My Views on Marijuana

What is so bad about him not wanting to tell you what country he lives in? For all you know, he could be under the witness protection program. How about you actually argue against his points instead of asking him where he lives.

I've got a four hour meeting to get to soon so I don't have time to respond to everything just yet.
But I'll cover some of the smaller stuff:

You already know my answer to that. EVERYONE ON THIS FORSAKEN SITE knows my answer to that.

Did I say that I want a world with no play?
But is it necessary to use drugs to do it?

Key word was meaningful. If you are high, in my experience, you don't exactly articulate the meaning of the universe when you are high. Or even discuss the laundry that needs to be done for that matter.

You realize that at some point in the normal psychological development of a child that they will emulate their parents, right? Think about it. Even without citing anything specific, you see children of smokers smoke, children of alcoholics drink, and violence passed down generation to generation. No, it isn't a proportional transition [I wouldn't even argue that it is three quarters of the time], but the trend does exist. I'll cite later.

That is great and I applaud you [really, no sarcasm, I really do [damn internet and lack of conveience of emotion]], but can you say that is the norm? What would a child that learned to smoke rather do, get high or do greuling homework? The answer is as obvious as what would happen if you admitted kids to use their phones in class. They would do what is most pleasurable to them.

Everybody already knows my position on marijuana, and everbody already knows his. I don't expect his beliefs to change anytime soon. Not over an internet argument. And it's not that he doesn't want to say what country hes from, it's that he constantly leads people to believe that he isn't from America and is from China, when I know for a fact that it just isn't the case. I don't really care, I just think it's hilariously pathetic how he does that, and thought calling him out on it would be less than boring.
And if he were in the witness protection program, then he could still tell me where he's living. The WPT isn't about not existing, it's about moving somewhere else with a new name.

Also,

And I know that the answer is America! Why can't you just give me a straight answer! Here, I'll do the first part for you! "I, Imperial1917, am from _____!" So which is it? America? Or China? I think the latter of the two is much too far fetched.

Yes. No. Maybe.

Well no shit. I don't think you fully grasp the idea behind getting high. It's to relax, not get the blood boiling with a debate over the nature of everything.

Let me make this perfectly clear: When some says they're going to get high, more often than not this does not translate into an all night bong session. At most they'll take 2-4 hits from a pipe, and afterward they'll still be perfectly capable of everyday tasks.
Be gone with your stereotypes.

I wouldn't know anything about this, namely because my parents habits disgust me.

Sounds like a personality problem to me.

1) I have never stated my location
2) Provide grounds for discounting any location.

Note: Sorry about the quote. Its getting that REALLY annoying feature where you put in a space or a letter in between previously written material and instead of moving over the letter that come next, it just deletes it.

I used what I take as logic to come to the conclusion, steryotype-matching or no. I find it increadibly unlikely that an individual would prefer ending a drug-induced high and doing the work that needs to be done to just continuing. No, I have not actually produced any citations for research that show that is what the average marijuana user does, but neither have you proven it untrue. In most cases, if someone came to me with this idea [the one that I am presenting], I would discount it until they have produced eviedence. In this case however, I believe that there is strong enough situations to which this can be compared to to determine a logical outcome. Take alcohol for example. People tend to prefer drowning their problems in it than doing something else. Though, yes, it is an unfair comparison as alcohol carries an addictive property whereas marijuana's addictive potencial is still under research [though I do contend that the evidence thus far indicates that there is an indirect addiction]. A better example would probably be something like videogames. You play it, you get the good feeling. People tend not to want to do something else rather than commit to an activity that they find pleasurable. In the case of marijuana, the fact is still more pressing. Though it has yet to be proven to directly carry an addictive property, the way in which it works produces a good feeling that is by exponents stronger than something more primative and less direct, such as playing a video game. Furthermore, research has shown that when experiencing a good feeling from one thing, one can attibute it to that and that alone. In this case, the individual would attribute the sudden, on-demand rush of good feeling to the marijuana, which can lead to increased use. Add onto that the tolerance that builds when using it and you have a dangerous combination.

By link:
1) Convincing. But I still don't see why, from a medical perspective, drugs should be legalized. And no, I didn't actually sort through the hours of material the link has. I will consider what the post means, in terms of the legal enforcement. But I would remind you that legalization has to take into perspective the medical side. As well, I will have to see total numbers on law enforcement backing for the legalization of marijuana.
Also [and I rely on your honesty on this one], have you actually sifted through the material in that site? And if you have, can you tell me whether they support particular legalization or broad legalization. The first speaker [that I clicked on] summery said that the person supports broad legalization of all drugs, if I am not mistaken.
I don't have the time to do so right now, but I will search for opposition lists.
2) This link is on the UK. See my post above to UnitRico on that. His was on Portugal, but I the arguments don't change.
3) I already posted a disclaimer saying that I support medical legalization. Medical includes research. This article is about medical legalization.
And these came from that very article:

4) Same as #3. I support legalization, but only for medical practices. I still see no reason to legalize it for common use as it still causes damage.

You are mistaken. I don't recall saying anywhere about gateway drugs. That is an argument that I have and will look into, but I still don't see myself having employed it or employing it. If I did, I apologize. At this time I do not have the knowledge on hand to make that decision and merely ask that you point out where I did say it so that I can try to figure out why I did.

I was not attacking the idea itself [if that is what you thought, I apologize for being unclear] so much as the implication that you were putting forth. It is true that I have seen in the previous generations, particularly baby-boomers, a high resistence to drug use, even perfectly reasonable use for medical purposes. What I was contesting was the unproven idea that the newer generations would simply accept the use of the drugs.
The 'bullshit tar claim' came from a conclusion derived from one of your posts.

The use of marijuana is proven to cause short-term impairment of cognitive skills. The circumstances of your rebuttle ancedote are too vague to draw any real conclusions. How high were they? Were you also high? What was the quality of the drug used? What were the details of the discussion - that is to say, was it just nonsense with vague connections or was it actually articulate?
Insulting me doesn't make your point any more stable. On the contrary, as your insults have no real grounds nor place in the conversation, nor even a witty connection to the conversation, it weakens your position by making it seem as though you have nothing to contribute and must resort to attempting to infuriate the opposition so that they stumble and you can make an actual rebuttle within the acute confindes of your knowledge.
I find pity for anyone who considers living their life to be revolvent around smoking a piece of plant so that they can interact with others.

Since my health dictates that I should not continue this pointless and infuriating conversation [not a mark against the debators who are, with one particular exception who anyone can guess by a mere glance at the posts so far, exellent in their arguments and competant in their debating skills], I will post this last note and retire from this particular arena of debate for now:

I support the legalization of marijuana for medical practice and medical research. Indeed, it perplexes me why these were not given leeway in the original legistlations.
I however, disapprove of legalization for purely entertainment practices. I see no need for it when there are already pluras of other practices that can be employed to counter the various cited [and uncited but used in legalization arguments] reasons.
I have to thank LampRevolt for that link to law-enforcement support of legalization. Though I find it increadibly unlikely that I will ever support legalization, the link has already made me pause and I will be looking into the details of that site thouroghly.

On a side note, I would say that I do support the idea that the individual can use any drug... with the condition that it does not impair their completion of their duties or prevent others from completing theirs. That is, of course, to include any drawbacks from having a less-than-sober person for a parent, caretaker, or company. The extreme occasional might be... acceptably overlooked [so long as it does not harm others], but the regular is shunned. There are other conditions and situational considerations of course, but it is just food for thought.

P.S.: I had written half of this on one tab and half on another because of the page change with the discussion and no, I probably will not be spot-checking it for error when I paste it together.

While that may be true for heroin, where the body becomes reliant on the substance in in order to prevent a shutdown and thus cannot afford to loss the high. It just isn't the case with marijuana. Eventually you feel you've had enough, this is about the time that sit around and let the high die down a bit. Then you go do other shit.
That's about all their is to your 'scourge of society'.

Well, I live it every other week so... there's that. In fact, how would you know anything about it if you've never tried it?

1. "sudden, on-demand rush of good feeling" is not how I would describe a marijuana high. Please try to remember that we aren't talking about cocaine.

2. If a motherfucker can't pace himself, that's his problem. Not mine. Why should the rest of us be prohibited because of some stoner asshole?

Demondaze, accept it or not, the reality of modern society is that in the majority of the world, laws are based on what the average person does, not the individual.

So I can't smoke weed because of dudebros, hippies, and teenage girls? K got it.

Pretty much.
Raise the view of the average and the law may pass until then:
YOU SHALL NOT PASS!
Well, thats pretty much what the legislature would say.

Learn to read. I said it was the main argument of politicians, not you.

Cool, luckily there's plenty of reason why from a civil/legal perspective it should be legalized.

We were both high, it was totally articulate, and of course since you have no fucking idea what being high feels like you can't understand that you do not lose control of rational thought. It doesn't leave you. What so ever. Even when your high you don't forget what's happening when your high it just might be a bit foggy when you burn out. Short term impairment of cognitive skills could mean a lot of things by the way. It's an incredibly general term that proves fuck all.

I'm not even going to address this as you've demonstrated that real life experience obviously counts for nothing in this matter. You know, outside. With other people.



I'll exit 'this arena' too then. Perhaps the difference between us is that your some white knight character who feels that we should protect people from themselves, and I'm someone who accepts the inevitable. Any parent who would do any drug while looking after their kids is scum anyway, the kid isn't going to get raised any better by making the drugs illegal. That kid will still have a sniveling moron for a parent.

I don't believe in protecting people from themselves. I believe in protecting people from other people.
Luckily for me, in this context, as this is simply my opinion, there is nothing more to be said.

You can accept or not accept. Mayhap I am wrong, but I doubt that I am in this case.
What will be will be.

Luckily for me since that did not address example after that your opinion was irrelevant.

And with this, I think it is a good time to put this thread to rest. Requesting a lock please since it seems like the two sides have settled this debate and agreed to disagree.

Okay, since it's not locked yet, one last thing to @Imperial1917:

This is completely unrelated to the thread, but you might've hit the "insert" key, it does that.

Locking on request of OP.