possibly happen now? That'd odd, because despite marijuana being illegal in Louisiana, I've definitely had jobs where my coworkers were high... You're starting to sound like those gun control loons who think that criminals won't have guns anymore if you just make them illegal.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 11:02 pm to onmymedicalgrind
Not directly supporting his claim, but this review article is a great jumping off point on the matter. Many studies (cited in the article) support some amount of cognitive decline with chronic use, specifically in a dose-dependent fashion. It's somewhat controversial but generally accepted that it's a reversible (with abstinence) decline. I disagree with your "case by case" statement as it is written. If you're suggesting that some people have enough of what I will call "cognitive reserve" that a small amount of decline isn't noticeable to them and those around them, then I do agree. If you suggest that some people simply aren't affected cognitively either acutely or chronically by consistent use, I just disagree. The mechanism I've seen proposed involves the heavily lipophillic THC getting pretty well distributed in/around myelin around nerves in the CNS, slowing their conduction. If that is the case, and it does sound totally reasonable to me: the drug rapidly binds its receptors throughout the body (and the ingested gets "high") before being distributed to the fatty tissues where it slowly redistributes back into the blood stream for elimination, and the more that is ingested, the longer and higher concentration of the drug in the fatty tissues (including CNS neurons), the slower their conduction, the longer it takes to return to baseline. I'm not a neuroscientist, I will admit, and that has not been proven to my knowledge. But if that's the case, I think the argument for it affecting people on a case by case basis fails, unless, again, that argument considers some small amount of cognitive decline in the particularly high-functioning person to be irrelevant to their activities of daily life.
Please note that the article linked also reviews several articles on exposing schizophrenia in susceptible adults (with pretty decent evidence) and possibly even leading to the development of psychiatric disorders in the susceptible developing/young adolescent brain (not really grasping at straws, but not making ground-breaking connections either), but that is not the premise of my post, and I will refrain from expanding my opinion on those topics as they're not particularly relevant unless someone's trying to make the argument that the age of legalization should be nonexistent or, in light of the evidence of this paper, under age 15. As always, read with great scrutiny. I have not evaluated the articles that this paper mentions myself, and I probably won't get around to it anytime soon. If you happen to check them out and find that they're solid or bogus, I'd actually love to hear your opinion of them. Until then, happy reading
Please note that the article linked also reviews several articles on exposing schizophrenia in susceptible adults (with pretty decent evidence) and possibly even leading to the development of psychiatric disorders in the susceptible developing/young adolescent brain (not really grasping at straws, but not making ground-breaking connections either), but that is not the premise of my post, and I will refrain from expanding my opinion on those topics as they're not particularly relevant unless someone's trying to make the argument that the age of legalization should be nonexistent or, in light of the evidence of this paper, under age 15. As always, read with great scrutiny. I have not evaluated the articles that this paper mentions myself, and I probably won't get around to it anytime soon. If you happen to check them out and find that they're solid or bogus, I'd actually love to hear your opinion of them. Until then, happy reading
Posted on 12/18/14 at 11:02 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:quote:
quote:Researchers led by Professor David Nutt, a former chief drugs adviser to the British government, asked drug-harm experts to rank 20 drugs (legal and illegal) on 16 measures of harm to the user and to wider society, such as damage to health, drug dependency, economic costs and crime. Alcohol is the most harmful drug in Britain, scoring 72 out of a possible 100, far more damaging than heroin (55) or crack cocaine (54). It is the most harmful to others by a wide margin, and is ranked fourth behind heroin, crack, and methamphetamine (crystal meth) for harm to the individual. The authors point out that the model's weightings, though based on judgment, were analysed and found to be stable as large changes would be needed to change the overall rankings.
I read all of that and it still made me chuckle.
Do you not see the inherent subjective nature of measuring a "harm score".
He might be right, but he needs to show his comparison of factual data.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 11:04 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 11:20 pm to efrad
quote:
What about a coworker with a prescription for pain pills who abuses them on the job?
It is a hazard that exists and is difficult to mitigate.
quote:
Also, what you're saying is that this scenario can't possibly happen now?
It can happen now.
Post legalization, the person can explain away a positive drug test (urinalysis) after an accident by saying they smoked recently but they were not under the influence when it happened. Pot is legal and with no way of knowing if they were stoned when they killed or injured somebody, they get off free and clear. That's not OK.
I will drop my objection to legalization once this one single hurdle is cleared.
As I stated earlier, I read about devices and tests that are currently being developed. Once they are commonly available for sale, I will change my tune.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 11:28 pm to reverendotis
quote:LINK
I will drop my objection to legalization once this one single hurdle is cleared.
As I stated earlier, I read about devices and tests that are currently being developed. Once they are commonly available for sale, I will change my tune.
Something tells me you're going to find a reason not to change your tune. Call it a hunch.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 11:32 pm to Jimbeaux
quote:
a joint per day will have more negative health effects than a person who consumes one beer or glass of wine per day.
at those units of measurement 
Posted on 12/18/14 at 11:41 pm to reverendotis
I would also point out that it's actually perfectly possible to distinguish recent use and residual excretion with a urine test, most places just don't bother. You test them twice in 24 hours and look at the creatine-normalized ratios.
LINK
LINK
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 11:42 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 11:42 pm to Iosh
No, that is my only objection and it is a very legitimate concern to have.
The phone number listed on the link you provided is for France. If similar devices are readily available for sale in the US in a quantity sufficient to meet the demands of law enforcement, industry and hospitals (the 'commonly available' qualifier in my previous statement) then I will vote for pot to be legal - guaranteed.
The phone number listed on the link you provided is for France. If similar devices are readily available for sale in the US in a quantity sufficient to meet the demands of law enforcement, industry and hospitals (the 'commonly available' qualifier in my previous statement) then I will vote for pot to be legal - guaranteed.
Posted on 12/18/14 at 11:49 pm to reverendotis
quote:Bro, I just grabbed the first link I could find since you are apparently unaware mouth swabs are a thing.
The phone number listed on the link you provided is for France. If similar devices are readily available for sale in the US in a quantity sufficient to meet the demands of law enforcement, industry and hospitals (the 'commonly available' qualifier in my previous statement) then I will vote for pot to be legal - guaranteed.
LINK
LINK
LINK
Hint: The reason nobody is using these isn't because they don't work. It's because urine tests are the standard and companies don't give a shite. Your scenario assumes that they don't fire the worker anyway. Weed just isn't as mainstream as alcohol. A company can afford to fire weekend tokers more easily than weekend drinkers.
This post was edited on 12/18/14 at 11:52 pm
Posted on 12/18/14 at 11:54 pm to Jimbeaux
1. A joint alone will get you high as frick. That's why you share them with 2 or 3 of your buddies. When's the last time you gathered up your friends to split a beer or share a glass of wine?
2. A "joint" isn't a set unit of measurement. It can look like a Virginia slim or Schwarzenegger's thumb and the weed varieties inside are limitless.
3. A joint involves paper of some kind. Cigarette paper, cigar wrapper, or healthier raw alternatives, etc. but smoking the paper obviously isn't good for your lungs. It's adorable that you chose that as your method of standardization despite the fact that most people aren't smoking an entire joint alone in paper, they're taking a hit from a glass bowl. Obviously vaporization or water filtration would not fit your fear mongering agenda.
4. To the "we need a DUI-style test" people, what a bunch of hypocrites. You know what's extremely dangerous? Using your hands to hold a burger or large soda while you drive? Should we make fast food/drive thru's illegal? Of course not, it's a billion+ dollar industry. You know what's dangerous? Taking various types of prescription medicines, that don't have eye or breath tests, and then driving with the medicine's side effects. Should we make prescription medicine illegal? Somehow the sky isn't falling. People are told not to drive under the influence. The car says it. The seller says it. The doctor says it. The package says it. Yet sometimes they do and when they cause an incident, they are punished for it. Odd that those circumstances for such serious drugs don't extend to such a harmless plant.
5. Obviously I haven't sat through the decades of propaganda and brainwashing you have had to endure but surely you can see how ridiculous your fears are. At least be logical and consistent and extend your rationale to other, similar situations and areas.
2. A "joint" isn't a set unit of measurement. It can look like a Virginia slim or Schwarzenegger's thumb and the weed varieties inside are limitless.
3. A joint involves paper of some kind. Cigarette paper, cigar wrapper, or healthier raw alternatives, etc. but smoking the paper obviously isn't good for your lungs. It's adorable that you chose that as your method of standardization despite the fact that most people aren't smoking an entire joint alone in paper, they're taking a hit from a glass bowl. Obviously vaporization or water filtration would not fit your fear mongering agenda.
4. To the "we need a DUI-style test" people, what a bunch of hypocrites. You know what's extremely dangerous? Using your hands to hold a burger or large soda while you drive? Should we make fast food/drive thru's illegal? Of course not, it's a billion+ dollar industry. You know what's dangerous? Taking various types of prescription medicines, that don't have eye or breath tests, and then driving with the medicine's side effects. Should we make prescription medicine illegal? Somehow the sky isn't falling. People are told not to drive under the influence. The car says it. The seller says it. The doctor says it. The package says it. Yet sometimes they do and when they cause an incident, they are punished for it. Odd that those circumstances for such serious drugs don't extend to such a harmless plant.
5. Obviously I haven't sat through the decades of propaganda and brainwashing you have had to endure but surely you can see how ridiculous your fears are. At least be logical and consistent and extend your rationale to other, similar situations and areas.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News