Issue 3 (For Ohio Residents)

[Brownshoe]

(11-04-2015, 04:35 PM)PDub80 Wrote: People don't bring coolers of pop to a picnic for stimulants. To equate something like soda or coffee to weed is asinine.

People do buy Redbull and coffee to get the high from the caffeine though. You honestly don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what it's like to be high. You don't know how little it effects people unless they smoke a lot. You keep acting like if you just smoke a little you're blitzed out of your mind and can't function. It's not the case. Not the case at all. If someone takes a few hits from a pipe you know what it's going to do? They're going to feel a slight buzz. You keep acting like it would put them on their ass for the next few hours, and they wouldn't even be able to do anything. That's just wrong. You have the wrong perception of marijuana.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:32 PM)Au165 Wrote: 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.

What you are saying makes sense on a lot of levels. Until people with WhodeyWho's logic come through and say... "But a small amount of cocaine or heroine has no effect. So I get to have that because it's my choice and I'm not hurting anyone else. You ARBITRARILY set the line at cocaine and heroine, but that is not right."

The problem with moving the line now is that it just opens up other people to want to move it because they have a different vice.

[Au165]

(11-04-2015, 04:35 PM)PDub80 Wrote: People don't bring coolers of pop to a picnic for stimulants. To equate something like soda or coffee to weed is asinine.

We can come back to this. The reason people bring pop to picnics over juice or other drinks is because their brains association of pop with caffeine (the drug the brain wants). Your choices you make when it comes to drugs are far more complex than you think. Do you think people really "need" smoke breaks as often as they take them? No, their brain wants it and it rationalizes a reason to acquire it.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:38 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: People do buy Redbull and coffee to get the high from the caffeine though. You honestly don't know what you're talking about. You don't know what it's like to be high. You don't know how little it effects people unless they smoke a lot. You keep acting like if you just smoke a little you're blitzed out of your mind and can't function. It's not the case. Not the case at all. If someone takes a few hits from a pipe you know what it's going to do? They're going to feel a slight buzz. You keep acting like it would put them on their ass for the next few hours, and they wouldn't even be able to do anything. That's just wrong. You have the wrong perception of marijuana.

Get high from a caffeinated drink in the same sense as getting high from weed do not belong in the same sentence.

You have the wrong perception of Starbucks. 

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-04-2015, 04:28 PM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: 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.

Some prefer an arbitrary nanny state instead:  you can drink yourself to death, but I'll be damned if I'll let you enjoy getting stoned.  

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:38 PM)Au165 Wrote: We can come back to this. The reason people bring pop to picnics over juice or other drinks is because their brains association of pop with caffeine (the drug the brain wants). Your choices you make when it comes to drugs are far more complex than you think. Do you think people really "need" smoke breaks as often as they take them? No, their brain wants it and it rationalizes a reason to acquire it.

Then why do people buy caffeine free pop? Why does it even exist if that is pop's purpose and the main reason why people buy it? Same thing with decaf coffee. Why?

[Brownshoe]

(11-04-2015, 04:39 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Get high from a caffeinated drink in the same sense as getting high from weed do not belong in the same sentence.

You have the wrong perception of Starbucks. 

You literally have no clue what you're talking about. Tell my why it's not the same? You keep saying it's not the same, but why isn't it the same? You don't know why it's not the same you just keep trying to assert the point.

[Brownshoe]

(11-04-2015, 04:41 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Then why do people buy caffeine free pop? Why does it even exist if that is pop's purpose and the main reason why people buy it? Same thing with decaf coffee. Why?

because people like the taste and don't want to get high from the caffeine.

[Au165]

(11-04-2015, 04:38 PM)PDub80 Wrote: What you are saying makes sense on a lot of levels. Until people with WhodeyWho's logic come through and say... "But a small amount of cocaine or heroine has no effect. So I get to have that because it's my choice and I'm not hurting anyone else. You ARBITRARILY set the line at cocaine and heroine, but that is not right."

The problem with moving the line now is that it just opens up other people to want to move it because they have a different vice.

The "line" isn't defined though. There is no rhyme or reason for what makes one worse than the other. That is what I think many here are struggling with. A line would mean we have a criteria we are not willing to cross, but it seems like there is no criteria just randomly chosen drugs. As I have tried pointing out Marijuana, alcohol, and Caffeine all have negative side effects but no one said what is the one thing we won't put up with that makes two of those three legal and the third not.

I think the line could be on major chemical dependence. Prescription drugs with a high probability of dependence are not sold over counter, but those that don't are. Drugs with little to no level of chemical dependence should be legal,those with should not. This at least puts personal responsibility on a choice to start and a choice to stop, rather than a choice to start and fighting a heavy chemical dependence to stop.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:39 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Some prefer an arbitrary nanny state instead:  you can drink yourself to death, but I'll be damned if I'll let you enjoy getting stoned.  

So, to understand you correctly, all drugs should be legalized? A no holds barred free for all when it comes to substances? So, no controlled substance at all?

[Au165]

(11-04-2015, 04:41 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Then why do people buy caffeine free pop? Why does it even exist if that is pop's purpose and the main reason why people buy it? Same thing with decaf coffee. Why?

Some simply enjoy the taste, others use it as a placebo to combat an association to the drug in their mind. The market size on caffeine free soda though is minuscule. I would bet though that most caffeine free soda drinkers started out at some point in their life drinking caffeinated soda.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:41 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: You literally have no clue what you're talking about. Tell my why it's not the same? You keep saying it's not the same, but why isn't it the same? You don't know why it's not the same you just keep trying to assert the point.

Because drinking a pop or two does not give someone the same level of "caffeine intoxication" that people always refer to in these debates as it would if someone smoked weed. That's why. Downplaying weed and overstating a coffee or a pop is what is absurd to me.

(11-04-2015, 04:43 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: because people like the taste and don't want to get high from the caffeine.

But people only buy regular pop only for the caffeine? It definitely tastes different. The argument that people only buy pop for a caffeine fix doesn't hold water. Necer has. people buy pop because they think it tastes good. Do people grab a pop sometimes or grab a coffee for a shot of caffeine or to keep themselves up to study, or work, or whatever? Sure. Is that it's main purpose for being drank or being in someone's house? No. 

[Wes Mantooth]

(11-04-2015, 04:32 PM)PDub80 Wrote: It's not about health to me. it's about: Do we, as a society, really need to get dumber or more distracted?

But you yourself even said that everyone who wants to smoke weed can and does.  So exactly how much dumber and distracted are people going to get, if there is no increase in use?  The ability is there regardless, so then I have to wonder where the real disconnect lies.  

Is it a morality issue?  Is it only the idea that simply saying it would be ok for others to choose is, in fact, not ok.

IMHO, people have been programmed for so long to associate marijuana with other drugs, or as part of some agenda or slippery slope.  DARE, Just Say No, "There is No Hope with Dope" , etc that there completely oblivious to the fact that is less harmful than a great deal of things readily available at a gas station.  Instead of it being actually about marijuana and it's affects it's about an ideal of being against drugs.

If we're really worried about the collective IQ of this nation then weed is the least of our worries.  I mean, c'mon.  Can't we turn onur attention to the loads of other things that are actually relevant to these issues?

[Au165]

(11-04-2015, 04:48 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Because drinking a pop or two does not give someone the same level of "caffeine intoxication" that people always refer to in these debates as it would if someone smoked weed. That's why. Downplaying weed and overstating a coffee or a pop is what is absurd to me.

Once again you are disregarding dosage. This is a huge fallacy in your argument.,Weed is not a dosage. A pop or two isn't a great dosage, but it at least puts it in context.

[Brownshoe]

(11-04-2015, 04:48 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Because drinking a pop or two does not give someone the same level of "caffeine intoxication" that people always refer to in these debates as it would if someone smoked weed. That's why. Downplaying weed and overstating a coffee or a pop is what is absurd to me.


But people only buy regular pop only for the caffeine? It definitely tastes different. The argument that people only buy pop for a caffeine fix doesn't hold water. Necer has. people buy pop because they think it tastes good. Do people grab a pop sometimes or grab a coffee for a shot of caffeine or to keep themselves up to study, or work, or whatever? Sure. Is that it's main purpose for being drank or being in someone's house? No. 

taking a hit or two would give you the same effect as drinking a energy drink. See you have no clue what you're talking about. You think that taking a hit makes you a lot more messed up than it does.

[PDub80]

(11-04-2015, 04:45 PM)Au165 Wrote: Some simply enjoy the taste, others use it as a placebo to combat an association to the drug in their mind. The market size on caffeine free soda though is minuscule. I would bet though that most caffeine free soda drinkers started out at some point in their life drinking caffeinated soda.

Sprite, which is caffeine free, was the number 6 most consumed soda 2011-2014.

http://www.caffeineinformer.com/top-10-soft-drinks

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-04-2015, 04:43 PM)PDub80 Wrote: So, to understand you correctly, all drugs should be legalized? A no holds barred free for all when it comes to substances? So, no controlled substance at all?

To make it clear, I see no reason why pot should be illegal if nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine is.  It seems arbitrary and hypocritical to deem these acceptable but pot unacceptable.  

That said, I understand why there are restrictions on drugs such as heroine and crack cocaine.  The drugs are so addictive, that addicts will rob and steal in order to get it.   

If it were up to me, I would decriminalize all drugs and only prosecute those who would sell hard drugs.  Pot is not a hard drug.  It's only hard in the minds of people who have been indoctrinated to believe it is.  If it is a hard drug, then alcohol is even worse.

At one point, public opinion on Alcohol was such that it was deemed illegal.  The drug didn't change, but attitudes did.  

[WhoDeyWho]

(11-04-2015, 04:51 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Sprite, which is caffeine free, was the number 6 most consumed soda 2011-2014.

http://www.caffeineinformer.com/top-10-soft-drinks

Where is caffeine free Coke on that list?  I mean it is the most popular soda isn't it?

[Au165]

(11-04-2015, 04:51 PM)PDub80 Wrote: Sprite, which is caffeine free, was the number 6 most consumed soda 2011-2014.

http://www.caffeineinformer.com/top-10-soft-drinks

Context once again, they only own 8% of the market.



This was from 2010, I found a stat from 2014 that said 5.6%

[Wes Mantooth]

(11-04-2015, 04:39 PM)WhoDeyWho Wrote: Some prefer an arbitrary nanny state instead:  you can drink yourself to death, but I'll be damned if I'll let you enjoy getting stoned.  

That's the key word for me.  It is completely arbitrary.  I think people have been programmed to oppose this idea of drugs and drug culture, completely dependent on how they were introduced to the issue.  And unfortunately, marijuana was lumped into that category for decades

The actual benefits and drawbacks of it, when compared to other substances, is completely irrelevant.  It doesn't matter that it's less harmful than alcohol.  It doesn't matter that the sale of 20oz drinks, via readily available machine after machine, poses a much greater health threat.  It only matters that the ideal is "I'm against drugs" and the facts be damned when compared to alcohol.

And God help us if they ever did apply this logic and prohibition evenly across the board.  You might as well be living in M. Night Shamadamalalalala's  The Village.  Puritan people everywhere, no drinking, no smoking, no tang before marriage, nothing.