Whitehouse.gov Responds to Petition to Legalize Marijuana - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Octave;33018222]That won't get it passed through legislation.[/QUOTE] And that means there is something wrong

[QUOTE=Octave;33018222]That won't get it passed through legislation.[/QUOTE] Since when do politicians listen to their constituents?

[QUOTE=Octave;33018089]As an answer to "why not": Because they don't have solid enough proof that it will do any of those things. The stuff they have now isn't going to convince the congressmen and women that it should be legalized. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] It's a big change because it's been illegal for a number of decades, and it has a huge stigma about it.[/QUOTE] Are you like an idiot You don't ban something until you can prove it will have a 100% positive economic effect Generally you're supposed to have a reason for banning something, not a reason for not banning something

[QUOTE=Contag;33018260]Since when do politicians listen to their constituents?[/QUOTE]They should. And besides, with the lacking body of evidence for all these possible pros of legalization of marijuana, most politicians will not choose to legalize it. The truth is that we don't know exactly what would happen. Many different possibilities arise, and some of the proposed pros of it are shaky anyway. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Kopimi;33018287]Are you like an idiot You don't ban something until you can prove it will have a 100% positive economic effect Generally you're supposed to have a reason for banning something, not a reason for not banning something[/QUOTE]You don't change something of this magnitude that's been a certain way for a while, regardless of its original rationale, until you can prove it will have a 90-100% positive effect. And the research that shows the marijuana use can lead to cognitive problems as well as increased incidence of psychosis does not help its case.

[QUOTE=Biotoxsin;33018074]The whole '3 times as potent over the past twenty years' thing is bullshit. If anything, it makes cannabis safer. Having a higher potency makes one not have to smoke as much for the same effect.[/QUOTE] The reason its stronger now isn't because of some breakthrough growing technique, it's because it is combined with other, more harmful, substances to provide a stronger high.

[url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1065304?[/url]

[QUOTE=Octave;33018335]You don't change something of this magnitude that's been a certain way for a while, regardless of its original rationale, until you can prove it will have a 90-100% positive effect. And the research that shows the marijuana use can lead to cognitive problems as well as increased incidence of psychosis does not help its case.[/QUOTE] Should we not have re-legalized alcohol after 1933? Should we not legalize same-sex marriage until it would have a 100% positive effect? Really, your argument falls flat on its face at every turn. [editline]28th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Arcana;33018390][URL]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1065304?[/URL][/QUOTE] Look, whether you like it or not, the law regarding alcohol and cigarettes has set a legal precedent for what [I]should[/I] be okay, and marijuana's negative effects are far less devastated than say the lung cancer/addiction from smoking nicotine and the liver damage of alcohol.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33018401]Should we not have re-legalized alcohol after 1933? Should we not legalize same-sex marriage until it would have a 100% positive effect? Really, your argument falls flat on its face at every turn.[/QUOTE]The element of stigma comes in again. The ineffectiveness of prohibition showed just how strong a force it could be, so thank you for that example. Same-sex marriage would have a 100% positive effect from an objective point of view. Same-sex marriage doesn't harm anybody. People dislike it mainly because of their religious views.

[QUOTE=Octave;33018335]You don't change something of this magnitude that's been a certain way for a while, regardless of its original rationale, until you can prove it will have a 90-100% positive effect. And the research that shows the marijuana use can lead to cognitive problems as well as increased incidence of psychosis does not help its case.[/QUOTE] "It's always been this way" is a terrible way to run a modern society. Will there be a 90-100% positive effect if we legalize gay marriage? Truth is [B]it doesn't fucking matter[/B]. Restricting freedom without reason is wrong. People use weed regardless of it currently being illegal, so you can't use "it's harmful" as a reason for "it should be illegal" if you're making a pragmatic argument.

[QUOTE=Octave;33018450]The element of stigma comes in again. The ineffectiveness of prohibition showed just how strong a force it could be, so thank you for that example. Same-sex marriage would have a 100% positive effect from an objective point of view. Same-sex marriage doesn't harm anybody. People dislike it mainly because of their religious views.[/QUOTE] As I've said, the laws regarding alcohol and tobacco set a legal precedent for why marijuana should be legal. It's indisputable.

[QUOTE=Thy Reaper;33018465]"It's always been this way" is a terrible way to run a modern society. Will there be a 90-100% positive effect if we legalize gay marriage? Truth is [B]it doesn't fucking matter[/B]. Restricting freedom without reason is wrong. People use weed regardless of it currently being illegal, so you can't use "it's harmful" as a reason for "it should be illegal" if you're making a pragmatic argument.[/QUOTE]I'm not saying we should run a tradition-based society like that, I'm saying that it's a big deal to legalize marijuana and many people want it to remain illegal simply because it has been illegal for a while, and for their own reasons. Since congress is supposed to represent their wills, and also due to the lack of good evidence for its potential positives, - and the fact that, as you put it, "it's harmful," - congress won't pass it. [editline]29th October 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;33018505]As I've said, the laws regarding alcohol and tobacco set a legal precedent for why marijuana should be legal. It's indisputable.[/QUOTE]What did they set?

[QUOTE=Octave;33018523]I'm not saying we should run a tradition-based society like that, I'm saying that it's a big deal to legalize marijuana and many people want it to remain illegal simply because it has been illegal for a while, and for their own reasons. Since congress is supposed to represent their wills, and also due to the lack of good evidence for its potential positives, - and the fact that, as you put it, "it's harmful," - congress won't pass it.[/QUOTE] Hey man, I've stated this like 3 times now, and it's a big factor in whether or not a law will pass or be considered "okay". Legal precedent is a big deal in lawmaking, and you can't just write it off with your "people don't like it" nonsense.

[quote]That is why the President's National Drug Control Strategy is balanced and comprehensive, emphasizing prevention and treatment while at the same time supporting innovative law enforcement efforts that protect public safety and disrupt the supply of drugs entering our communities. Preventing drug use is the most cost-effective way to reduce drug use and its consequences in America.[/quote] Pfffffft. Somebody did not have an actual accountant crunch those numbers, did they? The fact is things like alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana are [i]always[/i] going to have some sort of demand. No matter how much you fight it, no matter how much you try to stop it, it'll always find its way into the general populace. As far as I'm concerned, there's billions of dollars being wasted annually fighting this futile "War on Drugs" that isn't doing anything but fueling the drug wars down in Mexico. I understand marijuana is bad for you in many ways, but so is alcohol, and look where Prohibition led us. Speakeasies; powerful mobs that controlled parts of all governments: local, state, and federal; people drinking it anyways regardless of its legal status. Marijuana is the exact same way: we're banning it and people are doing it anyways. This is why it needs to be legalized. We're just digging ourselves more and more into a financial grave trying to fight it with all of our might when its arrival in communities all over America is inevitable. The best thing the government can do is decriminalize, legalize, and regulate the marijuana trade and grant amnesty to any people who were charged with possession (as the only charge, mind you; if they had a more major charge along with it, then they need to serve the rest of that term). That way, several things will happen: 1. Central and South American drug cartels will lose power because they lost a major part of their cash flow, and therefore the "War on Drugs" will strain a lot less on both the lives of our military men and our wallets. 2. Less money will have to go to the prison system because all the people with possession charges will be rightfully freed. 3. The introduction of marijuana and products derived from it (i.e. hemp) into the economy will help stimulate it by creating jobs to make said products and people will spend money on the products as well. 4. The government will gain tax revenue from the sale of marijuana, which will help bring down the deficit. And possibly more I'm probably overlooking. As one can see, it's obvious what needs to be done, regardless of how harmful marijuana is. [b]TL;DR Marijuana is unhealthy, but there's always demand for it. Therefore, the best course of action is to legalize it so the government can at least regulate it and get tax revenue from it. Also, it will save money by cutting programs that try to keep marijuana away from communities when it will find its way there anyways.[/b]

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33018554]Hey man, I've stated this like 3 times now, and it's a big factor in whether or not a law will pass or be considered "okay". Legal precedent is a big deal in lawmaking, and you can't just write it off with your "people don't like it" nonsense.[/QUOTE]Okay, well I don't think the legal precedent is too valid here - just because substance a is legal, substance b, which causes a similar level of harm, but has different specific effects, should be legal? Say a brand new substance was introduced. It has the exact same effects as tobacco, but people don't look at it the same as tobacco. I honestly don't think the government would legalize it if they did the research and found its addictive and carcinogenic properties. The histories of alcohol and tobacco are long, complex, and fraught with eccentricities. Neither of them is the same being as marijuana, nor are either of them "just another drug". As society depended wholly on slavery in the south before the Civil War, society also depends (in a less dramatic but still significant way) on the revenue and other societal effects produced by alcohol and tobacco, each of which has a unique place in society. Marijuana has its own role in society, but it is illegal and is undoubtedly harmful. Therefore, I think it's unfair to say that marijuana should be legalized just because tobacco and alcohol pose similar dangers to it and are also legal.

"marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. " wat WEED KILLED MY DOG AND RAPED MA SISTAR

[QUOTE=Octave;33018643]Okay, well I don't think the legal precedent is too valid here - just because substance a is legal, substance b, which causes a similar level of harm, but has different specific effects, should be legal? Say a brand new substance was introduced. It has the exact same effects as tobacco, but people don't look at it the same as tobacco. I honestly don't think the government would legalize it if they did the research and found its addictive and carcinogenic properties. The histories of alcohol and tobacco are long, complex, and fraught with eccentricities. Neither of them is the same being as marijuana, nor are either of them "just another drug". As society depended wholly on slavery in the south before the Civil War, society also depends (in a less dramatic but still significant way) on the revenue and other societal effects produced by alcohol and tobacco, each of which has a unique place in society. Marijuana has its own role in society, but it is illegal and is undoubtedly harmful. Therefore, I think it's unfair to say that marijuana should be legalized just because tobacco and alcohol pose similar dangers to it and are also legal.[/QUOTE] Marijuana and hemp also have long and complex histories in the US, and it wasn't until the 20th Century that it even became illegal, so I'm going to have to assume you're just pulling up reasons you think justify the legality of alcohol and tobacco. Whether or not you think the government [I]will[/I] legalize the substance has no bearing on what they [I]should[/I] do, and to say legal precedent "isn't too valid" in the passing of a law is just laughable. Please, do try to get over your outmoded notion of "x has been this way for y amount of years, therefore it should not be changed".

[QUOTE=J!NX;33018676]"marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. " wat WEED KILLED MY DOG AND RAPED MA SISTAR[/QUOTE] that's what weed needles will do !

I'm starting to see this as not a debate about just marijuana, but a debate about our culture. For years marijuana has been an illegal substance, yet people still use it. The way I see it is that it is just one of those things that our society has grown with and became accustomed to. For example, Hindus do not eat cattle, [URL="http://rankingamerica.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/beef-consumption-xlsx.jpg"]yet in America each person eats about 41kg (90 pounds) of beef per year[/URL]. [URL="http://whfoods.org/genpage.php?pfriendly=1&tname=foodspice&dbid=141#nutritionalprofile"]Beef is a good source for zinc, iron, and B vitamins[/URL] yet their culture/religion does not allow or shuns the consumption of beef. Marijuana is mostly harmless to a person with a fully developed mind, like alcohol [B]as long as it is taken in moderation.[/B] [URL="http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/111/2/e10.full"]Alcohol has been proven to be healthy for your heart[/URL] [B]as long as it is taken in small doses.[/B] Too much of anything is bad for you, but that is not the point I am trying to make. I restate my idea again: I view the reason we do not accept marijuana is because it is a facet of our culture, much like how consuming beef is shunned in Hinduism. To [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe"]most[/URL], using it is perfectly fine, but to others [I]it just feels wrong[/I] and that is why they either do not do use it, try to avoid it, or try to stop everyone else from using it by outlawing it.

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33018678]Marijuana and hemp also have long and complex histories in the US, and it wasn't until the 20th Century that it even became illegal, so I'm going to have to assume you're just pulling up reasons you think justify the legality of alcohol and tobacco. Whether or not you think the government [I]will[/I] legalize the substance has no bearing on what they [I]should[/I] do, and to say legal precedent "isn't too valid" in the passing of a law is just laughable. Please, do try to get over your outmoded notion of "x has been this way for y amount of years, therefore it should not be changed".[/QUOTE]Uh, I'm for legalization. I [i]don't[/i] think we should run our society based on "x has been this way for y amount of years, therefore it should not be changed". I'm trying to give the reasons why congress won't pass it. I'm basically trying to say that whitehouse.gov's response is fairly valid. That tradition element plays in because a lot of Americans [i]do[/i] think like that, especially ones who are getting older, and Republicans (generally).

[QUOTE=Contag;33018706]that's what weed needles will do ![/QUOTE] dude weed can give you HIV/AIDS i heard

[QUOTE=Octave;33018712]Uh, I'm for legalization. I [i]don't[/i] think we should run our society based on "x has been this way for y amount of years, therefore it should not be changed". I'm trying to give the reasons why congress won't pass it. I'm basically trying to say that whitehouse.gov's response is fairly valid. That tradition element plays in because a lot of Americans [i]do[/i] think like that, especially ones who are getting older, and Republicans (generally).[/QUOTE] Well how about we don't focus on why they won't pass it, and what will increase support for passage of it? Also, you should probably know a majority of people support marijuana legalization: [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx[/url]

[QUOTE=Megafanx13;33018816]Well how about we don't focus on why they won't pass it, and what will increase support for passage of it? Also, you should probably know a majority of people support marijuana legalization: [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/150149/record-high-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana.aspx[/url][/QUOTE]I'm being realistic. All these arguments mean shit if it doesn't pass in congress. And I did see that poll. It was only conducted with 1005 adults, so it's just an approximation. I'm glad they got residents of every state and D.C. though.

[QUOTE=Octave;33018876]I'm being realistic. All these arguments mean shit if it doesn't pass in congress. And I did see that poll. It was only conducted with 1005 adults, so it's just an approximation. I'm glad they got residents of every state and D.C. though.[/QUOTE] It's an approximation, but there's a margin of error that's not very big (typically 5% for Gallup polls), and polling science is very refined. At worst it's 45% approval, and that's nearly a majority.

[QUOTE=J!NX;33018676]"marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment. " wat WEED KILLED MY DOG AND RAPED MA SISTAR[/QUOTE] They are valid claims. [url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452211002053]Neurochemical basis of cannabis addiction.[/url] [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720277/?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract]Effects of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications: a systematic review.[/url] [url=http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbp/v32s1/en_a06v32s1.pdf]Cognitive abnormalities and cannabis use.[/url]

[QUOTE=flyschy;33018936]They are valid claims. [url=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306452211002053]Neurochemical basis of cannabis addiction.[/url] [url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720277/?tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract]Effects of marijuana smoking on pulmonary function and respiratory complications: a systematic review.[/url] [url=http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbp/v32s1/en_a06v32s1.pdf]Cognitive abnormalities and cannabis use.[/url][/QUOTE] Again, legal precedent. Cigarettes have addictive nicotine, yet they are not banned.

But why unban a substance with similar negative effects? It's just adding one more dangerous substance to the world. Though marijuana is still used while it's illegal, we don't know that legalizing would cut down the use of it/mitigate the negative effects. As has been said in this thread, it's possible that people would still go to their dealers to get off-market marijuana.

[QUOTE=Octave;33019024]But why unban a substance with similar negative effects? It's just adding one more dangerous substance to the world. Though marijuana is still used while it's illegal, we don't know that legalizing would cut down the use of it/mitigate the negative effects. As has been said in this thread, it's possible that people would still go to their dealers to get off-market marijuana.[/QUOTE] We unban it because it'll cut down on the illegal market that facilitates dangerous use and crime south of the border, it's just that simple. Additionally, it's key not to be hypocritical in regard to civil rights and the tax money doesn't hurt either. There are a myriad of reasons, and you'd be blind not to see them.

I couldn't care less, I ordered an ounce to a location just tonight and it's awaiting me to pick it up at my leisure. That's the kind of service i'd get if it was legal anyways. And I only smoke it in my house or at friend's apartments so there's literally 0 risk. The only part that [I]really[/I] bothers me about it being illegal is how much the government spends trying to stop it, protip; you can't.

Should I say that people who support this are either hardcore drug users and drug sellers or people who have interest in using it as medical purpose instead of recreational.

[QUOTE=BCell;33019079]Should I say that people who support this are either hardcore drug users and drug sellers or people who have interest in using it as medical purpose instead of recreational.[/QUOTE] How about "it's not just one specific group of people"? I have no intention of using marijuana for anything, any purpose, but I fully support legalization.