Issue 3 (For Ohio Residents)

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 03:54 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: My point was too much of any drug (even the ones you personally approve of) is not a good thing.  That said too much pot isn't going to kill you.  And I've been more tweaked out after accidentally having too much coffee than pot.

We agree there, but I would say that too much of a great many things is not a good thing. Even normal household things can be abused.

Where we disagree is where society has to draw a line on what is considered an acceptable drug to posses and what is not.

[Au165]

(11-04-2015, 03:55 PM)PDub80 Wrote: LOL....

You ARE still in school. I could tell. This stuff probably does work on your parents. Not on me, kid.

This just makes you look like an idiot. Trying to belittle others because they disagree with you doesn't improve your point, it only discredits your view even more.

[Brownshoe]

(11-04-2015, 03:55 PM)PDub80 Wrote: LOL....

You ARE still in school. I could tell. This stuff probably does work on your parents. Not on me, kid.

Nope... I'm not in school. I'm actually a licensed engineer. Nice try deflecting though.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 03:54 PM)Au165 Wrote:  Most people's issue is the hypocrisy and arbitrariness with you deciding this is the line without any real reason other than "we have to draw it somewhere". You keep sighting effects that you never detail what they are and why they are so bad. Basically you have picked a random line in the sand to stand behind and that bothers others, and even those who like me that have no interest in pot.

It is not a random line.

Pot's purpose is to get high. yes yes, other things can be made from it, but come on. It's intended function is to impair. That's the line. That's not arbitrary or random or out of the blue.

There's nothing hypocritical about it.

Also, caffeine in normal doses or use does not impair.

Tell you what.. You tell me the lowest strength drug where YOU think it should be illegal. Please, suggest one and why.

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-04-2015, 03:57 PM)PDub80 Wrote: We agree there, but I would say that too much of a great many things is not a good thing. Even normal household things can be abused.

Where we disagree is where society has to draw a line on what is considered an acceptable drug to posses and what is not.

Indeed.  For some reason you are cool with a drug that can kill you.  Whereas, I'm cool with a drug that worst case will put you to sleep and give you an appetite.

I've lost friends to alcohol.  I've never lost a friend who got too high.  

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-04-2015, 04:00 PM)PDub80 Wrote: It is not a random line.

Pot's purpose is to get high. yes yes, other things can be made from it, but come on. It's intended function is to impair. That's the line. That's not arbitrary or random or out of the blue.

There's nothing hypocritical about it.

Also, caffeine in normal doses or use does not impair.

Tell you what.. You tell me the lowest strength drug where YOU think it should be illegal. Please, suggest one and why.

The purpose of Bud Light is for you to enjoy it's delicious and refreshing taste.  When I go to a game, people only enjoy one 12 ounce serving.  I've never seen drunk people at a football game.   If I did, it was an outlier.  

[Au165]

(11-04-2015, 04:00 PM)PDub80 Wrote: It is not a random line.

Pot's purpose is to get high. yes yes, other things can be made from it, but come on. It's intended function is to impair. That's the line. That's not arbitrary or random or out of the blue.

There's nothing hypocritical about it.

Also, caffeine in normal doses or use does not impair.

Tell you what.. You tell me the lowest strength drug where YOU think it should be illegal. Please, suggest one and why.

Caffeine's only purpose is to be a stimulant. It is added to soda. The only reason it is there is to stimulate. Caffeine doesn't impair it stimulates causing other issues through stimulation, but it doesn't mean it's effects aren't dangerous.

You are just not getting the difference between a stimulant and a sedative. Different effects, both can be dangerous.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 03:59 PM)Au165 Wrote: This just makes you look like an idiot. Trying to belittle others because they disagree with you doesn't improve your point, it only discredits your view even more.

His logic is circular and he continues to belabor the same points and ask the same question over and over and in different ways. I've addressed them several times already.

(11-04-2015, 04:00 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: Nope... I'm not in school. I'm actually a licensed engineer. Nice try deflecting though.

Just out of school or at least under 25?

I'm not deflecting. You keep asking the same thing or bringing up the same point different ways. I've already addressed it. You disagree and  think that people seek out (or the purpose that these drinks exist at all) coffee or caffeinated drinks for the sole purpose of ingesting caffeine. I disagree completely but I accept that you have a different perspective.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:02 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: The purpose of Bud Light is for you to enjoy it's delicious and refreshing taste.  When I go to a game, people only enjoy one 12 ounce serving.  I've never seen drunk people at a football game.   If I did, it was an outlier.  

I have seen drunk people and I have seen sober people enjoy beer.

I have never seen a sober person after they were done smoking weed.

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-04-2015, 04:06 PM)PDub80 Wrote: I have seen drunk people and I have seen sober people enjoy beer.

I have never seen a sober person after they were done smoking weed.

I assure you if we met on the street and had a conversation, you wouldn't be able to tell if I was high unless I told you I was.  

[Wes Mantooth]

(11-04-2015, 03:50 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Where do we draw the line on what is allowed in normal society and sanctioned under governing laws?

I mean, if you're really of the mindset that anything that alters one's thinking or decision making should be illegal then there needs to be firm line drawn of no tolerance for any mind altering substance.  A person whose position of such should be 100% in favor of alcohol prohibition.  It doesn't seem fair to try to make the argument that one drug or substance leads to another, thus question where a line needs to be drawn, while accepting current alcohol regulations and laws.

And don't even get me started on legalized pharmacuticals, which seems incredibly hypocritical.  If we're really that worried about people progressing to harder drugss, ie .controlled substances, shouldn't we be more worried about prescribed drugs than marijuana?

Not to many stoners are hurting anyone, at least not as a result of the drug.  So if it helps them enjoy life more, unwind, cheer up, sleep, relax, then who really cares?  Honestly, what does hurt you, or anyone?  If you don't want to do it, more power to you.  But why the concern for others?

And as long as you we're asking where the line is drawn, I can ask the reverse.  When we can tell others what they can and cannot do,l when it harms no one else, where does that stop?  What's next, making McDonalds illegal? Should we prohibit the sale of sugary foods and drinks?  Afterall, they can be bad for you and some people abuse them.  Alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, fried foods, etc.  Where do we draw the line of what we we can and can't tell others not to do, for their own good?  Do we need to start to mandate a certain amount of exercise?  Should the government regulate the amount of sleep?  Where does it stop?

[Au165]

(11-04-2015, 04:08 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: I assure you if we met on the street and had a conversation, you wouldn't be able to tell if I was high unless I told you I was.  

That is the issue here I think. He equates pot use with instantly passing a functional threshold into the same realm as being drunk, or as he refers to it high. The reality is all drugs by their nature cause changes to the body as soon as they are ingested. The dosage is what causes you to see outward signs of them. A guy who drinks one beer is receiving the sedative the same as the guy who drank 10, the difference is the dose and amount of sedative that leads to the outward signs of drunkenness.

The guy who takes one hit of a joint may be as functional as the guy with one beer in him and no more intoxicated. All drugs and their effects are based on dosage, pot doesn't magically take you to "high" regardless of dosage. High is the pot version of drunk. You can smoke pot and get buzzed similarly to how you can drink a couple beers and get buzzed, or even take a single hit to relax much like someone may drink a single beer after work to relax.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:13 PM)Au165 Wrote: That is the issue here I think. He equates pot use with instantly passing a functional threshold into the same realm as being drunk, or as he refers to it high. The reality is all drugs by their nature cause changes to the body as soon as they are ingested. The dosage is what causes you to see outward signs of them. A guy who drinks one beer is receiving the sedative the same as the guy who drank 10, the difference is the dose and amount of sedative that leads to the outward signs of drunkenness.

The guy who takes one hit of a joint may be as functional as the guy with one beer in him and no more intoxicated. All drugs and their effects are based on dosage, pot doesn't magically take you to "high" regardless of dosage. High is the pot version of drunk. You can smoke pot and get buzzed similarly to how you can drink a couple beers and get buzzed, or even take a single hit to relax much like someone may drink a single beer after work to relax.

It's the propensity of abuse. Like I said, someone could ingest a small amounts cocaine and be fine.

So where is the line drawn?

[Wes Mantooth]

If I want to shove 4 donuts in my mouth to start everyday I can. I can follow it up with a 2 liter of Mt. Dew and a fistful of Camel Filters. I can have McDonalds for lunch everyday the week, and I can order ***** Pizza with cheesesticks built into the crust, because obviously regular crust isn't good enough. I can use a hand-fat scooter at pretty much every single grocery chain I go to. I could complain that you fat shamed for bringing to light the fact that I'm a fat slob. I could sue you for discriminating against me because I'm so fat I can't get into your office.

I can smoke as much as I want. I can smoke 5 packs of cigarettes a day, all the while carrying no health insurance, and you can't say dick.

I can drink as much as I want. I can drink a case everyday and no one can do shit about it.

I can do literally nothing all day, but sit on the couch or in bed, and receive some sort of assistance. If I get fat enough I'll get more.

I can go to the doctor and secure copious amounts of medications. Some opiates, some to treat a limp dick, some because I tap my leg too much, some because I get nervous on flights, some to go to the bathroom less, some to go to the bathroom more. I secure scripts from different doctors, in different fields, for different ailments, many times ignoring their combined effect.

I can develop physical addictions to caffine, nicotine, sugar.

......And now we want to look out for the health and well being of others? Some are just so concerned of what it may do if they allow this drug or this addiction? Of all the things I just said, weed is the thing that should be outlawed. Are you kidding me? You're going to come up with a better argument than that.

As a wise man once said:

[Wes Mantooth]

(11-04-2015, 04:20 PM)PDub80 Wrote: It's the propensity of abuse. Like I said, someone could ingest a small amounts cocaine and be fine.

So where is the line drawn?

Someone can eat one Big Mac a year and suffer no ill affects either.  But some people can also eat way too many of them and expose themselves to a number or medical issues.  Should we make fast food illegal because some people will and do abuse it?

The answer is personal accountability and responsibility.  Weed should be no different than any number of other thing that are currently legal and universally accepted as lawful.

It seem rather arbitrary to single it out, while allowing so many other things does it not?

PS FYI, I don't even really smoke week.  Maybe once in a blue moon.  I just take exception with some of the arguments against it.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:10 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: I mean, if you're really of the mindset that anything that alters one's thinking or decision making should be illegal then there needs to be firm line drawn of no tolerance for any mind altering substance.  A person whose position of such should be 100% in favor of alcohol prohibition.  It doesn't seem fair to try to make the argument that one drug or substance leads to another, thus question where a line needs to be drawn, while accepting current alcohol regulations and laws.

And don't even get me started on legalized pharmacuticals, which seems incredibly hypocritical.  If we're really that worried about people progressing to harder drugss, ie .controlled substances, shouldn't we be more worried about prescribed drugs than marijuana?

Not to many stoners are hurting anyone, at least not as a result of the drug.  So if it helps them enjoy life more, unwind, cheer up, sleep, relax, then who really cares?  Honestly, what does hurt you, or anyone?  If you don't want to do it, more power to you.  But why the concern for others?

And as long as you we're asking where the line is drawn, I can ask the reverse.  When we can tell others what they can and cannot do,l when it harms no one else, where does that stop?  What's next, making McDonalds illegal? Should we prohibit the sale of sugary foods and drinks?  Afterall, they can be bad for you and some people abuse them.  Alcohol, cigarettes, sugar, fried foods, etc.  Where do we draw the line of what we we can and can't tell others not to do, for their own good?  Do we need to start to mandate a certain amount of exercise?  Should the government regulate the amount of sleep?  Where does it stop?

- You have strong points in the first two paragraphs.

- The 3rd: Remember that guy who ate the face off of that homeless dude in Miami a few years ago? Only thing in his system: WEED!
^ It COULD be the catalyst to the zombie apocalypse. Get your samurai swords ready!

- The concern for others is not so much as towards each individual, but more so towards the progression of society. "We" will only be as strong as the individuals that make up "Us". To introduce things into society as a norm that does not strengthen, weakens. To me, ANOTHER legal drug is potentially weakening.

- Good questions on the last part. But none of those are in the same category as weed.

Why have any laws at all then, right? After all, we're all just animals out here and we made up these laws and societal norms ourselves. maybe we don't need any laws. Or even money for that matter? Question: If someone kills someone, is that a victim-less crime since they aren't around any more? The victim is technically gone now, so what do they care?

Ok, so with a lot of the above I'm kidding. I was serious, though, when i ask where does a line get drawn on what should be an illegal substance?

[Brownshoe]

(11-04-2015, 04:05 PM)PDub80 Wrote: His logic is circular and he continues to belabor the same points and ask the same question over and over and in different ways. I've addressed them several times already.


Just out of school or at least under 25?

I'm not deflecting. You keep asking the same thing or bringing up the same point different ways. I've already addressed it. You disagree and  think that people seek out (or the purpose that these drinks exist at all) coffee or caffeinated drinks for the sole purpose of ingesting caffeine. I disagree completely but I accept that you have a different perspective.

nope not under 25. The main purpose for those drinks is to stimulate. period point blank. If you want to act like it's not then you're just fooling yourself.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:22 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: If I want to shove 4 donuts in my mouth to start everyday I can.  I can follow it up with a 2 liter of Mt. Dew and a fistful of Camel Filters.  I can have McDonalds for lunch everyday the week, and I can order ***** Pizza with cheesesticks built into the crust, because obviously regular crust isn't good enough.  I can use a hand-fat scooter at pretty much every single grocery chain I go to.  I could complain that you fat shamed for bringing to light the fact that I'm a fat slob.  I could sue you for discriminating against me because I'm so fat I can't get into your office.

I can smoke as much as I want.  I can smoke 5 packs of cigarettes a day, all the while carrying no health insurance, and you can't say dick.

I can drink as much as I want.  I can drink a case everyday and no one can do shit about it.

I can do literally nothing all day, but sit on the couch or in bed, and receive some sort of assistance.  If I get fat enough I'll get more.

I can go to the doctor and secure copious amounts of medications.  Some opiates, some to treat a limp dick, some because I tap my leg too much, some because I get nervous on flights, some to go to the bathroom less, some to go to the bathroom more.  I secure scripts from different doctors, in different fields, for different ailments, many times ignoring their combined effect.

I can develop physical addictions to caffine, nicotine, sugar.

......And now we want to look out for the health and well being of others?  Some are just so concerned of what it may do if they allow this drug or this addiction?  Of all the things I just said, weed is the thing that should be outlawed.  Are you kidding me?  You're going to come up with a better argument than that.  

As a wise man once said:

Randy Marsh is my favorite South Park character.

You're right. You can even do this if you want....




It's not about health to me. it's about: Do we, as a society, really need to get dumber or more distracted?

[Au165]

(11-04-2015, 04:20 PM)PDub80 Wrote: It's the propensity of abuse. Like I said, someone could ingest a small amounts cocaine and be fine.

So where is the line drawn?

I think the line either had to be drawn back before Alcohol or Caffeine became socially acceptable, or it needs to be moved just outside of "Things that can kill you easily through ingestion". I understand the line has to be drawn point of view, I just don't think there is a way it can be done on this because it just doesn't have the adverse effects any worse than that of drugs we have already allowed. Psychological Reactance says that people want what they can't have and so those who already use while it's illegal will probably continue using, early on in legalization some will come aboard early but many won't stay because the allure of it will wear off, especially with no chemical dependency. There in may be the line, Cocaine and Heroin have chemical dependencies associated with them that pot lacks.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:31 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: nope not under 25. The main purpose for those drinks is to stimulate. period point blank. If you want to act like it's not then you're just fooling yourself.

People don't bring coolers of pop to a picnic for stimulants. To equate something like soda or coffee to weed is asinine.