Archive

"Marijuana is a schedule 1 drug because of the absence of science"

  • Trueblue23
    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/08/health/gupta-changed-mind-marijuana/index.html?hpt=hp_t1


    I'm glad higher minds (no pun intended) are realizing the ridiculousness behind the weed ban.
  • dlazz
    oh cool this argument again.

    It's never going to be legalized. That would be the government admitting they were wrong, and they obviously won't do that.

    Whether legalization is the right thing to do is irrelevant due to the above point.
  • Commander of Awesome
    dlazz;1484246 wrote:oh cool this argument again.

    It's never going to be legalized. That would be the government admitting they were wrong, and they obviously won't do that.

    Whether legalization is the right thing to do is irrelevant due to the above point.
    Gov't has admitted a few times when they've been wrong. 21st amendment, slavery, seperate but equal, civil rights, women's suffrage come to mind right off the top of my head. Nice fail.
  • dlazz
    Commander of Awesome;1484250 wrote:Gov't has admitted a few times when they've been wrong. 21st amendment, slavery, seperate but equal, civil rights, women's suffrage come to mind right off the top of my head. Nice fail.
    In recent memory? Please.
  • Commander of Awesome
    dlazz;1484251 wrote:In recent memory? Please.
    WMD in Iraq.
  • Con_Alma
    It's not currently illegal because of old, bad science. I believe it was easily made illegal because at the time the cultural lack of acceptnace of those types of narcotics as opposed to the cultural acceptance and social usage of alcohol. Scientific reference may have been used to help such decisions "sit well' with all involved....even if they weren't thorough or accurate.

    It still being illegal will require a massive majority of the populace to demand such laws be changed. I don't believe we are there yet but are certainly closer and getting there with increasing momentum.
  • Commander of Awesome
    Also overturning the defense of marriage act.

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-06-26/catching-up-on-gay-rights-the-supreme-court-overturns-the-defense-of-marriage-act

    LOL
  • Fly4Fun
    dlazz;1484251 wrote:In recent memory? Please.
    What CoA said re: DoMA
  • dlazz
    Fly4Fun;1484258 wrote:What CoA said re: DoMA
    That's a really poor example, but I can't be bothered to fight with you.
  • gut
    Does anyone really think if prohibition could work today that it wouldn't be a substantial movement?

    Anyway, I'm not convinced that an already illegal drug has really received the scientific scrutiny to research potentially bad/harmful effects. I tend to be rather skeptical that mj is like caffeine or one of the very few other "benign" drugs/stimulants and not like the many harmful ones.
  • Con_Alma
    Illegality isn't always about limiting the activity. Illegality can be about reflecting the desires of the culture of society. Prohibition can work if it relfects the desire of the society...even if it doesn't reduce usage.
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1484278 wrote:Illegality isn't always about limiting the activity. Illegality can be about reflecting the desires of the culture of society. Prohibition can work if it relfects the desire of the society...even if it doesn't reduce usage.
    Symbolic gestures (or laws) are a load of crap.
  • Fly4Fun
    dlazz;1484274 wrote:That's a really poor example, but I can't be bothered to fight with you.
    Why is DoMA a poor example of the government changing their mind? A law was passed taking a strict stance on something to the extent of defining what marriage is. Then later the government decided it disagreed with the previous legislative act and definition and refused to defend the law which then went up to SCOTUS and was ruled unconstitutional.
  • Con_Alma
    gut;1484283 wrote:Symbolic gestures (or laws) are a load of crap.
    I didn't suggest anything be symbolic. A law reflecting the desires of society is hardly symbolic....and they exist.
  • Fly4Fun
    Con_Alma;1484278 wrote:Illegality isn't always about limiting the activity. Illegality can be about reflecting the desires of the culture of society. Prohibition can work if it relfects the desire of the society...even if it doesn't reduce usage.
    You just described the difference between an effective (or good) and ineffective (or bad) law.
  • Con_Alma
    Fly4Fun;1484289 wrote:You just described the difference between an effective (or good) and ineffective (or bad) law.
    I disagree. I don't think it's ineffective if it doesn't eliminate the desired activity.
  • Fly4Fun
    Con_Alma;1484293 wrote:I disagree. I don't think it's ineffective if it doesn't eliminate the desired activity.
    I agree that a law isn't necessarily ineffective just because it doesn't elminate the desired activity. But if a law does not reflect the desires of a society or social system of a society then it will be ineffective. That's why copying and/or translating laws to "transplant" laws to different countries is often ineffective. A law that doesn't reflect the society will inevitably ineffective.
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1484288 wrote:A law reflecting the desires of society is hardly symbolic....and they exist.
    It remains a load of crap nonetheless.
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1484293 wrote:I disagree. I don't think it's ineffective if it doesn't eliminate the desired activity.
    Laws are something to be enforced, and come with consequences. Laws are not daily affirmations. If a law is ineffective or not to be enforced, then codifying it is a waste of resources on multiple levels.
  • Con_Alma
    I'm not really sure by what you mean by "load of crap". Do you think it's disingenuous? Do you think it's worthless?

    There is value in laws reflecting the desire of society.
  • Con_Alma
    gut;1484301 wrote:Laws are something to be enforced, and come with consequences. Laws are not daily affirmations. If a law is ineffective or not to be enforced, then codifying it is a waste of resources on multiple levels.
    Are4 you suggesting the illegality of marijuana doesn't have consequences if the law is violated.

    I think the government does indeed try and enforce the law.I don't see it as a waste of resources at all.
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1484302 wrote: There is value in laws reflecting the desire of society.
    No, there is value only in laws that preserve the desires of society. If a law does nothing to preserve your values - and words on a paper don't meet that standard alone - then it's useless.

    There are simply too many laws for an ineffective or inconsequential one to have some sort of osmotic effect you are hoping for.
  • gut
    Con_Alma;1484305 wrote:Are4 you suggesting the illegality of marijuana doesn't have consequences if the law is violated.

    I think the government does indeed try and enforce the law.I don't see it as a waste of resources at all.

    My comment was in reference to your implication that what society desires is sufficient justification for going on the books. There needs to be a higher standard than that. Society might like the sky to be purple - doesn't mean it should be a law, or that there's value in that.
  • majorspark
    This thread is about Mary Jane not Mary and Jane.
  • Con_Alma
    I don't hope for an osmotic effect. Lol

    In general I view laws as reactive as opposed to proactive.

    I would agree, however, that we have laws on the books we no longer desire as a mirror of our society.

    The reality is that to eliminate them it takes an opposition of desire that's massive to get legislative activity.

    That's just reality....even if you might think it's a "load of crap".