Why I Would Vote No On Pot - TIME (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1552034,00.html)

Maybe it's because I was born a couple of months after Woodstock and wasn't around when marijuana was as common as iPods are today, but I'm constantly amazed that after all these years--and all the wars on drugs and all the public-service announcements--nearly 15 million Americans still use marijuana at least once a month. California and 10 other states have already decriminalized marijuana for medical use. Now two of those states--Colorado and Nevada--are considering ballot initiatives that would legalize up to an ounce of pot for personal use by people 21 and older, whether or not there is a medical need.

What do voters need to know before going to the polls?

The first is that marijuana isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients. Several recent studies, including a new one from the Scripps Research Institute, show that THC, the chemical in marijuana responsible for the high, can help slow the progress of Alzheimer's disease. (In fact, it seems to block the formation of disease-causing plaques better than several mainstream drugs.) Other studies have shown THC to be a very effective antinausea treatment for people--cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, for example--for whom conventional medications aren't working. And medical cannabis has shown promise relieving pain in patients with multiple sclerosis and reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients.

But I suspect that most of the people eager to vote yes on the new ballot measures aren't suffering from glaucoma, Alzheimer's or chemo-induced nausea. Many of them just want to get stoned legally. That's why I, like many other doctors, am unimpressed with the proposed legislation, which would legalize marijuana irrespective of any medical condition.

Why do I care? As Dr. Nora Volkow, director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, puts it, "Numerous deleterious health consequences are associated with [marijuana's] short- and long-term use, including the possibility of becoming addicted."

What are other health consequences? Frequent marijuana use can seriously affect your short-term memory. It can impair your cognitive ability (why do you think people call it dope?) and lead to long-lasting depression or anxiety. While many people smoke marijuana to relax, it can have the opposite effect on frequent users. And smoking anything, whether it's tobacco or marijuana, can seriously damage your lung tissue.

The Nevada and Colorado marijuana initiatives have gained support from unlikely places. More than 33 religious leaders in Nevada have endorsed the measure, arguing that permissive legalization, accompanied by stringent regulations and penalties, can cut down on illegal drug trafficking and make communities safer.

Perhaps. But I'm here to tell you, as a doctor, that despite all the talk about the medical benefits of marijuana, smoking the stuff is not going to do your health any good. And if you get high before climbing behind the wheel of a car, you will be putting yourself and those around you in danger.

is he gonna try to make tobacco and alcohol illegal too or what

Don't forget, everything at McDonalds

this guy isn't smart enough to realize that "IT'S NOT GOOD FOR YOU!!!" is not a good enough reason? wtf?

I'm sure he's smart enough, but I don't really think that matters when your target audience is made of of your bosses at TIME and TIME readers.

...wasn't around when marijuana was as common as iPods are today...

fuck weed give me what this guy is smoking.

Maybe it's because I was born a couple of months after Woodstock and wasn't around when marijuana was as common as iPods are today,

man he's out of touch

or what ****** said

kind of calls into question what relevance anything he has to say is. Since he's completely unaware of pot today.

Two other things, it's not addicting physically. I quit using daily sometime during the summer and altogether since October and have had absolutely no physical urges to smoke since.

All my car accidents under the influence of drugs were when I was drunk. None when I was high. But booze is legal.

anecdotal evidence.

sanjay gupta was the name of a character in my class 5 english book

Paid for by the Anheuser-Busch corporation.

weed should be legal and taxed well.

I wish people would wake the fuck up. I've never used it but damn does this issue tick me off.

Would it be more or less expensive if it were legal? I assume it would be more expensive since it would be taxed, but I'm no economist.

I smoke a lot of pot but I really don't mind it's legal status. You have to be pretty fucking retarded to get caught with it unless you're selling. Right now it's cheap and readily available, so whatever.

Why would it be more expensive?

weed should be legal and taxed well.



This.

yeah then i'd just grow my own

from what i understand the only real difficulty lies in concealing it and making sure it gets light

Would it be more or less expensive if it were legal? I assume it would be more expensive since it would be taxed, but I'm no economist.

I smoke a lot of pot but I really don't mind it's legal status. You have to be pretty fucking retarded to get caught with it unless you're selling. Right now it's cheap and readily available, so whatever.

???? No it would be a lot less expensive if it were legal. There is a huge markup on illegal items because of the 'relative' inability to obtain.

Second. You can easily get caught and just be a user. I've seen 3 people this year who have worked at my work for over 20 years get hurt on the job, just severe enough to warrant a clinic visit, get automatically drug tested(like most big employers) and then get FIRED for marijuana use. It's bullshit. For clarification: Testing positive for marijuana use does NOT mean you are high at the time.

Also think of all the money you are paying in taxes to fight marijuana use and users. Wake up.

little white kids don't know this stuff

???? No it would be a lot less expensive if it were legal. There is a huge markup on illegal items because of the 'relative' inability to obtain.

Second. You can easily get caught and just be a user. I've seen 3 people this year who have worked at my work for over 20 years get hurt on the job, just severe enough to warrant a clinic visit, get automatically drug tested(like most big employers) and then get FIRED for marijuana use. It's bullshit. For clarification: Testing positive for marijuana use does NOT mean you are high at the time.

Also think of all the money you are paying in taxes to fight marijuana use and users. Wake up.

Yeah I didn't think about drug testing. Luckily none of the jobs I've held so far have asked for one.

He sounds like a real fucking idiot.

addicting lol

I can't believe Obama picked this guy. Hilarious.

The article is so poorly constructed it almost reads like some type of weird reverse psychology pro-weed progaganda.

"The first is that marijuana isn't really very good for you. True, there are health benefits for some patients. Several recent studies, including a new one from the Scripps Research Institute, show that THC, the chemical in marijuana responsible for the high, can help slow the progress of Alzheimer's disease. (In fact, it seems to block the formation of disease-causing plaques better than several mainstream drugs.) Other studies have shown THC to be a very effective antinausea treatment for people--cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, for example--for whom conventional medications aren't working. And medical cannabis has shown promise relieving pain in patients with multiple sclerosis and reducing intraocular pressure in glaucoma patients."

So less than an ounce is basically legal here now.. many police chiefs from surrounding Boston cities are saying it's too much of a pain in the ass to issue the tickets and have bluntly said their officers will not be issuing the tickets

1. Prohibition always creates more problems than it solves

2. Legal weed could jeopardize the financial stability of certain drug companies

3. Nobody has every died from smoking weed


If you're concerned about your lungs and short term memory, don't smoke. The reasons for marijuana's illegality are purely political and anyone who believes otherwise is uninformed or delusional.

JORDAN-OBAMA-020--www.shoes-trader.com International Trade Co.,Ltd (http://www.shoes-trader.com/products/JORDAN-OBAMA-020.htm)

I would not rock fake Js.

wow i'm actually going to not read time anymore. i've still liked the occasional interesting piece of theirs even though its just time warner but this is really dumbed down for them and really insulting. next month's letters column will have some outraged professor from california running down all the old pro-legalization points and then painted with just enough shades of conspiracy theorist.

is he gonna try to make tobacco and alcohol illegal too or what

Isn't this the logic behind "If we let gay people marry, we'll have to let people marry animals and multiple spouses too!!"?

this guy isn't smart enough to realize that "IT'S NOT GOOD FOR YOU!!!" is not a good enough reason? wtf?

Why isn't it a good enough reason?

Isn't this the logic behind "If we let gay people marry, we'll have to let people marry animals and multiple spouses too!!"?

No, because both alcohol and nicotine are both more dangerous and more habit forming than marijuana.

Why isn't it a good enough reason?

See above.

Isn't this the logic behind "If we let gay people marry, we'll have to let people marry animals and multiple spouses too!!"?



Why isn't it a good enough reason?

what are you talking about?

No, because both alcohol and nicotine are both more dangerous and more habit forming than marijuana.


But those are stupid too and people shouldn't do them either. The problem was that they got popular before they could be stopped. With that chance of prevention for marijuana, why not prevent it while we still have time?

I just don't think alcohol, nicotine, or marijuana are really that beneficial to society that everybody thinks they have a right to them.

Honestly, what kind of logic are you using here? Well, these other horrible things are okay, why isn't this other crappy thing okay? It kills me that people think because alcohol and cigarettes/cigars/tobacco are legal then we should legalize all the other things that would make society sick.

it's a stretch to say pot makes society sick

the worse you'll do with pot is be lazy and waste time. so why don't we ban world of warcraft

I agree with duovamp.

I'm a pretty steady pot-smoker myself, but I don't really see how "well alcohol and cigarettes are more dangerous!!!111" is a valid argument for legalization. Pot is NOT healthy for you. It's certainly not the worst thing you can do to your body but it's still not good for you. I don't see why it should be legal, really.

I do think it should be decriminalized. I think that's the right word, I'm not sure. Basically where you're not allowed to sell it, but possessing/smoking small quantities (like less than an ounce or something) only results in minimal punishment, like a small fine or something.

The procescution of pot smokers IS stupid, as is the massive amount of government resources spent on apprehending people with small amounts is ridiculous. I still don't really see any reason to completely legalize it though.

actually we should ban video games and pot so then our generation will have a better chance of working off the debt left for us

the worse you'll do with pot is be lazy and waste time. so why don't we ban world of warcraft

It's not good for your lungs, aside from the laziness, and it does affect short term memory after extended use. One night of drinking beer isn't bad either, but years of binge drinking aren't healthy, neither is smoking cigarettes for a long time. Getting high a few times is most agreeably different from smoking weed every day.

actually we should ban video games and pot so then our generation will have a better chance of working off the debt left for us

might as well raise the tax on cool ranch Doritos while we're at it.

Cool Ranch Doritos are protected by the Bill of Rights.

but the thing is, relegating pot to the black market doesn't neccessarily make it harder to get or discourage use. its easier for some high school kid to get an ounce of some killer weed than it is for him to get a six pack of beer, for example. it arguably makes the problem worse.

what in the fuck is going on here? you want the government to make everything that is bad for us illegal? am i reading all this correctly? what kind of whacked out place do you want to live in?

CLOSE ALL FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS, DUOVAMP!!

"it's not good for you, so it shouldn't be legal." what the fuck?

That's the same logic behind deregulating gun ownership though. You think that by making it more widely available you'll make it more exclusive? And your example is flawed because it's easier for a kid to get a six pack than weed because ANYBODY over 21 can get it for him down at the 711.

do you think alcohol and tobacco products should be illegal, duovamp? how about big macs?

you want the government to make everything that is bad for us illegal? am i reading all this correctly? what kind of whacked out place do you want to live in?

Uh, yeah. We had to make murder illegal too, sorry about that. My apologies. Pretty soon they'll be forcing us to wear seatbelts and file tax returns. Sorry for wanting a society.

do you think alcohol and tobacco products should be illegal, duovamp? how about big macs?

They're all things I consume knowing I should not be.

They're all things I consume knowing I should not be.

answer the question.

and please do not equate any of these things - things people choose to do of their own volition - to murder.

jesus fucking christ. are you serious?

Yeah I mean I don't want to purposely stop people from having fun, but if I think people are doing destructive things to get that fun then what is the societal cost of their fun? If it's not beneficial to society then it's pretty hard to justify something that's just really really fun. Some freedoms definitely help make society much more productive, which is wonderful and should be embraced. Sometimes, however, what people want is dumb and hurtful though, and what idiot would support such things?

That's the same logic behind deregulating gun ownership though. You think that by making it more widely available you'll make it more exclusive? And your example is flawed because it's easier for a kid to get a six pack than weed because ANYBODY over 21 can get it for him down at the 711.

guns don't grow from seeds and soil though

Yeah I mean I don't want to purposely stop people from having fun, but if I think people are doing destructive things to get that fun then what is the societal cost of their fun? If it's not beneficial to society then it's pretty hard to justify something that's just really really fun. Some freedoms definitely help make society much more productive, which is wonderful and should be embraced. Sometimes, however, what people want is dumb and hurtful though, and what idiot would support such things?

.....

..what are you talking about? try being less vague and making more sense.

guns don't grow from seeds and soil though

People can brew their own beer, make their own C4, and craft their own spears too. What's your point?

i'm saying that comparing weed regulation to gun regulation is retarded

.....

..what are you talking about? try being less vague and making more sense.

Well let's be serious here for a second Eulogy.

If somebody says murder is really fun and enjoyable, you'd think that person is completely insane and extremely destructive to a society. Another person thinks freedom of the press is wonderful. We have two separate freedoms here, one that I can see as being particularly detrimental to society, the other as helpful as any freedom could possibly be. I think that sometimes you have to make a choice of which things you want to be a part of your society and which things you think are just unacceptable parts of making society more productive. I honestly don't see the social benefit outweighing the social costs in legalizing marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine, and so on.

yeah duovamp i think you went off a cliff somewhere on page 1.

i'm saying that comparing weed regulation to gun regulation is retarded

You are using the exact same logic though. You've made the same connection that gun owners make when they say "Just make guns a lot easier to get, that way it'll be be better for everybody."

Well let's be serious here for a second Eulogy.

If somebody says murder is really fun and enjoyable, you'd think that person is completely insane and extremely destructive to a society. Another person thinks freedom of the press is wonderful. We have two separate freedoms here, one that I can see as being particularly detrimental to society, the other as helpful as any freedom could possibly be. I think that sometimes you have to make a choice of which things you want to be a part of your society and which things you think are just unacceptable parts of making society more productive. I honestly don't see the social benefit outweighing the social costs in legalizing marijuana, or heroin, or cocaine, and so on.

you

cannot

compare

alcohol/marijuana/tobacco/cocaine

to murder.

yeah duovamp i think you went off a cliff somewhere on page 1.

I can't understand why you're so bent on holding society back, is all. :smoke:

You are using the exact same logic though. You've made the same connection that gun owners make when they say "Just make guns a lot easier to get, that way it'll be be better for everybody."

if guns were illegal then there would be a black market industrial complex and it'd be vastly different from any underground drug distribution. even complex drug synthesis required for LSD or ecstasy is incomparable, as all you need is a relatively small lab to make thousands of shipments.

and outlawing guns is actually pretty successful in countries that try it. see: japan.

look: my point is, pot is EXTREMELY easy to get. regulation debates aside, legalizing it or not does virtually nothing to help "society"

I see where you're coming from. Again, I can't see how making something like marijuana more attainable helps society.

I can't believe what I'm reading on this page.

Duovamp is suffering from one size fits all thinking or (as JCZEROMAN would proudly say 'Idealogically consistent thinking')

'if someone's bad for people then it can be justified to be outlawed'



Duovamp's point about arguing for the legality of beer/pot is like arguing for the deregulation of guns is a bit off putting.

Getting rid of Background checks to purchase a handgun which has ability to kill other people

vs

Making it a punishable offense to drink 8 oz of beer.

If you can't see the practical imbalance of restricted freedom there, considering the consequences of each, then I don't know what the hell to say.

I see where you're coming from. Again, I can't see how making something like marijuana more attainable helps society.

because you can tax the shit out of it and save resources by not devoting crime fighting capabilities and prison space to people who smoke a relatively harmless plant. Not firing perfectly functioning and productive people from their jobs for not passing a post workplace injury mandatory drug test.



You are talking to a guy that would like to see smoking banned in public places(though in a much different way then what is currently being done) but come on..

They're all things I consume knowing I should not be.

like soul-sucking television content and high-fructose corn syrup and msg and trans fats and food-borne petrochemicals and music that advocates violence and mindless sex and sports talk radio and political talk radio and the noise from jet engines, semi trucks and jackhammers and cigarette smoke and car exhaust and ambient radiation and plastics and coal-fired-power-plant emissions and trashy magazines and mind-numbing video/computer games and everything else "society" offers you that's bad for you? OUTLAW IT ALL! jesus. you're going to die anyway. leave yourself a little say in how that'll happen and leave everyone else the same.

you get off on telling everyone else what to do? guess what, that's really bad for you in the long run. outlaw that you reason-less self-hating cretin.

Sorry but how is collecting tax dollars going to be socially justified for the hit to productivity that laziness, people in euphoria, impaired short term memory, and paying for lung cancer?

If its benefits outweighed its costs, then by all means should marijuana be legalized. But I don't at all see how that's possible and would like to see some evidence that contradicts the apparent here. I mean would you say that alcohol has been of a large benefit to modern society?

you get off on telling everyone else what to do?

As a matter of fact I do. I live in a republic, which exists based on the principle that some are better at leading than others, and those who can lead will. And we live in a society that has a government because people know that sometimes others know what is in their best interests.

If you don't want a society, government, or democratic republic then just say so. Maybe you hate America.

I mean it just seems so apparent to me that marijuana is bad for making a productive society. And I can't imagine there being any justification for it other than that you like to do it even though it's bad.

the exact same thing can be said of alcohol.

which lead to the prohibition.

and we know how well that went over.

forgive me if i'm repeating anything, i jumped into the nonsense at the top of page 2.

I mean it just seems so apparent to me that marijuana is bad for making a productive society. And I can't imagine there being any justification for it other than that you like to do it even though it's bad.

but there's serious and valid debates that it isn't "bad"

except... the only serious and gravely "bad" thing about it is that young teens get their hands on it and it interferes with their development. legalizing it and shutting down the black market - whom would sell to anybody with cash in hand - would do a lot more to put it out of their grasp. plus billions of dollars would go to fighting the distribution of REAL dangerous substances like meth and crack.

i don't think there's any recorded finding of anybody who got lung cancer from pot. and, yeah, a lot of people may forget where they put their car keys, but america will get by. and while it does make people ultra-lazy those are ones who've started from the nascent of adulthood or earlier.

now i'll admit that smoking a lot can leave anybody in a fog and cause them to make overall bad life decisions, but that problem of overconsumption is comparable to eating too much donuts, ect. there are plenty of successful responsible adults who blaze up. if some people can't control their shit, then who knows, maybe criminalization is the answer. but like i said it's readily available and people are going to get their hands on it either way.

They're all things I consume knowing I should not be.

So where do you draw the line?

who cares duovamp is being stupid

As a matter of fact I do. I live in a republic, which exists based on the principle that some are better at leading than others, and those who can lead will.

Then why force everyone to participate? The very concept of a leader means that there is something about that person that makes other people want to follow them. There's no need to set all of that on a foundation of non-consentual violent force; it's a societal structure that stands alone and needs no foundation.


And we live in a society that has a government because people know that sometimes others know what is in their best interests.

If people really "know" that then why make obedience to that leadership involuntary?



If you don't want a society, government, or democratic republic then just say so.

I want as many and as diverse societies and societal configurations as possible. Forcing everyone to participate in just a handful of fairly similar configurations leads to a stagnant, unsustainable, and precariously vulnerable human race. Such a setup does not bode well for its continued and long-term existence. Diversity leads to better chances of adaptation to a dynamic universe/environment/whatever you want to call it, leads to better chances for survival, and gives humans their best shot at finding their way to a good and sustainable fit with the rest of the environment in which they live.

who cares duovamp is being stupid

yeah this. man the trebuchet, arguing with duovamp is like arguing with corganist

I think he's really just playing devils advocate without really thinking about the amount of resources being wasted on preventing victimless crimes.

I dunno what's so stupid about having a beer every now and again or smoking a joint every once in a while. But you know, he's like sXe 4 leif

I want as many and as diverse societies and societal configurations as possible. Forcing everyone to participate in just a handful of fairly similar configurations leads to a stagnant, unsustainable, and precariously vulnerable human race. Such a setup does not bode well for its continued and long-term existence. Diversity leads to better chances of adaptation to a dynamic universe/environment/whatever you want to call it, leads to better chances for survival, and gives humans their best shot at finding their way to a good and sustainable fit with the rest of the environment in which they live.

So what you're saying here is that you want your own libertarian state to live in and I can have my own socialist state I can live in as long as we don't try and exert our power over each other and just live happily in our chosen state.

I can hop on board with this.

i mean it's completely untenable and sounds like science fiction but i've thought about it before as well

also i would like to submit the argument that great art is usually done under the influence of drugs

yeah totally failing to see what benefit art or trebuchets could have for society.

what the world needs now is more roads, not paintings and castle seiges.

So what you're saying here is that you want your own libertarian state to live in and I can have my own socialist state I can live in as long as we don't try and exert our power over each other and just live happily in our chosen state.

I can hop on board with this.

yes, ideally. if you want to put a name to my notion of the best way for humans to live you'd probably say i'm an anarchist, so yeah in a kind of not-oft-considered and slightly-paradoxical-to-the-unassuming-bystander kind of way it would be extremely hypocritical of me to think it would be a good idea to try and make anyone else live like i want to live. now don't get me wrong, i have no illusions about a setup like this coming to pass any time soon. the world is a finite and uneven place and humans are complex creatures with a long, tangled history living under a very powerful societal hegemony. one can't just expect a highly mature/advanced form of human society (like what i envision) to just appear out of thin air, or even be built successfully in a few decades. proportionally what i'd like to see is more akin to generations of people building a cathedral than a construction company planning/erecting the world's tallest building. however, i think it's the smartest goal to work toward. the problem is that i think forcing anyone to work toward said goal fundamentally undermines the goal itself. people must be convinced to freely participate and be able to halt participation at any time. that means there's little chance for anything like that ever happening, which is a shame: i think it's humanity's (and given what we've done to the planet, the rest of life on earth's) best and maybe only chance at sustained survival.

Yes but at the same time we have the problem of land and the riches concealed within, and how to divide it.

if we all had planets that were equal to earth that would probably work but that's just crazy talk

exactly. that's why i said "world is an uneven place". it's not like we're starting out in a completely uniform vacuum. and i think the planet's human population is astoundingly, fundamentally, completely, ridiculously, breathtakingly, amazingly beyond its sustainable carrying capacity, and that's a situation that's going to get much, much uglier before it's resolved. there's no way anybody's ideal society can form and be successful with 6.whatever billion people on the planet (unless you're some sort of weird hybrid mad max fascist like duovamp).

without me reading this whole thread, has anyone here said weed should not be legalized?

duo wants everything bad for you to be illegal

WUT

well that's the summary for the last two pages or so

is duovamp really this stupid?

man.

the exact same thing can be said of alcohol.

which lead to the prohibition.

and we know how well that went over.

More proof that we shouldn't let it become legal because if we tried to go back all hell would break loose. Plus, I said before that I don't see the social benefit of alcohol earlier. Again, I can't see how making something like marijuana more attainable helps society. I don't see the societal benefit of alcohol or marijuana unless you're using them to fight diseases or something... If you can find that its going to make society more productive then by all means show me.

For clarification, this is where you draw the line:
Yeah I mean I don't want to purposely stop people from having fun, but if I think people are doing destructive things to get that fun then what is the societal cost of their fun? If it's not beneficial to society then it's pretty hard to justify something that's just really really fun. Some freedoms definitely help make society much more productive, which is wonderful and should be embraced. Sometimes, however, what people want is dumb and hurtful though, and what idiot would support such things?




I want as many and as diverse societies and societal configurations as possible.

:rofl: wut
This is a self defeating proposition. Two options here... 1: It's like saying the only rule is there are no rules. So now do you enforce that people HAVE to be free? Do you enforce freedom? Is that freedom? Are those who don't wish to be free now confined by you when they are free to make the choice to sacrifice freedom? Like I said, it defeats itself and it's stupid. It's common political knowledge that freedom in a society requires a basic level of enforcement, like how cops are not free to squash the right to be searched and seized. Or 2: The one society will take over all the others because it is more aggressive and enslave the others... it's what happened with everything ever.



Honestly I don't see people clamoring to legalize crack, or heroin, or morphine for everybody to use because they are fun. Wonder why. Sorry, but if things are bad for society, but you personally think they are just really fun, then you need to reassess your values. Why would you do something like that? I care about making society more productive, not shittier. I mean you don't have the freedom to rape, but I don't see people here telling me that it killed their freedoms, why is that?

Come on, are you guys that desperate for a high that you'd rather see society take a blow for your own selfish gains? It's really not that important that you smoke a bowl and talk about how you "get acquainted with your mind, man", or drink until you puke, or shoot your arm full of shit. These are incredibly stupid actions, so why do them? And why enable them? I don't understand it.

How do you guys justify legalizing something that adversely affects the productivity of society? Someone just please answer that for me so I can understand what drives this urge for it.

duo wants everything bad for you to be illegal

Pretty soon people will want to outlaw murder and rape! How am I gonna have fun on the weekends?!?!

But seriously, that's the point of a republic... you pick somebody to govern who "knows what is best for you" even if it isn't more fun. It's like saying the best way to raise your kids is to never ever ever give them any boundaries, just let them do whatever the fuck they want all the time. It's ludicrous. How are you people able to justify such things?

fun = legal? Is that seriously all it takes? Do you guys refuse to take medicine because it tastes bad?

Oh brother.

there's no way anybody's ideal society can form and be successful with 6.whatever billion people on the planet (unless you're some sort of weird hybrid mad max fascist like duovamp).

1. I love Mad Max
2. Indeed my ideal society would be successful, I would make it so :banging:
3. The world has eighty-nine trillion people in it, seventy billion of them living in the US*

*Source: Monte

Actually a lot of people argue that we should legalize all drugs because we spend far more trying to prevent the inevitable.

You seem to assume that everyone stops doing something because it's illegal. People still murder and rape or god forbid smoke pot. It's not as if the majority don't do it because it's illegal. It's because they think for themselves and they can choose for themselves. Now I sound like a libertarian, jesus look what you made me do.

Also go back in history and look up how well prohibition worked out, you might find it illuminating. You think street gangs in Juarez and the FARC in Columbia would have as much power if we legalized drugs? What about just the crips and bloods and the mexican mafia here? I mean what would they do to make money if you could buy a key of cocaine at walmart?

Hahaha, sorry, didn't mean to make you sound like a libertarian there.

I mean look, if it honestly could be proven that legalizing marijuana is going to make society more productive, then of course I'd be all for it. But it seems to me that it couldn't possibly be.

As far as prohibition goes, I touched on this subject earlier: More proof that we shouldn't let it become legal because if we tried to go back all hell would break loose.

I mean I said earlier that freedom of the press is something I think benefits society a ton. It's a freedom I can see the obvious benefits of and thus support. It is justified. But weed? Really? You think weed is going to make society better for more people?

wait a sec duovamp just assumes we all want rape and murder to stay illegal? pro-weed is pro-murder, bro

duovamp doing some monumental work in this thread

Damn hippies.

I mean it just seems so apparent to me that marijuana is bad for making a productive society.

This was a major reason people other than religious nuts signed on to alcohol prohibition.

And I can't imagine there being any justification for it other than that you like to do it even though it's bad.

You do realise that most people who want to smoke mary jane do it despite the law right? If the law didn't exist we could get rid of a lot of the spillover that comes from criminalising otherwise perfectly decent people.

Duovamp is suffering from one size fits all thinking or (as JCZEROMAN would proudly say 'Idealogically consistent thinking')

'if someone's bad for people then it can be justified to be outlawed'

This is true. Duovamp is being ideologically consistent. He is also being a nazi.

I haven't been called a Nazi or fascist before. This is turning out to be an interesting day.

You do realise that most people who want to smoke mary jane do it despite the law right? If the law didn't exist we could get rid of a lot of the spillover that comes from criminalising otherwise perfectly decent people.

That's the thing though, if you can actually justify legalizing marijuana making society more productive then by all means I'd support it. To me it seems more likely that potheads just want to rationalize getting high all the time without going through the black market. I don't see how that makes me a Nazi though. I'm just looking for the essential things that make a society more productive and would build laws around those core principles. It isn't like I just want to make everything illegal, but that I just seek laws that benefit the whole in a measurable way.

I'm just looking for the essential things that make a society more productive


You mean like not wasting millions if not billions of dollars (which represent a huge pile of precious and finite time/energy/resources) on an unsuccessful attempt at the prohibition (a faulty concept in its own right) of one of the least dangerous, least addictive drugs there is? No matter what else we disagree on, I would think you could admit that we have many far better things to do.

If we're talking about optimizing a society, that's one thing. If we could wave a magic wand and have weed disappear from a society then that's another. I'm sure there are more optimal things that money could be spent on, as well as worse things at which we could throw money. However I still haven't been convinced that legalized marijuana consumption benefits a society.

That's the thing though, if you can actually justify legalizing marijuana making society more productive then by all means I'd support it.

The main benefit of the legalization of marijuana wouldn't be some weird generation of more productivity as you seem to conceptualize it (although this is a very plausible outcome given the gains that we might make from the de-marginalization of hemp as an energy and materials crop). What most pro-legalization people in this discussion have in their sights is the removal of a stifling restriction of productivity (ie. the government wasting resources on the practice of prohibition).


There, we've said it for you at least two ways, and one that responds directly to your sort of backward way of wording what you think it is we're saying to you. I don't know how else this can be explained.

I'm sure there are more optimal things that money could be spent on ... However I still haven't been convinced that legalized marijuana consumption benefits a society.

so you are sure there are better things on which we could be spending our resources/energy/time, but you're not convinced it would benefit society to do so?

so how is everyone just glossing over the fact that he keeps going back to rape and murder for his examples?

what are you studying in school again?

That's the thing though, if you can actually justify legalizing marijuana making society more productive then by all means I'd support it. To me it seems more likely that potheads just want to rationalize getting high all the time without going through the black market.

Also, I don't know anybody that smokes marijuana that cares much if at all that it's illegal / feels as if they need government justification to do it. I also don't know anyone that smokes marijuana that seems to have a hard time getting it through the black market.


... But weed? Really? You think weed is going to make society better for more people?

Not necessarily, and it's not the point. Prohibition or not, weed exists and people use it. I don't think there are legions of people out there who don't use it now and who would magically turn into totally useless / nonproductive stoners upon trying it if it were legal. That you seem to think so reveals a strange (at the very least) view of human nature on your part.

[anectodal]Essentially every marijuana user I know smokes pot in moderation, holds a full-time job (if not more than one), and is a full contributors to society in the ways I think you're after here.[/anecdotal] On the flip side, lazy stoners exist despite the prohibition. I wonder how their numbers and levels of non-productivity compare to those of lazy alcoholics or lazy tv-addicted shut-ins or office workers who aren't productive because they're on the internet all day. Would you criminalize those behaviors? What's the difference? Would you criminalize other non-addiction activities that constitute the loss of possible productivity? To what extent? How do you measure such thing?

also, arguing with duovamp is a clear waste of time and energy. somebody outlaw this thread and fine me.

so how is everyone just glossing over the fact that he keeps going back to rape and murder for his examples?

what are you studying in school again?

english and i think philosophy

it reminds me of the rightist group on campus that compared illegal immigration to murder

I don't think there are legions of people out there who don't use it now and who would magically turn into totally useless / nonproductive stoners upon trying it if it were legal. That you seem to think so reveals a strange (at the very least) view of human nature on your part.

It is the consistent application of Hobbes. Mankind is unable to make basic decisions about his own personal freedom:

If government doesn't regulate the market, then everyone would be enslaved.

If government doesn't monopolise defence, then everyone will start killing each other.

If government doesn't ban drugs, then everyone will become lazy, unproductive drug addicts.

If government doesn't enforce morality, then families will be broken up and immorality will run rampant - oh and porn will be all over tv.

english and i think philosophy



i'd like to know what his school's philosophy program is like :erm:

without marijuana how would we get all our great music

My major is English and my minors are philosophy and political science. I will come back to this thread after I am not on my blackberry and once I get some sleep. I already explained though how legalizing weed and focusing efforts elsewhere would eventually force us to revisit weed at a later date when it is more optimal to do so. And if it is re-illegalized then we will run into greater problems then than when we could have kept it illegal the entire time, as a better longterm investment instead of foolishly making it illegal, legal, then legal again. See my words on prohibition. If weed is made legal then at some point it would be optimal to have it be illegal, and we would screw ourselves over to get to that point. Again, let me come back to this when I don't have to type with my thumbs.

dude you are not making a lick of sense

is duovamp high

dude you are not making a lick of sense

If anything, shouldn't you be arguing that I'm being overly logical here? :confused:

If anything, shouldn't you be arguing that I'm being overly logical here? :confused:

haha absolutely not.

.

is duovamp high

ha!



but seriously i've talked with people stoned out of their gourds who make more sense than this guy

[low-blow sidebar]

Again, let me come back to this when I don't have to type with my awesome new opposable thumbs!!

[/ ok back to serious conversation]

What thread is that happening in?

i think he thinks he's making logical and principled arguments that are just incorrect as a matter of logistics. he doesn't realize that he doesn't have a logical, principle, or practical leg to stand on anywhere in this thread.

i think one could argue indeed that cannabis should remain illegal, and while i don't agree with this it's really the way duovamp words things that makes me scratch my head

i can't help thinking that any argument for keeping marijuana illegal would then logically apply to making tobacco and alcohol illegal. probably moreso for the latter cases.

there's no real way to argue to continue to ban marijuana yet allow alcohol and nicotine to remain legal unless you lie about what marijuana does

you could argue that maybe 2 somewhat dangerous (to some) drugs are enough and we don't need a third one legalised

i dunno i'm for legalising it

there's no real way to argue to continue to ban marijuana yet allow alcohol and nicotine to remain legal unless you lie about what marijuana does

And this is exactly what I was hinting toward earlier. See now it'd be impossible to get rid of these things that are making society less productive. So if we only focus on the short term here and say "We could spend that money in a more optimal fashion and in the mean time let marijuana go" then it would be sacrificing that ability to ever actually remove it from society. We're unable to get alcohol out of society now, utterly unable. So what are we to do? Let other things follow this path because the short term solution seems to be optimization, or should we focus our optimization on the long term to make society more productive 100 years down the road instead of 2 years from now?

Nobody has answered my questions though.

It's like saying the best way to raise your kids is to never ever ever give them any boundaries, just let them do whatever the fuck they want all the time. It's ludicrous. How are you people able to justify such things?

fun = legal? Is that seriously all it takes? Do you guys refuse to take medicine because it tastes bad?

Please, somebody tell me what it takes to make something illegal. Please, anybody here, I am begging you. Someone tell me why you make things illegal. If you don't know how to make laws then how dare you come in here and say that my reasoning is at all flawed? Enacting legislature that hurts society long term but gets you madd high s0n is good? How on earth do you people justify this?

We've let alcohol go too far and can't go back now. So we're stuck with this socially counterproductive tumor we can't cut off. And you want that to happen with MORE substances? It's like talking to high school freshmen here who just want to "smoke weed all day."

maybe legalizing marijuana is exactly the thing to do if you want less people smoking it

legal smoking has been on the decline for decades.

you legalize it, removes much of the allure. tax the shit out of it.

I'd genuinely be interested in seeing the logistics of that, because it'd be an interesting discussion. But first can we answer my question of why we make things illegal?

And this is exactly what I was hinting toward earlier. See now it'd be impossible to get rid of these things that are making society less productive.

You suck.

You really sound like a fucking fascist. Really. Seriously. Fucking. Fascist.

We've let alcohol go too far and can't go back now. So we're stuck with this socially counterproductive tumor we can't cut off.

stuck with what

a good time? a tasty beverage?

the fuck is wrong with you

i can't help thinking that any argument for keeping marijuana illegal would then logically apply to making tobacco and alcohol illegal. probably moreso for the latter cases.

maybe legalizing marijuana is exactly the thing to do if you want less people smoking it

legal smoking has been on the decline for decades.

you legalize it, removes much of the allure. tax the shit out of it.

Debaser, you could be on the verge of being reasonable if you would take the principles you rest on for your decent arguments and just apply them broadly without them being filtered by the party-line. Seriously, just apply the thinking on these responses much farther. Realise that drug and alcohol legalisation is logically the same as legalising many other things.

Don't get me wrong, it tastes great, makes woman appear more attractive, and makes a person virtually invulnerable to criticism... but I'd give it up for the benefit of society.

what benefit

Increased productivity.

you're like the greeting card in that episode of futurama and i'm bender

Increased productivity.

and how do you figure that

Nobody has answered my question still btw.

you're like the greeting card in that episode of futurama and i'm bender

:rofl:

Nobody has answered my question still btw.

because it's a stupid question

and how do you figure that

Seems to me that when I'm drunk I'm not helping society much, nor is spending 20 bucks on a Saturday night spending money optimally. I could be investing that money and using that time to read or argue politics on the internet.

Life is not all about "being productive" unless you want to live in some kind of underground worker hive you sick fuck.

because it's a stupid question

Of course nobody will answer it because it entirely proves my point.

Unless you're the jczeroman type who thinks there should be no laws or governments and people should all just do whatever they want and businesses by sway of the market will meet everybody's needs.

Life is not all about "being productive" unless you want to live in some kind of underground worker hive you sick fuck.

That doesn't sound optimal. A life of drudgery isn't maximizing productivity in a group. I think we're not on the drudgery side of that optimization, though.

Although...

And how are you one to judge what is optimal

maybe one night you spend 20 bucks at a bar and meet the girl you have 3 kids with and they become rocket scientists or something

stop being no fun

Of course nobody will answer it because it entirely proves my point.

I already answered it and you ignored it/pushed it aside, I'm not going to repeat myself either.

Get yer head out of your rectum.

Debaser, you could be on the verge of being reasonable if you would take the principles you rest on for your decent arguments and just apply them broadly without them being filtered by the party-line. Seriously, just apply the thinking on these responses much farther. Realise that drug and alcohol legalisation is logically the same as legalising many other things.

One size does not fit all.

Of course nobody will answer it because it entirely proves my point.


Your implication that legalized marijuana is overall bad for society is only an assumption. It renders your question irrelevant.

The more important question is the validity of your assumption.

Yeah still no answer.

man are you the only guy that can't see what an stupid ass you are in this thread

is that your escape hatch, "I'm gonna ask a dumb question and then when 7 people answer it I'll pretend that they didn't and that way I can claim some small sliver of victory when it's plain to anyone that I was massacred like the British at Isandlwana."

now im starting to think that you don't know. quit playing the role

what the fuck. this is like the third post in the last 4 that you have snuck in front of me trots

tier one

You guys are really being awfully selfish here, to suggest that the road to a more productive society would be a drug-filled, do-whatever-you-want brawl. I mean we made these social contracts so we don't fuck ourselves over, we put limitations on ourselves because we know that it might not be more fun but it is best, we have a democratic republic because we agree to elect officials who we've given the power to say what is best. Why do we allow ourselves to be governed? Why do we allow ourselves to be ruled by laws? Why do we make these laws?

And seriously you guys are really coming off as ignorant stoners who think legalizing weed would make life super fun, the slippery slope of this being heroin and crack and morphine and LSD and E and so on...

You guys are really being awfully selfish here, to suggest that the road to a more productive society would be a drug-filled, do-whatever-you-want brawl.

Nobody said that.

See the thing is that you're assuming alcohol and mairjuana are bad for productivity. And that's an assumption not fact. People who are happier are more productive, so it can be argued people that have access to these things are happier and more productive as a result.

People on amphetamines are tremendously productive.

So you're an idiot.

You fail.

Get out of my class.

And seriously you guys are really coming off as ignorant stoners who think legalizing weed would make life super fun, the slippery slope of this being heroin and crack and morphine and LSD and E and so on...

ugh i quit i'm not reading this thread anymore

you're a FUCKING MORON

i don't think you have a realistic vision of a legalized marijuana society. It's not like the Netherlands is a third world country --- far from it, actually.

wow did you just put weed in the same category as heroin and crack?

I'm already uncomfortable with comparing weed to alcohol.

Because alcohol is, by far, way more dangerous to society than marijuana.

WE'RE JUST A BUNCH OF DUMB POT HEADS

adgasdgadsgsdgasdgasdagdsfadsadsfadgasdgasdgasdgsd agsdg

You guys are really being awfully selfish here, to suggest that the road to a more productive society would be a drug-filled, do-whatever-you-want brawl.

No one is suggesting that. Stop putting noexistent words in everyone's mouth. You assume that legalization would lead to some wild humanity-crippling orgy of marijuana consumption. That is a highly unlikely scenario and it seems to everyone here that it lies at the foundation of all your arguments. Prove them wrong about that or prove your assumption right and we'll be getting somewhere.

I mean we made these social contracts so we don't fuck ourselves over,

Social contracts can exist without the government. In fact some would argue that a fully voluntary / mutually consensual, force-free / violence-free social contract is far more 'productive' than a lopsidedly one-way force / violence-based social contract imposed by government. If you think smoking pot is bad and hampers society's productivity (all tenuous arguments but let's roll with them for a second) simply telling everybody else that they can't do it unless they want to risk punishment (ie making it illegal) is no way to make anybody stop. Pot's illegal but its use is extremely widespread and the authorities in many places are finding it not worth the time and resources (ie productivity) involved to try to enforce anti-pot laws. If smoking pot is indeed bad for society there are guaranteed to be better ways to curb such an activity. Threatening/using force (ie getting a government involved and calling it illegal) doesn't work.

we put limitations on ourselves because we know that it might not be more fun but it is best, And the government is the only and/or best way to do this? I don't think so. Laws imposed by the government are far too ponderous, heavy-handed, and homogeneous to really maximize the balance between "fun" as you understand it and "what's best" for each individual (and therefore society) as you understand it. I restrict and moderate plenty of activities that make me feel good in the short term in order to achieve a longer-term stability, sustainability, and productivity in my life. If the government tried to step in and do this for every individual it would be disastrous and extremely counterproductive. I know me better than anyone else does, and it's up to me to figure out how to try to have the best life I can. And guess what, the only person you can ultimately control is you, and there's a lifetime of work and effort you can put in to making yourself more productive and beneficial to society that would be far more worthwhile and effective than worrying about trying to force anybody else to do the same.

have a democratic republic because we agree to elect officials who we've given the power to say what is best.

and is the system perfect? no. the simple fact that a governmental structure is the status quo doesn't make it the best way to do things. how silly would you have sounded making the same argument in 98% of human history or 80% of the governments in power on earth today?

Why do we allow ourselves to be governed? Why do we allow ourselves to be ruled by laws? Why do we make these laws?

Exactly. Think about those questions for a minute. Everybody who smokes pot today despite the illegality of that act are not allowing themselves to be governed. So what about the anti-pot law is beneficial to society? What about the spending of resources on formulating, communicating, and attempting to enforce that relatively broken and innefective law constitues productivity? Regardless of our differences on the general validity and ideal reach of government and law and all that, don't you agree that there's enough imperfection and lost productivity in society that there are alot of other government efforts toward productivity on which those resources might be better spent?

And none of that even addresses the theoretical uncertainty surrounding your concept of productivity and your apparent opinion on the primacy of productivity as you understand it, or the more practical questions of how you would define and measure productivity in the real world and whether or not the government is the ideal societal structure to be left in charge of defining, measuring, and attempting to ensure ideal levels and kinds of productivity.

I mean listen duovamp, I agree with you if you think humanity has a lot of work it should be doing.

In fact, I think humanity has a huge amount of work ahead of it if it ever wants a chance at long-term survival, and probably if it wants the rest of life on earth to survive long-term as well. But forcing anybody to do any of it undermines the work and jeopordizes the chance that that person's contribution will mean anything / won't be wasted.

The best / highest quality / longest-lasting / most-sustainable work comes from people who really care about the job and who are doing so voluntarily, not from people forced into labor. The same concept applies to productivity. The most productive societal efforts are based on and tied together with voluntary, mutually-beneficial social contracts, not one individual or group forcing others against their ultimate consent.

Man Mariner you're dark.

Also holy crap there is nothing wrong (in fact there are almost undoubtedly lots of benefits, even productivity-based if you want to go that route) with unwinding every once in a while. Unwinding via marijuana is arguably no more or less 'good' or 'bad' than unwinding via alcohol, cigarettes, perscription drugs, dancing, reading, watching a movie or play, going to a musical performance, spending time with friends/family/pets, doing charity work, devoting oneself to a art or hobby, playing sports, video games, comptuer games, etc. ... or all sorts of other relatively if not completely legal things - i think you get the idea. many of those activites are equally potentially addictive and time-'wasting' and could easily get in the way of other people's ideas of 'productivity'. the way you're arguing here you sound as if you'd rather have the government regulate all of these things in the name of productivity. is that right? what do you do with your time all day? do you really want the government to tell you not to do the stuff you like to do because it thinks you could be off somewhere being more 'productive'? what if the government isn't perfect and has it wrong? then it might be that you're being forced to do something that is actually counterproductive. what then?

Man Mariner you're dark.

how so dude? the survival thing?

Yeah.

i dunno, i mean we've really fucked things up these last 15,000 years or so. as far as anyone can tell we're in the middle of causing a mass extinction of life on earth that's nearly if not equally as swift and within a few decades or century at most is forecast to be as large and widespread as the biggest mass extinctions in the planet's history. we've unleashed vast amounts of toxins into our surroundings and therefore ourselves. we're consuming resources at unprecedented speed and that consumption is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. we're reproducing in a similarly breakneck and unprecedented manner. we've developed weapons that can devastate if not wipe out life on subcontinental scales if even just a handful are deployed. the lives of the vast majority of humanity are dependent on / intertwined with a ridiculously homogeneous bundle of just a handful of precarious resources and relatively insane philosophies and societal structures. the only thing that seems to be holding off the inevitable at this point is the luck of the relative abundance of a few of those resources, and at some point we will face the fact (if we aren't already) that said resources are all too finite. we've done so much damage to the diversity and sustainability of life on this planet that even if we either somehow manage to reverse the massive inertia of our destructiveness, or more likely are largely or completely wiped off the face of the planet, it will likely take tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before the rest of life on earth would be back to a configuration that would be strong and diverse enough to survive the next blow in the ongoing cycle of events that has led to the rest of the mass extinctions/near-death points in the earth's biological history.

in other words i don't see how we're not probably fucked. on top of that we seem to be doing our darnedest to take out the rest of life as we know it as well.

but hey you know we should really do something about this pot problem

it renders us unproductive and we have to be 100% productive all the time to the glory of the human hive

if we're a hive then why can't we have our buzz?



also yeah i may have a gloomy world view but i don't really dwell on it. i definitely don't let it stop me from enjoying life. if anything i try to enjoy it more in case i'm around long enough to see the end of the party, or for the sake of everybody a few generations down the road who won't have the chance.

You're not supposed to ask questions, drone.

well played

You're not supposed to ask questions, drone.

what're you, the queen?

I just want to give all glory to the Great Leader Duovamp

(also you can go to the salt mines if you <i>want</I> but I'm going to stay above ground thank you very much)

I just want to give all glory to the Great Leader Duovamp

These words are like sweet alcohol to my ears.

i dunno, i mean we've really fucked things up these last 15,000 years or so. as far as anyone can tell we're in the middle of causing a mass extinction of life on earth that's nearly if not equally as swift and within a few decades or century at most is forecast to be as large and widespread as the biggest mass extinctions in the planet's history. we've unleashed vast amounts of toxins into our surroundings and therefore ourselves. we're consuming resources at unprecedented speed and that consumption is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. we're reproducing in a similarly breakneck and unprecedented manner. we've developed weapons that can devastate if not wipe out life on subcontinental scales if even just a handful are deployed. the lives of the vast majority of humanity are dependent on / intertwined with a ridiculously homogeneous bundle of just a handful of precarious resources and relatively insane philosophies and societal structures. the only thing that seems to be holding off the inevitable at this point is the luck of the relative abundance of a few of those resources, and at some point we will face the fact (if we aren't already) that said resources are all too finite. we've done so much damage to the diversity and sustainability of life on this planet that even if we either somehow manage to reverse the massive inertia of our destructiveness, or more likely are largely or completely wiped off the face of the planet, it will likely take tens if not hundreds of thousands of years before the rest of life on earth would be back to a configuration that would be strong and diverse enough to survive the next blow in the ongoing cycle of events that has led to the rest of the mass extinctions/near-death points in the earth's biological history.

in other words i don't see how we're not probably fucked. on top of that we seem to be doing our darnedest to take out the rest of life as we know it as well.


This is so strange because I'm a lot more optimistic about life on the planet. Of course, if we free-market our way through things then we won't be making any proactive (ugh I hate that word) decisions about the matter, but rather reacting to problems after they've come to a head. It's more efficient in the short term, but can be much less productive long term, especially if we screw ourselves. If we tackle problems before it's too late then we can get on the right track. ...Or we could let the free market take over and burn this planet out in 20 years. :p

But I think we'll be okay. Acts of men are better than acts of God. The technology that put us into our hole will lift us out imo. Remember that at our very core is the survival instinct. Even more precious to us than gold or weed or fast cars or big houses is just basic survival. People will make the sacrifices necessary to sustain life. They won't always want to, but they'll make them eventually, one of the things you can always count on a person doing.

duovamp's arguments will be a turning point for some here (in this thread and others in the future), because his points show authoritarian and utilitarian logic taken to a consistent extreme. It is much easier to see the fault in someone else's assumptions rather than your own and some, in arguing with duovamp, are merely arguing with a version of themselves. So don't fight it everyone, embrace the dark side of letting people make choices for themselves and leading their own life free of bosses and bullies telling them what to do.

But you can't force people to be free. Your belief system is the exact same as mine- you want what is best so you tell people to do what is best. You just did it right now, in fact. If people don't want to be free, that is, if they've chosen to create governments over their heads, you can't take that away from them if they want to keep it. And they did create governments, because lawlessness came first and it sucked ass because people wanted more protection.

and is the system perfect? no.

Looks like somebody didn't read The Republic. :erm:

You guys are really being awfully selfish here, to suggest that the road to a more productive society would be a drug-filled, do-whatever-you-want brawl. I mean we made these social contracts so we don't fuck ourselves over, we put limitations on ourselves because we know that it might not be more fun but it is best, we have a democratic republic because we agree to elect officials who we've given the power to say what is best. Why do we allow ourselves to be governed? Why do we allow ourselves to be ruled by laws? Why do we make these laws?

ok, i'll take one of your stupid fucking examples.

Murder is illegal because, say, if someone murders me, then I am dead, and I do not want to be dead. And when I am murdered, I have absolutely no say in the matter. and that is not fair. My right to continue living is infringed upon by whatever douchebag decides to murder me. that is why murder is illegal.

now do you have a point?

duovamp's arguments will be a turning point for some here (in this thread and others in the future), because his points show authoritarian and utilitarian logic taken to a consistent extreme. It is much easier to see the fault in someone else's assumptions rather than your own and some, in arguing with duovamp, are merely arguing with a version of themselves. So don't fight it everyone, embrace the dark side of letting people make choices for themselves and leading their own life free of bosses and bullies telling them what to do.

man, don't try to turn this into anything more than duovamp being dumb.

duovamp's arguments will be a turning point for some here (in this thread and others in the future), because his points show authoritarian and utilitarian logic taken to a consistent extreme. It is much easier to see the fault in someone else's assumptions rather than your own and some, in arguing with duovamp, are merely arguing with a version of themselves. So don't fight it everyone, embrace the dark side of letting people make choices for themselves and leading their own life free of bosses and bullies telling them what to do.

don't think that our disagreement with duovamp regarding outlawing alcohol and marijuana is going to somehow push us to unfiltered free market 'freedom' lovers.

that is not going to happen.. but I hope this does show you that when a lot of us argue against your libertarianism it is not for a love of being controlled by the state in every facet in our lives.

But you can't force people to be free.

Of course you can't; they come that way. Freedom is an inherent part of every human's existence as an individual. Everyone is born with it and it's up to everyone else whether or not they try to impose restrictions upon it.


Your belief system is the exact same as mine- you want what is best so you tell people to do what is best. You just did it right now, in fact.

No, he did not. He wants to be free to do what he thinks is best, and to let everybody else do whatever they want, whether or not that's "best" (whatever that means.)


If people don't want to be free, that is, if they've chosen to create governments over their heads, you can't take that away from them if they want to keep it.

No, you can't, and I don't think jczeroman wants to. He just doesn't want to be forced to be a part of that government.


And they did create governments, because lawlessness came first and it sucked ass because people wanted more protection.

That is a ridiculously simplistic hypothesis about the origins of human social structure. There were leaders before there were humans. Life in the primeval world sucking has no significant bearing on what life would be like in an advanced anarchistic society. Etc., etc.

But you can't force people to be free. Your belief system is the exact same as mine- you want what is best so you tell people to do what is best. You just did it right now, in fact. If people don't want to be free, that is, if they've chosen to create governments over their heads, you can't take that away from them if they want to keep it. And they did create governments, because lawlessness came first and it sucked ass because people wanted more protection.

You seem to be missing a huge difference between "telling" people what is best and "forcing them to do" what is best. I believe I have no qualifications to make someone do what they don't want to do. I have ideas on what they might do better, and I have no problem proclaiming them, but I am not interested in making them do it "for their own good." If people want to make states, then fine, I won't stop them. But they can do so without making me join them.

don't think that our disagreement with duovamp regarding outlawing alcohol and marijuana is going to somehow push us to unfiltered free market 'freedom' lovers.

that is not going to happen.. but I hope this does show you that when a lot of us argue against your libertarianism it is not for a love of being controlled by the state in every facet in our lives.

You are the second person to respond to this idea as though I am wanting a "specific" expansion into economic freedom. This mischaracterises my position. I just expect that people arguing for "freedom" in one instance, and doing so on principle rather than the example (I want to be free to do drugs, make money, worship God VERSUS people have a right to determine their own lifestyle choices and therefore can pursue drugs, money and God). There is a difference and I typically see people arguing for the articulation of freedom rather than the principle. In this thread, however, probably because duovamp is arguing in principle for authoritarianism, people are actually giving a principled defence of freedom.

this thread is horrible. am i the only one who thinks there has to be something between anarchism and authoritatian absolutism, and that changes in either direction need to be discussed individually

No, you're not.

If there was any such thing as true freedom I wouldn't have to work every day so I can feed and house myself and I wouldn't have to take the shit I'm about to take.

Every day I see people making stupid decisions and I say to myself "You know, I could help that guy out, offer him some advice or give a suggestion, anything to stop him from making a destructive decision." I mean if a child wants to start smoking I'll probably do what I can to stop him. I think you're being cruel if you just sit back and let him do something destructive. But I'm the type of person who thinks that by sitting still you don't get anywhere. Letting people do whatever they want usually means letting some jerk take over..... I mean to stop him would be preventing him from doing what he wants, right?

Anyway, I can't think of a single time where I was like "You know what? Society could use more potheads."

it's pretty frightening that you're a student of philosophy and politics

You're 19, right?

what does it matter? your posts are those of a 15 year old

only in this thread though, i have no problem with you in general, it's just that your posts in this thread are baffling in their naivety

i think duovamp might be like a nancy grace troll or something

I have to repeat myself a lot here, so here it goes: I said before that I don't think constant drudgery is the most productive state of a society. Creativity and innovation are large factors in a society that help it be more productive. People started off in the world without governments, and out of desire of protection they established them and made their governments work FOR them, meaning that every elected official had to be just that, elected. The problem is oppression, and I wouldn't ever want a government to be oppressive to the point that it stifles productivity. On one side you have freedom but also abuse, and on the other you have protection but also oppression. Of course the extremes are not going to be nearly as productive as some optimal spot between them, I'm sure everybody here agrees on that. So don't think that I want some ridiculous police state, but I think you go too far when you legalize marijuana, because at some point you're going to want it out of society and you won't be able to, like with alcohol. It's an investment to keep it illegal, rather than allocate funds elsewhere, because like I said, if like alcohol you want it gone you just won't be able to go back. But I don't see how marijuana adds to a society's productive worth.

um, why would we want marijuana to be illegal?

god, douvamp, you're very, very stupid.

...Please don't be insulting. I've tried pretty hard to keep this a relatively mature discussion on a serious topic, Eulogy.

why do we want alcohol out of our society, who said that?

i, for one, am against legalizing marijuana.

You're 19, right?

when you say stuff like that, you are stupid duo

when you say stuff like that, you are stupid duo

:rolleyes: It was in regard to his thread, you know, trying to piss him off. Do keep up.

http://forums.netphoria.org/general-chat-message-board/164920-its-my-20th-birthday.html

...Please don't be insulting. I've tried pretty hard to keep this a relatively mature discussion on a serious topic, Eulogy.

yeah sorry. my bad. i meant to say that you're saying very, very stupid things and it's hard to take you seriously in this thread. you're not a bad guy. i know that. i was a little drunk when i made that post.

but, that question still seems like a fine one. why do you assume that if we were to legalize marijuana that we would assuredly want to make it illegal further down the road? that doesn't make any sense to me.

i, for one, am against legalizing marijuana.

what? why?

i mean i don't even like it very much but i cannot for the life of me understand why people think it is so terrible and needs to be illegal.

Without alcohol, there would be no Absolut Vodka advertisements, no liquor stores, no oak cask makers for whiskey, no <i>Sideways</i>, no amusing shot glasses, no Budweiser belt buckles, no Duff Man, and the demand for blenders would be much lower in the 18-34-year-old demographic. I would say that alcohol contributes a fair amount to society. And if marijuana were legal, Tommy Chong would still have a thriving glass pipe business. I've never lit up in my life, but I think prosecuting marijuana users is a huge waste of resources. It's not much different from me having the occasional beer, except the beer supposedly has some minor health benefits.

what? why?

thread takes a sudden turn

this should get interesting

but, that question still seems like a fine one. why do you assume that if we were to legalize marijuana that we would assuredly want to make it illegal further down the road? that doesn't make any sense to me.

I just figured, given the time, we would fix the major issues pressing society, starting at the top working our way down. That is, society will make progress as time passes.

no Duff Man,

Touche.


But really the money spent on alcohol could be spent in other markets that help improve things so much more, like energy consumption. The alcohol industry isn't necessarily the most optimal spot to spend resources.

Touche.


But really the money spent on alcohol could be spent in other markets that help improve things so much more, like energy consumption. The alcohol industry isn't necessarily the most optimal spot to spend resources.

so you're against having fun? or watching TV? or listening to music? i have no idea why your "productive society" is one in which everyone works constantly to help that society and does not waste a single moment on leisure. it's stunningly short-sighted and, well, incorrect.

just when you thought post-modernism had arrived in all young western minds

let's all believe in change and progress towards illusionary utopias without any basis in reality

i'm a productive, habitual (daily) pot smoker. i'd hate to be locked up for that.

so you're against having fun? or watching TV? or listening to music? i have no idea why your "productive society" is one in which everyone works constantly to help that society and does not waste a single moment on leisure. it's stunningly short-sighted and, well, incorrect.

Yeah because I didn't explain before that creativity and innovation are important in being productive and that drudgery is not optimal. Glad you pointed this out and I had to explain it for the fifteenth time in this thread.

you need to stop huffing paint, duovamp

Yeah because I didn't explain before that creativity and innovation are important in being productive and that drudgery is not optimal. Glad you pointed this out and I had to explain it for the fifteenth time in this thread.

so the only tv shows we can allow are those that are either creative/innovative or inspire others to be creative/innovative? who decides what makes someone productive? maybe some great artist likes to smoke pot or maybe drink some beers before starting his work. and maybe it makes him better. you're making so many odd overreaching blanket generalizations to arrive at this nonsensical point where we all need to be told what we can do and cannot do in order to make our society function at its best.

i will repeat that you do not have a leg to stand on. period.

I'd think that letting tv shows play basically whatever they want would be the optimal way for that industry to function, wouldn't you? I'd probably put fewer regulations on tv content than the US currently has tbh. I'd let some markets exist and other not exist. The tv entertainment market can add a great deal to society. But the whaling industry wouldn't add to the world. In essence are you trying to argue that the whaling industry would help the world out.

See, what you're doing is basically pretending that I'm arguing something unreasonable to try and bring sense to your completely unjustified belief that lung cancer will help benefit society. But in reality I'm being very sensible about optimization. So you can of course continue pretending that I would do everything the wrong way, or you can think that I'm just trying to do everything possible the optimal way and then reason your way from there. Ask yourself "Does that sound optimal?" If not, then I'd probably not support it. So for the last time, don't be childish here, we're trying to have a serious and logical discussion.

Also, are you seriously suggesting that the optimal way to generate productive innovation and creativity has to come from alcohol and marijuana? You honestly think that's optimal? Optimization, my friend, that is the goal I think we all should logically seek. Would it come from drudgery? Certainly not. Would it come from chaos? Certainly not.

why is optimization the goal? if it trumps basic freedom, then it doesn't matter how "optimal" it would make society.

and stop bringing up shit like murder and the whaling industry. wtf.

Q: is duovamp a fascist?

serious question, because we all know that i'm no expert when it comes to political philosophies.

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Q: is duovamp a fascist?

In the specifics, no.

However, he, and a lot of people on this board, tend to have fascist principles - an emphasis in central planning and that people in certain areas should be made do do things by bosses, bullies and thugs against their will because it's "good for them."

Oh come on, those people in those areas are elected. They've been given a mandate from the masses.

duovamp has clearly never read one of jczeroman's many excursions into anarcho-captalisto-libertario-anti-authoritarian wonderland

duovamp is mostly right though. i'd vote for marijuana to be legal but i dont agree with it

duovamp is mostly right though. i'd vote for marijuana to be legal but i dont agree with it

you're really going to have to elaborate here. you actually agree with the principles he's putting forward in this thread?

duovamp is mostly right though. i'd vote for marijuana to be legal but i dont agree with it

so are you going against your own principles, or is freedom a more important principle? if its the latter then i guess you dont really agree with duo.

well honestly i only read this page.

All Samuel Redman's posts seem like footnotes and afterthoughts to the realm of logical discussion.

Freedom as its own end, I proved, is meaningless and a claim of the ignorant. Frist of all, there is a level of freedom that is optimal, i.e. why you aren't free to murder people. That damn government forces you to wear seatbelts and go the speed limit too! Fucking oppression, man. You guys come off as high school weed smokers who have Anarchy written on your bookbags and who habitually smoke weed because you're enlightened. You're fooling yourselves and lying to others if claim that freedom is an important principle yet disagree with the freedom to murder and go whale hunting and rape as you please.

There is an optimal way to allocate resources in a society and generate productivity, and I can't see how that comes from allowing marijuana to flow freely.

I'm surprised Trots hasn't brought up the Opium Wars by now tbh.

All Samuel Redman's posts seem like footnotes and afterthoughts to the realm of logical discussion.

i just dislike typing.

You guys want to think that I hate the Bill of Rights or something, but honestly I think the BoR helps improve a society's productivity. Notice that in the BoR does not ******* your right to go whale hunting and raping people though? Wonder why that is.

I mean you guys set up a completely unattainable and unrealistic level of unlimited freedom. At least I've set up boundaries to my reasoning for purpose, that purpose being productivity.

What is the boundary of freedom you wish for Eulogy? Where does it end? Where can it end? Does it end? I already specified before quite clearly why your proposal is completely self-defeating. I can't believe you keep nagging this on tbh.

Freedom as its own end, I proved, is meaningless and a claim of the ignorant. Frist of all, there is a level of freedom that is optimal, i.e. why you aren't free to murder people. That damn government forces you to wear seatbelts and go the speed limit too! Fucking oppression, man. You guys come off as high school weed smokers who have Anarchy written on your bookbags and who habitually smoke weed because you're enlightened. You're fooling yourselves and lying to others if claim that freedom is an important principle yet disagree with the freedom to murder and go whale hunting and rape as you please.

There is an optimal way to allocate resources in a society and generate productivity, and I can't see how that comes from allowing marijuana to flow freely.

I'm surprised Trots hasn't brought up the Opium Wars by now tbh.

Well the three principles behind government are the provision of equality, order, and freedom. The social contract between a government and its people dictates which of these is most important and to what extent it should be pursued. Obviously you can not have any of them be absolute without completely dissolving the others. In the United States I think most people prescribe to the belief that freedom should come first, then equality, then order. However we do value equality and order, so even though we think freedom is more important, we let equality and order step on extreme freedoms (the freedom to kill people, the freedom to rape women, the freedom to drive as fast as you want). It's a balancing act. This all seems kind of obvious...

I'm not sure what you mean by freedom being meaningless and a claim of the ignorant. You can have freedom without it being ABSOLUTE freedom.

You can have freedom without it being ABSOLUTE freedom.

Exactly. See, that wasn't so hard at all. You've made a completely rational and understandable claim here. You set limits on your claim of freedom so that it isn't its own end, but rather part of a larger tapestry of government, one that I 100% agree with, equality, order, and freedom (and to some extent protection, which could be written into equality and order).

I mean you right there just said that you support a level of freedom that is optimal. I could kiss you!

I mean you guys set up a completely unattainable and unrealistic level of unlimited freedom. At least I've set up boundaries to my reasoning for purpose, that purpose being productivity.

What is the boundary of freedom you wish for Eulogy? Where does it end? Where can it end? Does it end? I already specified before quite clearly why your proposal is completely self-defeating. I can't believe you keep nagging this on tbh.

uh, it ends when your freedom infringes on anyone else. that is a very, very basic principle. you haven't proven shit in this thread except that you have this whacky notion that all need to (kind of scarily) worship at the altar of "productivity," which is a vague and useless term anyway.

no, you haven't told me why what i say is self-defeating at all! you throw out stupid comments about murder and the whaling industry and think you're making actual points?

holy jesus what is happening here.

quit now and add hours to your life Eulogy

no, you haven't told me why what i say is self-defeating at all! you throw out stupid comments about murder and the whaling industry and think you're making actual points?

holy jesus what is happening here.


This is a self defeating proposition. Two options here... 1: It's like saying the only rule is there are no rules. So now do you enforce that people HAVE to be free? Do you enforce freedom? Is that freedom? Are those who don't wish to be free now confined by you when they are free to make the choice to sacrifice freedom? Like I said, it defeats itself and it's stupid. It's common political knowledge that freedom in a society requires a basic level of enforcement, like how cops are not free to squash the right to be searched and seized. Or 2: The one society will take over all the others because it is more aggressive and enslave the others... it's what happened with everything ever.

http://forums.netphoria.org/3429982-post88.html

quit now and add hours to your life Eulogy

for real. i need you alive and healthy to take care of me when i'm on my deathbed.

del

jesus christ duovamp that post of yours that you just quoted doesn't even say anything. where have i suggested that there should be no rules?

goddamn it i cannot believe that you are this thickheaded.

quit now and add hours to your life Eulogy

i don't even smoke weed.

uh, it ends when your freedom infringes on anyone else. that is a very, very basic principle. you haven't proven shit in this thread except that you have this whacky notion that all need to (kind of scarily) worship at the altar of "productivity," which is a vague and useless term anyway.

also, way to just gloss over this post.

if you actually believe everything you have said in this thread, then i am legitimately disturbed by you.