Forums | MacLife

StaticAge wrote:

Myth 8: That anybody who does not use cannabis actually cares about how great it is.

EDIT:
It's a little like telling vegetarians how wonderful kobe beef is. Plus, even should you magically succeed in getting someone interested "hmm sounds interesting, but, you know? Its illegal anyway, why bother..."

I think you got a much better shot at appealing to people's pocket books and social-political ideals, like "taxing pot will help poor inner city kids become ballerinas.." or "drug enforcement can still bag all the crimnials they want, now with cooler weapons provided by pot sales."

Anyone with any amount of knowledge regarding the "war on drugs" should probably be concerned.  The fact that its less dangerous than alcohol is relevant, because it directly contradicts the same arguments we always hear.

I don't see your point, to be honest.  (I don't think he's trying to convert you to using simply by pointing out it isn't physically addictive).

Last edited by bratboy (2009-05-25 1:07 pm)

Shadowless wrote:

I would have vetoed it. Not really for any perfect reasoning or anything. After all, any argument I would make against the drug could easily be made against alcohol and tobacco (to an even larger extent, at that!). And I know that.

I still don't like it, and it's been illegal for as long as I can remember, and I'd honestly like to keep it that way. That's just my personal belief on that one.

And if I was in a position to veto that, and someone complained about me doing that, I'd simply say that if you really want it passed and think it should be, then you should've been the one running for my job. Until then, no, you can't have it.

Justify imposing your personal biases on everyone.

bratboy wrote:

Anyone with any amount of knowledge regarding the "war on drugs" should probably be concerned.  The fact that its less dangerous than alcohol is relevant, because it directly contradicts the same arguments we always hear.

I don't see your point, to be honest.  (I don't think he's trying to convert you to using simply by pointing out it isn't physically addictive).

I didnt mean to imply it was some sort of "conversion," I just think its fairly safe to say that only people who already like pot are impressed by how non-harmful it is. Even in the point you just made, that information only matters in context of a greater appeal to needlessly spending money in the war on drugs.

Daniel wrote:

Shadowless wrote:

I would have vetoed it. Not really for any perfect reasoning or anything. After all, any argument I would make against the drug could easily be made against alcohol and tobacco (to an even larger extent, at that!). And I know that.

I still don't like it, and it's been illegal for as long as I can remember, and I'd honestly like to keep it that way. That's just my personal belief on that one.

And if I was in a position to veto that, and someone complained about me doing that, I'd simply say that if you really want it passed and think it should be, then you should've been the one running for my job. Until then, no, you can't have it.

Justify imposing your personal biases on everyone.

Well, for this issue any argument I would make against it can be reflected in one way or another in tobacco and alcohol, both of which are legal after 18 and 21 respectively. Therefore, from those arguments, I would also seem to be against the other two. However, I don't mind their legality as it stands. I also don't mind the legality for marijuana as it currently stands, and I don't mind if it changes. I just personally wouldn't want it to change.

So because logical arguments come to a legally unchangeable double-think, I would simply use my personal judgement to veto its legalization based on the fact that I was the person appointed to have that kind of responsibility. Running for that position, the public would have already known my feelings on it, and would expect me to act accordingly.

That's really all there is to it.

For most things, I absolutely believe that you shouldn't force everyone to live the way you (as a single person) want them to, but this situation would be a little different. I would expect people to act on their personally held beliefs towards this drug. That being said, I expect that because of that, the laws will slowly begin to change over time (as you see in Massachusetts) and that eventually it will be legal, probably for 18 and up. And that's fine by me.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Daniel wrote:

On the flip side, pot smoke stinks.  Way, way worse than tobacco smoke.  I can smell weed a mile away, and it lingers everywhere it goes.

Couldn't disagree more, but smell, like taste, is subjective.

I can smell cigarette smoke from the car in front of me on the freeway.

I can too if the wind is right, but I can smell pot smoke anywhere within at least a quarter mile of where I am.

I dunno - maybe I had cheap friends, but all the pot I've smelled reminded me of burnt rope. Not entirely pleasant, but not as irritating as cigarette smoke. Neither are as decent as a good pipe or cigar.

I really hate that every time marijuana law comes up, someone says that we really should ban liquor because it causes so many problems.

I don't bug you about your hobby. Leave mine alone.

Daniel wrote:

On the flip side, pot smoke stinks.  Way, way worse than tobacco smoke.  I can smell weed a mile away, and it lingers everywhere it goes.

So do cigars. Cigarettes too, you're just more used to the smell.

Vaporizing is the best method of ingesting mj and the smell only lasts 20 or so seconds (then disappears) and their is no residual smell either. I did have to smoke this holiday weekend.

We were at our cottage (one of a group) on Lake Winnipesaukee and it wasn't feasible with just a ton of young kids and fam running in-between cottages (unwritten open door policy). So I smoked on the boat dock in a chair under the stairs watching random fireworks people were firing all around the lake off around 11:30 p.m. Good times - lucky I didn't get busted enjoying myself. Jeesh, such a threat to society I am.

user wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

I really hate that every time marijuana law comes up, someone says that we really should ban liquor because it causes so many problems.

I don't bug you about your hobby. Leave mine alone.

Somebody in this thread suggested that we ban liquor?

I tend to think that booze and tobacco could be treated the same way as light drugs like pot and mushrooms.

Then you probably shouldn't say it. Diagram that sentence if you aren't sure why I would come to the conclusion that you meant what you said.

Shadowless wrote:

I still don't like it, and it's been illegal for as long as I can remember, and I'd honestly like to keep it that way. That's just my personal belief on that one.

Wow, that's an awesome argument.

So you don't believe that lawmakers should be able to clearly express their reasons for their actions?  Especially when it is a single elected individual (the governor) making a decision that invalidates an act of the state's elected legislature?

Isn't your "personal belief" actually based on the behavior of a family member?

And if I was in a position to veto that, and someone complained about me doing that, I'd simply say that if you really want it passed and think it should be, then you should've been the one running for my job. Until then, no, you can't have it.

Again--wouldn't that reasoning make a you a pretty smurfy governor?

I've never understood the maryjane controversy.  Always seemed to me, though I don't do it much, that the maximum amount you get high off of it is in no way how messy one can get on alcohol.