825 Forum Posts by "Draconias"
At 1/1/06 09:54 AM, lapis wrote: Wrong. Random and chaotic have completely different meanings.
I think you misunderstood my meaning. You can't have a truly random system in reality; however, when we discuss amazingly complex topics (like society, or weather), then we may call them "random" but they are truly "chaotic," and you need to consider that they are not closed systems. While the system itself can be entirely predictably chaotic, the scope must be impossibly large to count all the variables.
Our world and everything in it is a chaotic system. That was my point, and it is true. Now tie it back to my other statements: you can't know everything. The Universe is a chaotic system in which you can never know everything, thus you can not have entirely accurate predictions.
That's really a sort of tangent point to my main argument, but one that is worth discussing. The Individual is a chaotic system as well, but you also can not know everything necessary to truly predict them. In single decisions or along a lifetime, you can not possibly account for all the variables without the Individual (so much detail on them that you have them) and more knowledge that it is physically possible to acquire.
I can't know everything, I agree. Mankind might not be able to know everything, that's not what I was claiming. But assuming one does, then the universe is predictable. And it would be theoritically possible to know everything, since all the attributes of all the particles of the universe have exact values.
No, they do not. I don't have time to go into it right now, but one major topic of Quantum Theory and similar topics is that many things don't have values unless observed! It's a very bizarre, observed (irony) trait that is very important to consider.
For example: currently, work is being done on a Quantum Computer. They're only up to two dozen or so particles, but here's how it works: instead of having 1s or 0s, the particles either spin up, spin down, or both at once. How does that happen? You don't observe them directly and you tip toe a bit to check their state.
Even if you weren't an Observer, your very status as a God (all knowing being) would still make it impossible to know everything because some things can not be defined without an Observer.
One might alter them if he observes them, sure, but that doesn't matter. There exist exact properties, and if you already know them (don't ask me how), then the universe is predictable. If the universe is predictable, then free will doesn't exist.
See above: Exact properties do not exist for everything.
Okay, but I don't ask for such a level of controlled detail. I ask for the perfect knowledge of the values of the base and the height, that is all. Then the area is absolutely predictable.
That's assuming that the information you have produces a predictable result. You did nothing to prove that, but you assume that by knowing some of the variables, you know the result.
A more accurate analogy is that same Triangle. You know the base and height perfectly. You assume you can predict every aspect of the triangle perfectly. But you ignore that the triangle is simply a face of a four-side pyramid. Sure, you can predict information on the Triangle and its aspects, but we're looking at the Pyramid, not the triangle. There are more dimensions to the topic than you acknowledge, thus your "perfect knowledge" is only a limited knowledge.
Wrong. There are many key variables you overlook in the highly chaotic system called the individual:Yes, we do take them into account. I'm not going to get into all of them, if you want me to deal with a specific one I didn't mention then ask me.
Here's a key bit: if you take those things into account, your method of predicting the individual is literally to use the individual; you rebuild every single detail of the person you seek to predict and then use that rebuilt version as a prediction method. By using every variable of the individual to build a prediction model of them, the model is them. The prediction model and the subject are one in the same when you take that much detail, so no prediction actually occurs.
The way to disprove Free Will is to prove that something less than or entirely seperate from the Individual can absolutely predict their actions. As I've discussed before, that is impossible. So your method of predicting any system is to rebuild that system, essentially asking it to predict itself.
Likewise I believe the human follows this sort of programming, stored in it's memories. The stimuli and these memories and the only things needed to investigate the decision, not the underlying thoughts.
I believe a comparison between a programmed, non-sentient, non-living system and a human is inaccurate and unusable.
Even if humans do follow programming, only they can possibly know their own programming. It's heavily encoded, and so person-specific that only that individual can possibly follow it (or predict it absolutely).
Assuming humans do follow programming, Free Will still exists if no outside force can predict or actively control that programming completely. Saying that, if you knew everything about the individual, you could use those details to predict them means nothing because you're still using the individual to predict the individual. That's still Free Will.
The only situation in which Free Will does not exist is when some outside force completely controls your responses to all stimuli.
For any outside force to absolutely predict an Individual, that force must have absolute control of the Individual (since there must be no way to deviate from the path known to that force). It is possible to strip people of their Free Will... mostly. But never entirely, and not for most humans.
Until you can show that an outside force can absolutely predict an individual without the individual themselves or any rebuilt version of them, Free Will exists.
Regardless of whether humans are programmed beings, the Universe is entirely predictable, or anything else:
If nothing controls the entirety of your actions but yourself, you are acting of your own Free Will!
At 12/31/05 07:17 AM, lapis wrote: You'll have to elaborate this. Why is it by the nature of Universe impossible to know all the variables? If I want to calculate the distance an object travels and I know it's velocity and traveling time, then I can give an accurate prediction, right? Maybe I can never accurately measure v and t, so I'll never have a perfect prediction but there exist perfect values v and t! I never claimed humans could give a perfect prediction, I say it's possible if one knows these exact values.
I ran out of space in my last post, so I'll answer here.
Humans are Observers. That is our unavoidable status in the Universe, and being an Observer has certain limitations. First of all, you can not know something unless something tells you that. I can't "just know" that a lethal bacteria is floating through the air in this room, something must tell me-- either my eyes, nose, immune system, nervous system (pain), another individual, or a machine.
As Observers, we can't just know things, we must detect them or infer them. So tell me:
How do you know all the memories of the Individual, exactly, from their point of view? Any act of communication or any physical detection method will alter the person to reveal those things.
How do you know the exact physical state of every particle in their body? By the very nature of particles, to detect their state you must alter their state.
How do you know their exact current thoughts and mental state if they do not show them to you through expressions, tone, or the other human communication methods? Any method of detection will alter those states.
How do you know which memories belong where in their brain without going through every memory one by one and checking the location? The very act of doing so will alter their experiences and memories.
How do you know which stimuli the person perceives or to what degree of reality or danger they attach to that stimuli? Without communicating with them, you can not know. Communication adds new memories, new experiences, and alters perception.
The list can go on and on, but the point is simple: because you are an Observer, you must detect everything to know anything; the act of detection, by its very nature, must alter the thing being detected.
When you hear a voice, you detect the sound waves. When those sound waves hit you and your ear, they reflect and dissipate. By hearing the voice, you change the voice for any others that experience it, even if the change is miniscule.
Observers can not help but to alter anything they detect and experience. That's just how our Universe works.
At 12/31/05 07:17 AM, lapis wrote: This applies to both group movements and the movements of individual agents in the group. History has shown us that our models will keep improving so that we one day might not need to apply probability theory to interpret the outcomes.
What you forget is that a system is called "random" when it is chaotic. Literally any variable introduced, no matter how small, can completely alter a chaotic system. There is a sector of math called Chaos Theory that deals with these topics.
I believe your statement here reflects the overall flaw in your judgement. You think, if we know everything then we can absolutely predict things. The simple problem is that you can't know everything. That's a simple fact defined by the Universe, caused by our status as Observers.
If knowing it's base and height before calculating what it's area would be is "too much controlled detail", then no, we'll never be able to make an absolute prediction.
Let me put it this way: controlled detail is saying that "Base x Height = 1" is true for all shapes, but we must make those shapes have four sides, have four right angles, and have side lengths of 1. When you design the situation to provide certain results, you intentionally eliminate exceptions.
Now all we have to do is assume that a same set of memories and a same set of stimuli will produce the same decision.
If the stimuli and memories are known, we have all the variables needed for our equation and we can compute what the decision will be: so it's absolutely predictable.
Wrong. There are many key variables you overlook in the highly chaotic system called the individual: physical experience, unknown experience, forgotten experience, perceived experience, vicarious experience, predicted experience, mental state, and perceived stimuli.
Physical Experience:
You have an individual, Bob. He loves Baseball and has always wanted to be on a team. A Coach offers him a spot on a team. In Situation 1, Bob is a normal person and accepts. In Situation 2, we change Bob's physical experience: he now has no arms because they were amputated. In Situation 2, Bob reluctantly refuses.
Physical Experience is outside the realm of the brain, but covers a vast array of major variables. Knowing just the brain alone will ignore these critical factors.
Unknown Experience:
Same situation again, with Bob. In S1, Bob is a normal person and accepts. In S2, we give Bob and unknown experience: he doesn't know that he has a potentially lethal blood clot. In S2, Bob would choose to accept, but his blood clot kills him when he attempts to follow through on his decision.
Unknown Experience would change the result if the subject knew, but Unknown Experience will also interfere with the execution of the decision, thus altering the result of stimuli.
Forgotten Experience:
Same situation again, with Bob. This time we set Bob's age at 33. In S1, Bob accepts. In S2, Bob has forgotten his childhood love of Baseball. In S2, Bob refuses because he doesn't like Baseball.
You may have certain memories, but if you are unable to recall them at the appropriate time then the result of stimuli is different. Memory recall is a highly complex process that depends heavily on the environmental situation and other key variables, and is seperate from whether or not you have those memories.
Perceived Experience:
Same situation. In S1, Bob accepts. In S2, Bob thinks that last time he played Baseball he was laughed at, so he refuses.
The key part of Perceived Experience is that it may not be a real memory, let alone a correct one! Bob's memory was of his Dad laughing in amazement at Bob's hitting. Even though the memory is exactly what it is, Bob perceived something different than the actual reality of the memory and may perceive it differently later.
Vicarious Experience:
If Bob's Dad told him great stories of the glory of Baseball in his childhood, Bob may believe that Baseball is those things. Without any physical experience or direct memories, Bob will form an opinion and belief about Baseball. That's important to note because opinions and beliefs are seperate from memories! That's two more major variables you need to account for.
Predicted Experience:
If Bob thinks he will suck on the Baseball team, he may refuse, regardless of any past experience or memories. The nature of human prediction is currently unknown, so I can't say much more on this.
Mental State:
This can be spawned from physical experience, memories, predicted experience, or any of the other key variables. This variable influences every other: what you remember, how you remember it, whether you even consider remembering, etc. and can be highly unpredictable from the standpoint of the Observer. It is influenced by your memories, but the timing becomes important.
Perceived Stimuli:
While you may have certain stimuli, the subject may perceive different stimuli. This is heavily reliant on every other major variable and on physical reality. If you throw a rock at someone's head, if they don't see it, they didn't perceive the stimuli, and thus their reaction would be different than if they had perceived the stimuli. The stimuli is no different, but the reaction will be.
All these things, which exist outside of memories and influence in both directions can completely alter the outcome. I don't think I'm saying it clearly enough:
To truly predict the actions of an Individual, you must rebuild that Individual in their entirety to have an accurate prediction. Without the Individual, you can not absolutely predict the Individual.
Free Will exists because nothing except for the Individual can control or absolutely predict the actions of the Individual. If you can not absolutely predict the Individual through a method entirely seperate from the Individual, then the Individual is acting under their own control to at least some degree, so Free Will must exist.
Summary:
2 Major Flaws
# Can't know everything due to Observer status
# You must have the Individual to absolutely predict the Individual
Stupid character limit. That's all I can fit in this space.
At 12/28/05 03:24 PM, lapis wrote:At 12/28/05 10:35 AM, Draconias wrote: Many effects, like radioactive decay, are not absolutely predictable:Rainfall was also not absolutely predictable back in the time of the Babylonians.
I'll just trim it down because this summarizes your entire point.
I think you missed my major point, while it may be possible to predict group movements, like rain or general radioactive decay, you can not predict the individual's actions within that group, like a single atom decaying, without so much controlled detail that the question becomes irrelevant.
With the mind, without placing limits on anything occurring within the brain during the experiment, you can not absolutely predict the result, ever. It's simply not possible in the actually impossible sense used in Math.
The only way you can absolutely predict results is either when you control the brain of the subject (and thus you make the decision, invalidating the experiment) or you place the start of your experiment after the point at which the decision was made (and thus provide useless results).
"I think, therefore I am" I have individual thoughts and no others, therefore my only possible conclusion is that I am an individual who thinks. That means that my brain is not directly under the control of another and I am open to change. The lack of Free Will is Determinism; there is no inbetween.
Determinism is only possible if my brain and thoughts are directly and entirely under the control of another, which, as far as human experience can possibly go, is not true. Since my brain and thoughts are not entirely controlled by another, I can make individual decisions. Those decisions are not absolutely predictable, thus a certain fate is impossible to assign, thus Determinism is false. If Determinism is false, Free Will must be true: there is no inbetween.
The mistake you and the others continue to make is that you are asking Free Will of the individual. During your examination, you can not "pin down" any aspects of the individual or else you invalidate the examination by skewing the variable. When you say that a certain individual with certain memories and a specific certain brain receives a specific stimulus and a specific series of triggers occur... you've just ruined your examination. It may look like Free Will doesn't exist in that situation because you eliminated every variable in the entire system. If you try to believe that examination, you're just deluding yourself because you set it up to have one result by designing it around that result.
If you think, by knowing every single aspect of the individual just before they make a decision, that you can absolutely predic the result and disprove Free Will, you're wrong. In this Universe, in this Reality, it is physically impossible to know everything, in a literal sense. By the very nature of our Universe, you can only know part of the story: the velocity or the position, but never both, in a sense. In your examinations, you keep assuming you know both absolutely when you can't, and that produces false results.
There is always something you can't know, particularly the thoughts of that individual, so Free Will is the only observable possibility. When given the same stimuli, if different thoughts occur, different results occur. You can't know or control those thoughts, thus you can not absolutely control the results. You can get close, say 99% accuracy, but you can never be absolutely sure without "cheating" in a thought exercise. In reality, Free Will exists because there is no other option, and no reason to believe there should be any other option.
If you believe otherwise, the main reason probably has to do with tricking yourself into using a false, invalid, and completely wrong thought exercise to "prove" the non-existance of Free Will.
At 12/29/05 11:46 PM, Samuel_HALL wrote: Give me a link (that works. Post a proper link, by pressing the 'link' button.).
(try the 'link' button, this time) and then give me a link (don't just type it out, either)
That link did not work (no surprise there).
This link didn't work either (again, no surprise).
Like all the others...'this page couldn't be displayed'.
You fail. Over and over and over again.
Umm... you're funny. Did you try copy-pasting the address? No one else had trouble with it.
Also, if you didn't realize from my repeated, angry remarks, I was out of characters. HTML linking for this forum requires a minimum of 16 more characters per link. I had no spare characters. I could have trimmed even more from the post, but it wasn't worth it.
You're a funny little man (or woman). It's like someone running into a door over and over again because it says "Pull" and they're trying to "Push." (: D)
At 12/30/05 12:43 AM, red_skunk wrote:Alcohol is the big one to worry about, since the use of it and Marijuana multiplies the effects of both significantly. Particularly, driving impairment is severely multiplied in almost every respect (L#1, L#3). Marijuana use, particularly in combination with Alcohol, increases the rates of accidents by a significant amount, drastically increasing as the abuse of Marijuana increases (L#1).Marijuana usa impairs your ability to drive. This does not mean it is multiplying the effects of alcohol. Your links do not say that. In fact, link number 3 (druglibrary.org) states this explicitly: "No unequivocal evidence emerged from this study to indicate that the drug interaction is synergistic in the classic pharmacological sense."
In the classic pharmacological sense. Do you know what that is? The effects still combined and the overall damage was greater, the dangers of certain levels were altered, and the normal effects were severely skewed. That is multiplying the effects. The classic pharmacological sense means taking one specific effect and both directly work together to emphasize it's impact, while these two drugs effect seperate regions, but increase the effect of the other in its individual regions and produce very similar symptoms, but in their own manner.
On the other hand, there are many studies which conclude that moderate marijuana usuage does not significantly effect fetuses. This is one area which needs further study.
So it needs more study, as do many areas of Marijuana. Would you like to legalize it first and get screwed over if something turns out bad (like Tobacco), or research first and go in with our eyes open?
Second, Marijuana also has a much higher carcinogen content...And none of that has anything to do with multiplying the effects of tobacco. You're getting off-topic.
Yes, it does have an effect. What do you think happens when you use both at once? Combined carcinogen amounts does not mean a linearly great chance because you have a tolerable limit, and either one individually exceeds that, but together they completely overwhelm your ability to deal with carinogens. You will get cancer much more often, and it is not a simple linear increase.
An increased heart rate is a byproduct of many things, including physical activity. I don't see you out rallying for the abolishment of HS gym classes. Furthermore, I didn't know that we were talking about marginal cases such as those severely at risk for a heart attack.
Well if we're talking about legalizing it for marginal cases, such as those with cancer for pain-killers, why can't we do the same for not legalizing it? And it's a 4x chance for anyone: prolonged use will greatly increase your chances of a heart attack, without improving your physical condition, like HS gym classes would. Exercise increases your physical shape and stamina and improves your cardiovascular system. Marijuana simply stresses your heart.
You better read your link again.
*cough* Come again?
Nobody dies from an overdose. I like how you didn't read your own source. I invite everyone to read the paragraph that quote is from.
I read my own sources and I specifically understood that it didn't say exactly what I said. If you looked around that source, however, you'd notice it is a massively pro-Marijuana website. The House of Lords specifically recorded those deaths as Marijuana overdose, which is the point. There are deaths recorded as from Marijuana overdose, and there's nothing that can disprove those records, even if you can suppose that they didn't die from it alone.
(I know it's a tenuous link, I was short on time)
Actually, I'm pretty sure marjiuana is safer than alcohol. Much safer. The fact that you could only find five deaths attributable to this sort of death is proof positive. Hell, the fact that in Britian, the number of people dying this way in the span of two years is a grand total of five, proves that marijuana is a much safer drug. Even without balancing the number of users, it should be self-evident.
No, it isn't self-evident because you ignore critical things: the difference in user numbers, the visibility of use (Marijuana is illegal, Alcohol isn't), the popularity of binge drinking (which is dangerous beyond normal levels for any activity, but is more popular with Alcohol as far as we know), and the fact that it was only a couple-minute search for that because I was out of time.
And I've already rebutted this nonsense about distinguishing between decriminalization and legalization. There is no sane reason to believe that legalization would create a surge in use.
Look at past history, use come common sense: use will increase. It's been shown over and over again that legalization increases use, especially for something that is being actively suppressed. Think about it: we do everything we can to suppress use right now, then we legalize it. How can you not expect an increase in use? Hell, even just the users getting out of Prison will create a massive jump in use, even without the people who were afraid of the lega penalties trying it out.
Not necessarily. You're just making up distinctions trying to prove a nonexistent point.
No, I'm not. Your other posters are saying the same things! If you legalize it, but keep it controlled, you still have expenses that you can't remove! By its very nature, those costs are unavoidable with legalization. They don't have to exist for decriminalization
I play Soccer.You better watch out. Playing soccer elevates your heart rate. I would suggest discontinuing doing that. I'd hate for something to happen to you, I'd be down one more uninformed nutjob on these forums.
Playing Soccer increases the muscle mass of your heart and improves your health. Sitting on a couch, high, does not. In fact, I'd expect quite the opposite: it degrades your health and strains your heart.
No, it isn't. Decriminalization means no taxes, vendor prosecution, no large growth, and the ability to still control it. Legalization means fucking yourself over.False.
True. Simply smack any users and sellers and you're done. No government increase or companies to worry about, no big bruhaha, just some spare money and a lighter Justice system.
Damn char limit.
At 12/30/05 01:29 AM, shi_huangdi wrote: why would you spend thousands of dollars to produce a product in large quantities if you can get at a store, do you see people creating grow-ops for tobacco or illegal breweries for alcohol?
You would spend the money because it is cheaper and outside of government regulation. You obviously don't live in the West, else you'd know of a major problem called Moonshiners. Tons of people die and fall ill because people are making their own alcohol, and they're doing it wrong. They've got a nice big smuggling market going for it, too, even though it's legal. Simply because you can buy something at a store does not mean anyone will necessarily buy it there.
It would, unavoidably, be cheaper to home-grow and buy black market for Marijuana, especially because the systems to do that are already in place. Distribution restricts are also a major factor to consider: Marijuana stores can't be everywhere immediately after legalization. There will always be places where it is better and cheaper to black market Marijuana than it is to buy it at amazingly high prices from stores.
another thing; tobacco does not need to be grown in large quantities and the commercial processing it goes through to be good. if you really want to you can grow it and dry it yourself
And many do grow and dry it themselves, but it's not particularly popular, and it's not the primary method of distribution. For Marijuana, on the other hand, you'd have to build the entire distribution system from the ground up, while the illegal home-grown market is already fully formed and covering most of the nation.
people can easily grow their own vegtables and avoid taxes yet they don't...strange...
First of all, they do. Ever heard of Gardens? However, regardless of that fact, your analogy is wrong because vegetables are so cheap that the government must subsidize their production or the prices would completely crash. If something is so cheap that you have to pay farmers not to grow it, then it isn't comparable to Marijuana. And the taxes on Marijuana (if legal) would be significantly higher than vegetables, which are taxed only sales tax.
you seem to have not realised that alcohol and tobacco producers are all private corporations making the cost to set up production and distribution roughly nothing at all.
What? There is no connection between hundred year-old vineyards or giant corporations with plantations and Marijuana. They don't have the land, experience, seeds, or anything at all for production, and chances are most won't want to sell Marijuana.
as to where that money would come from i think a good place would be from the prison and judicial system which would no longer be burdened by people having to serve mandatory sentences for simple posession.
So it other words: "Save money by letting criminals out of Prison, slash Justice budget so it does not improve from the release, spend the new money on controlling the now-legal Marijuana"
LOL
Also, what about the moral issues involved and the massive societal backlash against both the politicians and companies? I know at least 100 million people who absolutely don't want marijuana legal...i no at least 100 million people who don't support abortion, who don't support gay marriage, etc. what people think, especially if it isn't a majority in an election is irrelevant. if you don't wanna smoke don't smoke its that simple.
No, it isn't that simple. If you don't want to smoke, no one around you can smoke either, or it's no different than smoking yourself.
Yes, you know 100 million people who don't support gay marriage: did you notice that it is currently illegal? And Abortion is almost a 50/50 split in the US, which religious problems involved, and it is a massive tangle that hasn't been resolved. What makes you think Marijuana will succeed where these two obviously didn't, if they're your great examples?
i doubt that the number of marijuana users would increase that dramatically once legalized and since such i tiny minority of accidents are marijuana related i highly doubt havoc and suffering will increase like you believe.
In the past, every single time something has been newly legalized, use has drastically increased, particularly for drugs. Marijuana does cause accidents, a number much higher per user that normal. If it becomes legal and is no longer suppressed, it will become more popular; that's blatantly obvious and undeniable. You're a blind fool if you can't see that use will increase if it is legalized. Isn't that the entire point of legalizing, to allow more use without suppression?
if we keep in mind that illegal networks would collapse due to lack of profitablility then it would be policed like alcohol: no drinking on the in public and no driving under the influence they test you and you're taken off the road and dealt with.
Ah, but they would still be more profitable than anyting any major company could produce. There is nothing to stop illegal networks, so how can you so blithely assume that they will disappear without a fight?
you seem to have misinterpretted what i said. research has been done and shown its benefits, whereas it wasn't on tobacco until recently. these to substances have been treated oppositly. as far as further research what was meant was further research into what it can do not how it will kill you.
And research has been done showing the negatives of the drug as well. When you legalize first then truly research later, you get screwed over. It happened with Tobacco, and by your exact words, that's what will happen with Marijuana.
Have you considered second-hand inhalation?sweet jesus you idiot, thats why it would be banned from publice places like alcohol is from most public places and how smoking is slowly been banned from public places because of second-hand smoke (or at-least in quebec).
And that means more police enforcement, more Justice system costs for arrests and punishments, and completely counter-acting the entire point of legalization. If you try to un-suppress it, then suppress it again, you'll just get a big smack in the face.
Damn character limit.
At 12/28/05 07:56 PM, red_skunk wrote:At 12/27/05 08:44 PM, Draconias wrote: First, though: Marijuana use multiplies the effect of other drugs in your system.That's blatantly false. It depends on the drugs you're talking about.
It depends on the drugs you're talking about? The only other legal drugs on the market!
Alcohol is the big one to worry about, since the use of it and Marijuana multiplies the effects of both significantly. Particularly, driving impairment is severely multiplied in almost every respect (L#1, L#3). Marijuana use, particularly in combination with Alcohol, increases the rates of accidents by a significant amount, drastically increasing as the abuse of Marijuana increases (L#1).
Drinking also becomes dangerous and potentially lethal for unborn children at normally safe levels when used in combination with Marijuana (L#1). That is particularly important to note because second-hand inhalation can occur, and I'm pretty damn sure that's bad.
Marijuana use also causes and emphasizes Tobacco problems. First of all, Marijuana makes it harder to break Tobacco addictions (L#2). Second, Marijuana also has a much higher carcinogen content that Tobacco, and double use severely increases your chances of receiving cancer (more than 4x). Third, Marijuana has 50-70% more carcinogens and deposits that much more tar in your lungs than Tobacco (L#2)(L#4).
Massive driving impairment, tougher addictions, killing babies, and quadrupling cancer... I'd called those noticeable effects, and those are only the ones I have space to describe in this post (damn character and time limitations!).
That fact is important because while it is normally impossible to ingest enough Marijuana to overdose and die, many circumstances make death possible.You're just making stuff up.
No, you're just ignorant. If you look carefully, you'll find that there are "few if any deaths caused solely by Marijuana overdose, with no other drugs involved."
And that's ignoring deaths caused by Marijuana's effects, just not necessarily an overdose. Marijuana increases your heart rate by 20 to 50 beats and sometimes even doubles it; your chances of a heart attack in the first hour of use are four times higher than normal (L#2). I won't even mention lethal car accidents caused by Marijuana, which is obvious enough.
But back to the topic: deaths directly from Marijuana overdose have been recorded. In Britain, 1998, the House of Lords report specifically recorded 5 deaths directly caused by Marijuana overdose (L#5). That alone disproves your claim that no one dies from overdose.
It is also important to note that when you approach overdose levels, besides becoming incapacitated, you also begin to vomit. Guess what happens when you're lying face down or face up and you vomit: you choke to death on your own vomit. Safe? Yeah, just as safe as Alcohol, which kills people using the same method and still gets thousands per year.
Smoking in a poorly ventilated area can lead to suffication or overdose, almost always the former.This is all completely untrue also. There has never been a case of marijuana overdosing in a human.
See above: there has been such a case. By the way, the sudden surges I mentioned also tend to induce the vomitting that can easily kill you as well.
I'll say it again. Legalizing marijuana would take the strain off of our overburdened jail system, allowing violent felons to be imprisoned while small-time pot users wouldn't be locked up.
And if you didn't notice, Decriminalizing* Marijuana would have identical effects without supporting Marijuana or creating a surge in use. I specifically stated that as a rebuttle to that nonsense.
*Decriminalizing is reducing the legal penalties to almost nothing without legalizing the activity. Leave option for punishments and limitations of growth and distribution.
Also: Legalizing will require further police and government expenses to control quality and distribution. Illegal vendors will still need to be arrested for avoiding government control and users will still need to be arrested for smoking in illegal manners or places (like in a preschool daycare). Legalizing increases the police, prison, and government costs above just decriminalizing.
So... it's fun to use? Who gives a damn. It's not something we need, still not something we've reason to support, and completely unproductive.The same holds true for any other recreational activity, or child's toy for that matter.
Wrong. Things like going to a gym, running laps, playing puzzle games, etc. can be beneficial, unlike Marijuana use. I play Soccer. Do I do it "just because it's fun"? No, I also do it because the constant practice and games keep me in good physical shape. Can you say anything even similar for Marijuana? No. That's what I spent several paragraphs explaining in great detail, but apparently you don't listen at all. Other activities are productive, while Marijuana use is not.
As far as your distinction between decriminalization and legalization, it's a meaningless symantics game.
No, it isn't. Decriminalization means no taxes, vendor prosecution, no large growth, and the ability to still control it. Legalization means fucking yourself over.
<Char Limit>
Sources:
[L#1] American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. "Trends in Combinational Use of Alcohol and Illicit Drugs" (May, 2000)
http://www.findartic../is_2_26/ai_63034998
[L#2] Results of a study of 450 individuals. Also showed that marijuana users took more days off for respiratory illness. Polen, M.R and Friedman, G.D. Health care West J Med 158:596-601, 1993.
http://www.nida.nih...uana/Marijuana3.html
[L#3] US Dept. of Trans. study on the effects of Marijuana and Alcohol on driving ability. (July 1999)
http://www.druglibra..20HS%20808%20939.htm
[L#4] GDCADC. "Marijuana Information" (Nov. 2005)
http://www.gdcada.or..istics/marijuana.htm
[L#5] House of Lords Report, 1998. (Britain).
(indirect reference) http://www.drugwarfacts.org/marijuan.txt
At 12/29/05 01:02 AM, shi_huangdi wrote: 1. production and distribution of marijuana would be controlled by the government like tobacco or alcohol:
Marijuana is exceptionally easy to home-grow. There is nothing keeping the drug within government control except the same police expenses we already have.
What you miss is that the processing is what makes Alcohol and Tobacco good! It's the aging and the vineyards that make Wine good, and the specific bacteria strains that make beer popular. It's the fields and fields of tobacco and the processing into cigars or cigarettes that produces the taste and feel so popular in Tobacco.
That's not how Marijuana works. It's the leaf itself that you seek to buy, and processing means essentially nothing. If you get a good strain of seeds, there's nothing stopping you from completely home-growing the entire thing, bypassing any government control and taxes.
Which proves the following incorrect:
-companies would grow it/proccess it/ship it
-its quality and proccessing would be monitored by the government so nothing gets put in it that shouldn't be there and that its safe for consumption
-it would probably be taxed like cigarrettes are bringing in profit for the government
-stores may need liscences to sell marijuana
-you will most likely have to be over 18/21 depending on where you are to buy marijuana
Also:
when there is a market for a product that you can get with no problems at a store why would you try to illegally purchase something legal?
Since there is already an entirely illegal system running for the growth, distribution, and sale of marijuana, what makes you think legalizing it and then taxing it would make them stop? It's cheaper to continue long-standing arrangement outside of taxes than it is to buy things post-tax. To make it worse, taxes on vices (like Alcohol) are generally much higher than taxes on necessary items (like vegetables).
Also, you need to factor in the costs of planning, setting up, and maintaining this large system of government monitoring and distribution control. Where is that money going to come from? You also need to consider the costs of setting up and mass producing marijuana for companies; is it worth it to begin selling the stuff legally when we don't want a large market increase?
Also, what about the moral issues involved and the massive societal backlash against both the politicians and companies? I know at least 100 million people who absolutely don't want marijuana legal... what politician could survive a backlash that big? It would be political suicide to legalize the stuff federally.
2. the use of marijuana will be "controlled" like alcohol is since it is a mind altering substance:
-driving under the influence of marijuana would be an offence
That doesn't stop ten of thousands from doing it every year and killing thousands of innocent people and creating untold amounts of havoc and suffering. And it counter-acts the positive of releasing most marijuana-based criminals from jail.
-if its treated like cigarrettes are being treated here; you wouldn't be able to smoke in a public place ie: pub, club, store...
+and if treated more like alcohol you wouldn't even be allowed to smoke out on the street
So how exactly can you control this stuff? If people hide the use constantly and already have illegal networks of distribution and use... what's encouraging them to play by your rules and limit themselves like that unnecessarily?
3. once legal it would allow for even further study of its effects and benefits and
+tobacco was once thought to be very good for you and was used medicinally, look at whats happened now, further research may further disprove much of what was once thought of marijuana
So in other words... legalize it, then figure out if we just screwed ourselves over, again? Why don't we get the Netherlands to do the research and screw them over instead of ourselves, or legalize it for research only until we actually know the effects.
4. [Would help hemp]
Well, we don't exactly need to legalize marijuana to help hemp. Why not do a seperate campaign in favor of hemp? We also do have alternatives, particularly synthetic ones, and the necessity of growing hemp is not great enough that we should legalize a mind-altering drug just to make it look better.
there is possibly more so feel free to add, but all in all marijuana is not that bad a substance, i understand if you are against using it but there is no need to ban it from being legal, if you don't want it, don't smoke it, its legalization would probably not affect you
Have you considered second-hand inhalation? That's a severe issue with Tobacco, so what's different about Marijuana that makes it safer? We have no idea what effects Marijuana would have on a young child or a baby, nor do we have any method of controlling second-hand dosages that are completely undesired by the receiver.
Marijuana has an immediate negative effect on someone nearby-- making them unwillingly high --so how can you justify allowing people to smoke it when it is unavoidable that people will receive undesired, involuntary dosages of the drug? The particular problem is children, who absolutely will be exposed regardless of any attempts to control usage and are incapable of protecting themselves effectively. Do we even know what kind of effects Marijuana has on young children? Pregnant woman effects are also critically important, and I believe we know a bit about that, but not a large amount.
At 12/27/05 11:03 PM, Elfer wrote: Potheads still gotta throw down on those bills, dog.
The problem is, they don't. Not always. And the list of people who've destroyed their lives, relationships and marriages, and hurt everyone around them because of drugs, even Marijuana, is huge. Marijuana use does hurt others, it does lead to pain and suffering for all parties involved, although it doesn't lead to that all the time. It's a simple unavoidable fact about mind-altering anything and any addiction: it causes trouble.
And the government doesn't particularly care about individual taxpayers. Suicidal people are (usually) an insignificant portion of their tax income and often receive more government money than they pay, especially after the "Stop trying to kill yourself" training.
Umm... who said Alcoholism was a disease?
It's been pretty much absolutely proven that the common image of Jesus is completely incorrect. First of all, he wasn't white, and he also didn't have long hair. The simple fact that the Romans couldn't tell the difference between him and the rest of the Arabic people so that they needed Judas to even point out who Jesus was should absolutely show that Jesus looked like the others: fairly dark skin, short and extremely curly hair-- not white with long flowing hair. Actually, it probably wasn't even physically possible for Jesus to grow hair like the type he is depicted with.
At 12/26/05 02:38 PM, lapis wrote: I believe the concept of 'thought' is pretty much covered by 'electrical processes we see in neurons'. Therefore thought is physical, as both neurons and electricity are physical concepts.
That's not true, though. Thought is meaning, an abstract construct that we can not physically define. Your thoughts are not the electrical impulses in your head, thoughts are the encoded meaning of those impulses. Coded information is only limited in capacity by physical laws, but the actual meaning and content of the coded information is not limited.
That's the key element that invalidates your argument: the human mind and consciousness may be based on electrical impulses and your brain, but your electrical impulses are not actually your mind and consciousness. It is almost exactly like a computer: the entire machine is based off of 2 numbers and everything is switches... yet here you are, talking with people over the internet using a graphical interface and playing games that are amazingly complex and emulate reality. The hardware-- because that's what the brain is --can limit your capabilities, but the hardware does not define the software.
I disagree with this particular part of your post: these effects might only seem to be unpredictable because the models we have to explain or predict physical observations are not yet sophisticated enough. I believe that 1+1=2 under every circumstance and that natural physics follow absolute mathematical laws, not completely random occurences. As Einstein said: "I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice."
So thought is both predictable and physical in my opinion.
I would suggest that you take a closer look into Quantum Physics. It's a matter of simple impossibility, not lack of technology. Many effects, like radioactive decay, are not absolutely predictable: we can say the probability of an occurrance, but that gives us no power to predict the exact future of a single radioactive particle.
(The radioactive decay stretches the argument a bit, but I believe it is close enough to what I would instead want to use as an example to get the point across, even though it is slightly flawed)
But I should also note, you don't have to be completely random to be following a free course. Probabilities are absolute mathematical laws. Free action is when it is impossible to absolutely predict effects from causes. When there is only one option that occurs every time you run the same situation, that is controlled action. With humans, that's simply not true. You can not absolutely predict any action of any individual at any time, except for immediately after they have already made a decision-- effectively acting the action within their brain.
When you look too closely at the "hardware" of the mind, you can trick yourself into believing Free Will doesn't exist, but the truth is that the brain acting is you thinking. If anything happens within your brain, that's a decision occurring. Sure, every time certain neurons trigger at the right times, I'll do the same things, but that's because I just made the same decision! You can't look at the brain-- thoughts occurring -- and judge whether or not Free Will exists. It's looking for a cake in the cookie jar; it just doesn't make sense because you're looking in the entirely wrong place. When you look at the brain, you're watching thoughts occurring, and when you say that people are absolutely predictable if they think and execute an exact order of thoughts with no deviation... well, that just means nothing.
To determine the existance of Free Will, you must look at situations. When results are absolutely predictable for a single individual based on certain stimuli, then that person does not have Free Will in that situation, or does not have the inclination to exercise Free Will. You can predict results for any stimuli, but you can never absolutely predict them; there is always the chance that the unexpected will occur, that the person will make a totally unexpected decision.
Since it is simply impossible to absolutely predict an outcome without laying absolute limitations on the thoughts of the subject-- which would destroy the validity of the situation --Free Will must exist. No other observable state is possible.
By the way, many people have stated that "Marijuana does no harm to anyone except the user." That's simply not true.
First, though: Marijuana use multiplies the effect of other drugs in your system. If you drink alcohol and smoke weed, the effect of both will be several times greater. If you use multiple anything at once in terms of drugs, the effects multiply, the danger multiplies, and you do overdose at levels that you normally wouldn't.
That fact is important because while it is normally impossible to ingest enough Marijuana to overdose and die, many circumstances make death possible. Using a second substance, particularly alcohol, is one of them. This can cause an overdose, even though many sources will gloss over it, these deaths have been recorded.
Smoking in a poorly ventilated area can lead to suffication or overdose, almost always the former. Since near-overdose incapacitates the user, they have no way to protect themselves like a smoker might have. Ingesting Marijuana through a means besides smoking can lead to overdose due to sudden surges of drug in your system or overdose through unregulated use (like a vaporizor).
However, it is important to note that you still have not provided a reason why Marijuana should be supported by the Government or Society.
So... it's fun to use? Who gives a damn. It's not something we need, still not something we've reason to support, and completely unproductive.
My position, which I haven't actually mentioned directly:
Marijuana should be Decriminalized, but not Legalized.
Legalization is a vote of support. We don't want that, there's no reason to want that, and we should not support Marijuana. It's not beneficial, it's not good, and it's not something we want.
However, it also isn't something horrible, nor something we want to hunt down and destroy. We don't need to spend billions hunting down and punishing users and distributors, and it's a waste of money to do so.
So what do we do? Decriminalize but don't legalize. Essentially, institute a "Keep it Private" pseudo-legalization. Marijuana isn't something we will actively hunt down, but it's also not something we will actively support because it doesn't have benefits, but it also doesn't have major detriments.
At 12/27/05 05:34 PM, moat wrote: People have the right to do whatever they want to themselves. If this includes something harmful, it is still their lives and they can do what they want with it.
No, they do NOT.
That is completely and utterly wrong according to the laws of all of the 50 states. You are not allowed to do anything: specifically, you are not allowed to commit suicide, and many dozens of other activities deemed harmful for the doer are illegal in an effort to protect the person. Society will try to protect you from yourself, regardless of what you do. That's why fire men will still try to save someone in a burning building, even if that someone is a known serial killer, and police attempt everything possible before shooting a criminal.
At 12/27/05 08:06 PM, morefngdbs wrote: And as to coming to Canada... are free to marry / divorce whoever you please.
Not quite. You still can't practice polygamy or marry people younger than 12, but there's lobbying to change them!
See, men haven't lost.
What are the President and VP? Male.
What are a vast majority of Senators? Male.
What are most of the Supreme Court and Justice System? Male.
What are most of the military and police? Male.
What are most of the extremely rich? Male.
It's a simple truth that although Feminism has conquered the realm of Political Correctness, both Feminism and PC are declining severely in influence and popularity. The over-the-top absurdity of both has triggered a severe back-lash which neither can survive.
Women are still lagging behind Men as a demographic. Individually, there is nothing holding them back, but as a whole they haven't yet done anything. It's really that simple, and that probably isn't going to change within our lifetime. Individual women do have advantages, but men are trained from birth for competition and, most importantly, don't get pregnant. Physical reality and biological limitations give women some advantages to compensate for an innate disadvantage in terms of competition.
I'm not talking about intelligence or strength differences, just simply the complications of child birth and raising: statistically women by a vast majority favor raising children instead of holding a job compared to men. Men still control the entire world for that simple reason.
There is nothing holding back individual women, but the urge to "retire" to motherhood (it's not actually an easy job) is much more powerful in women (according to statistics) and leads them, as a demographic, to stay out of the truly powerful arenas.
At 12/26/05 01:11 PM, x_Toadenalin_x wrote: P6. This effect is, in itself, usually a cause
7. This cycle may loop eternally (From 4-6)
The effect is not always a trigger for a new event. Many effects simply occur and do not trigger anything else, thus they can not be a cause, like a hydrogen and anti-hydrogen popping into existance, then subsequently popping out of existance: the first effect became a cause, but the second effect simply ended in void.
Also, many effects can alter other systems that appear seperate from the current one being viewed, and causes can arrive from other systems as well. This transfer of effects can disrupt the cycle very quickly, like a multi-mile meteor crashing into Earth and killing everyone on it; effects and causes interact.
12. Some causes that affect the brain are physical (From 3)
Your 12 is blatantly wrong. It is a simple, undeniable fact that non-physical things, like having a philosophical discussion with someone, can have profound physical effects. While the sound waves of the conversation are actually physical things, the meaning contained within words-- like love, hope, callousness, ignorance --are in no way physical things, and thus disprove your claim.
Hence, no free-will, since there is no action that isn't a result of some 'cause' that happened before the action itself.
Incorrect. What is free will? It is the ability to choose multiple effects from a single cause.
There is a very critical divide there: although past causes influence your decision-making, and the mechanics of your thoughts are physical, any individual is still able to choose an effect for a single cause. If someone attacks me with a knife, I can still choose whether to kill him or run or even just die; I may be influenced by my predictions of the outcome-- not a past cause, but a prediction of effects which can be wrong --but I still make a choice not entirely controlled by my past. That is free will. A choice inherently means several outcomes which can not be absolutely predicted, which is true in this situation.
3. If the soul has no mass, it has no energy (E=MC2, KE=1/2MV2, take your pick) (From 2)
By the way, this statement is wrong. Light has no mass, yet it has energy. Energy and mass are at a base level one thing, but energy can exist without interaction (simply the ability to do work, like potential energy).
My (more clear) Proposal:
P1: Free Will is a result of mechanics within the brain, which acts as the mechanism for thought.
P2: The brain is a physical object; thoughts are not a physical object.
Thought is the extrapolation of abstract meaning from something purely physical, and thus is not actually a physical object. Thought can not be directly measured or determined, as far as humans currently know, although physical effects caused by thought (like a frown or a smile) can lead us to suppose certain thoughts occurred.
P3: Since the brain is a physical object, the physical laws must apply to it. Since thought is not a physical object, the physical laws do not necessarily apply to it.
I can imagine things far outside the scope of the physical laws of the universe, and humans have not yet found any way to even envision physical laws controlling thought. From that, we can suppose that no physical laws control thought within the scope of this discussion.
P4: Cause and Effect apply to both the brain and thought.
Since thought has mechanical, physical roots in the brain, and the brain uses an obscure and possibly indecipherable method of cause and effect to allow thought to occur through the firing of neurons and other mechanical effects, it is likely that thought follows cause and effect as well. While this is not necessarily true, within the scope of human experience, thought attempts to mimic logic insofar as the individual is capable, thus it is to a large degree cause-and-effect based and we can suppose that it is entirely cause-and-effect based for this argument.
P5: An action is an effect; a thought is an effect; a mental action (such as the dismissal of thought) is an effect.
Since thought follows cause-and-effect, then any action within thought must be considered equivalent to any action within the physical world. Since a thought is causable, it must be an effect as well, though the root causes may be long and tangled.
P6: Causes trigger events within the brain and thought; the cause may be physical or non-physical.
P7: The effect of any cause is not guaranteed in thought or physical reality, though probable predictions of outcomes do exist.
In physical reality, quantum mechanics and radioactive decay are all about chance. Certain things will probably happen, but they might not. It is physically impossible to entirely predict the actions of a single subatomic particle, which has been thoroughly proven, even if the probable outcomes are well known and defined.
In thought, the same is true. While groups of thought can be predicted, the individual is impossible to perfectly predict. There are likely choices, but no absolute controls that determine certain decisions must occur.
P8: Humans are conscious of their own existance; the Universe itself is not.
"I think, therefore I am." Through this knowledge we know that humans are conscious. We can not know the same of the universe, thus we can only assume the negative. Since we are conscious, humans are inherently able to alter their own influences.
Alternatively, humans exist within a system, thus other influences can alter them (like other people). As far as we know, the Universe is not within another system, but is a single, closed system.
C: Humans have Free Will; the Universe itself does not.
Free Will is guaranteed on the invidual level: outcomes may be probable, but can not be absolutely controlled (P7); the probabilities and influences can change (P8). Since, at any one time, it is impossible to determine with complete accuracy the effect of a cause on an individual at any one time, Free Will exists.
What is Free Will but the ability to go against predicted outcomes?'
Note: I had to chop this down a bit to fit within the character limit. (0 characters remaining).
At 12/25/05 02:31 PM, cereal_killer11 wrote:At 12/25/05 08:51 AM, Draconias wrote: I've said it time and again and idiots just don't seem to hear it: Just because there is no reason it shouldn't be does not mean there are reasons it should be legalized.Then tell me, what are the good reasons it is illegal?
Society frowns on Marijuana use. That simple fact puts you in the hotseat; it is your job to prove your side, since you are the one demanding change. If Marijuana was currently legal, it would be my job to prove in favor of change, but it isn't.
You need to prove how Marijuana is so good that we should legalize; I need to prove you wrong. Proving that it shouldn't be banned in the first place has no importance and has no bearing on this topic.
At 12/24/05 07:51 PM, cereal_killer11 wrote: Marijuana should be legalized, there is no reason it shouldn't be.
I've said it time and again and idiots just don't seem to hear it: Just because there is no reason it shouldn't be does not mean there are reasons it should be legalized.
You do not legalize something "because there's no reason not to." That's the worst logical fallacy you can possibly commit, and the stupidest one at that. You do legalize something when there are reasons why you should legalize it. Those reasons are weak or non-existant for Marijuana.
Oh yeah, just a little funny NYTimes article:
Rumbo (pronounced ROOM-boh), which gets its name from a Spanish word that means "heading to" - as in "heading to the United States" or "heading to a better life" - is betting that the state's growing Hispanic population is ready for a sophisticated daily newspaper in Spanish that mixes coverage of local news and sports with commentary and dispatches from Latin America.
The Hispanic market, of course, already supports fast-growing Spanish-language television and radio industries, but Rumbo's Texas venture is perhaps the biggest gamble yet that a large part of the Hispanic population will read a daily paper in Spanish. Spanish-speaking readers in most parts of the country have been the domain of small family-owned newspapers, in part because bigger concerns have considered the market undesirable.
So it is no surprise that Rumbo's plan has been met with skepticism and resistance from larger publishers.
We could devote an entire thread to just discussing how refusing assimilation within your country is a foolish, dangerous idea that only hurts those who attempt it.
It's nearly impossible to prevent events like Columbine from occurring, but I wonder...
What would you do if you were in one of those events?
Would you hide under a desk? Or stand by a door with a pair of scissors or the heaviest blunt object you can find? Or maybe get behind one of the kids and try to kill his ass back, maybe by strangling, using his own gun, or with a sharp pencil or pen? Or maybe run out of the school? Or hell, maybe pull out your own gun or knife and kill them for shooting up the Library while you're trying to do homework. Or, at the extreme, run them over with a car, even if you have to run through a large set of glass doors to do so?
I'm still amazed no one tried to kill their asses back. If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them back!
At 12/25/05 02:24 AM, Hunter-X wrote: According to the Encarta Online Dictionary...
Yeah, what the hell IS wrong with "liberal"??? These terms seem like good values to me.
Since you obviously didn't read the thread prior to your post, that has already been answered:
"You're making a common mistake. One "Liberal" is a good thing: pro-rights, for change, working to improve society. The other "Liberal" is Democrats, essentially the opposite of the original "Liberal."
The latter Liberal usually means the following: Socialism, Controlled Market, Anti-Military, Pro-Fads, Highly Malleable Views, Budget Breaker, Overly Emotional."
At 12/23/05 03:48 PM, Mattathias wrote: I really cannot find anything bad with Liberalism, all it says is just that the human rights are above all. It says nothing economic (socialist\capitalistic) or political (war\peace), just pro-human rights. If I am not mistaken, America is Liberal, isn't it? At least it's basic policy, it says free market for all, and it fights to promote the rights of the man and the citizen. However, I can never be sure after what you just said, I always thought it was very Liberal...
You're making a common mistake. One "Liberal" is a good thing: pro-rights, for change, working to improve society. The other "Liberal" is Democrats, essentially the opposite of the original "Liberal."
The latter Liberal usually means the following: Socialism, Controlled Market, Anti-Military, Pro-Fads, Highly Malleable Views, Budget Breaker, Overly Emotional.
When Christmas is being celebrated by the entire nation, many people find "Happy Holidays" offensive because it is a specific, directed insult at American culture, and is often a company rule at stores. If you go out to buy a Manorah, you expect "Happy Hannakah" not "Happy Holidays," especially when you are the one forced to say it and it is repeated hundreds of times. It is not "Happy Holidays" when the specific, individual activites are only Christmas events. "Holiday Trees" are worse, but rarer.
Put simply, Politically Correct BS is intruding on the lives of people celebrating Christmas, and they have the right to get pissed off at something like that.
At 12/9/05 04:52 PM, hellsgift wrote: I don't really care enough to respond to that, i'll just let someone else disprove that ridiculous and foolish statement.
Your Statements: Marijuana is not bad! It has some decent uses and it isn't as terrible as its reputation. Some legal things are already worse. Therefore, Marijuana should be legalized.
My Statements: Marijuana is not as terrible as its reputation or some legal market things, but that doesn't mean Marijuana is a good thing. Murder isn't as terrible as Genocide, but that doesn't make murder good.
Marijuana undeniably and unavoidably has negative consequences: addiction, burnout, ruined relations, criminal connections, and a gateway to worse drugs. These may not be common, but they undeniably occur. We've seen it happen, the facts are obvious, even if these negative situations are rare.
More importantly, Marijuana use makes these negative events occur more often than alternative activites. There is no reason any Marijuana user could not be playing Soccer or PC Games or doing just about anything else, and there are more benefits for those activities. You smoked Weed today; you could have gone swimming at the local Rec Center, or constructed a night stand for your room, or read up on recent scientific discoveries, or earned some cash at a job, or volunteered at your local food shelter, or played baseball with your buddies, or read a new Sci-Fi novel, or any number of other things that are better than smoking Marijuana.
That is where my entire argument comes in: why use Marijuana, or even encourage the use of Marijuana (by legalizing it) when there are so many other, more productive and positive alternative activites? I have asked you, the users, to give me a reason why we should encourage Marijuana use; if there is no reason for individual users to smoke it, why should society condone such a waste of time and effort through legalization?
It's not about freedom of choice. It's not about what sideline benefits Marijuana may have, like hemp cloth. It's not about using it for the deathly ill or using it as a medicine. Legalization is about whether or not Society should condone the use of Marijuana. Unless you can give reasons why it should, none of any of this means anything.
In every case, we have alternatives: we can use better, cheaper, more effective medicines for the ill. We can isolate specific chemicals in Marijuana and eliminate the necessity of legalizing the plant. We can use other cloth types, like synthetic fibers or cotton for clothes. Users can be doing an almost infinite number of alternative things which are more productive, more profitable for the individual, and well condoned by Society.
So if you wish to do anything, you must prove that Marijuana is better than these alternatives, so much so that it is necessary. You've proven it ir's a massive danger, but that's not enough. You need to show the worth of embracing Marijuana.
That is my interest in your personal reasons for use, the real reason you want it legalized. I want to know why you should pick it over alternatives that everything else in the world tells me are better. It's a very simple issue, and you need to address it directly. If I supported Marijuana, the most critical aspect would be proving its worth to the individual, the one reading my argument, and once I proved its worth to all individuals, all the readers, then Society would condone it.
However, when you fail to show me, the reader, any reason why I should consider it a positive, favorable recreational activity, then you simply talk to a wall. You must prove your worth if you want to convince anyone.
Do you get my drift? Have I made the point and message clear? I'm telling you a simple fact from someone deeply involved in Politics and rhetorical debate: if you miss the door you hit a wall. Explaining the personal, positive benefits of using Marijuana as a recreational drug is the only way to "open the door" and convince anyone.
At 12/20/05 09:53 PM, red_skunk wrote: Actually, that's wrong. I've already stated time and time again that up to ten percent of the population has smoked marijuana in the past year.
You can say that same damn thing all day and it is still a useless statistic. Up to? So, 0% is possible? 1%? 7%? Statistics are always inaccurate in some way: in this case, I'd particularly look for sampling error (how many were asked?), reliability of answers (why should they say yes/no?), actual % (not an "up to" meaning only SOME areas were at 10%), and the source of the information.
But, assuming even slight accuracy, your statistic shows that a vast majority of the population does not use (and most likely does not favor) marijuana use. That's a good enough reason to not embrace it.
And I still haven't heard jack shit from you weed addicts about why you personally use the shit. Will you stop being dumbasses and just answer a straight question? Some of you have to be users, so why can't you provide any insight whatsoever into the mind of a pothead? Or is it really that you're a kid in high school/college and have no idea what the hell life is really like, and thus you hold unrealistic beliefs about the world because you've never actually experienced it? Trust me, I've seen that sort of foolery before.
At 12/20/05 09:25 PM, XmasTime wrote: Just proves that the offended, pussy democrats dont want kids to learn.
Any true conservative would support the Judge's decision. If we want to promote personal responsibility, intelligence, and societal success, we can't be teaching kids obvious bullshit like Intelligent Design, now can we?
At 12/20/05 05:48 AM, SmilingAssasin wrote: Fostering self destruction, painfull addictions and misguided foolery? wtf are you on? I know a guy who smokes pretty much all the time, he's not addicted to anything, he's not on a depressed downward spiral of self destruction. Infact, he earns £30,000 a year, his girfriend owns her own company. And youre telling me that it turns you into a a thug?
Idiots repeat the same foolishness over and over and don't realize the point: it fosters, encourages, makes more probable, increases the occurance, and makes more likely burnouts and selfdestruction. And I explicitly stated that it is not an absolute thing! Damn you people are just plain stupid and I can never say anything enough to get through to you. Exceptions don't make the rule.
Tell me, how many burnouts have you met? For every balanced abuser, there are two dozen burnouts, lowlifes, and ruined people. You can point out every little rare balanced person, but even then all it takes is a little push to tip them. You can come up with one in a millions all day, but I know you're ignoring the 999,999 in a million every time because it would prove you wrong.
Here's a hint: the real world is 99% dumbfucks and 1% smart people. Surround yourself with the 1% and you'll be happy, stick around the other idiots and your life will go to the shitter. Don't join in with any of the idiots and you should be decently fine; hold on to the smart, intelligent friends if you want a good life. And don't listen to any of the 99% who post in this thread.
No testimonial from any user can make Marijuana any better in society's eyes for one simple reason: drugs and addictions lead to burnouts and ruined lives. For over a century, public opinion has been steadily turning against all forms of addictions and mind-altering substances.
There is no necessity to Marijuana use or any other currently-illegal drug use. It's been illegal for longer than you've been alive, and there's just no reason you should be using it, so why is it important to you besides your addiction?
Many of you claim Marijuana should be legalized because it isn't as bad as Alcohol and Tobacco. Haven't you noticed that Tobacco is being actively destroyed as we speak? Haven't you noticed previous attempts at banning Alcohol?
Tobacco is not illegal because it snuck in on society and caught everyone by surprise, so it's much harder to eradicate. Alcohol is not quite destructive enough and far too integrated a part of every culture to remove it anytime soon. This all means one thing: Marijuana is forgettable, ignorable, and destructive, so why use it when there are always alternatives?
Regardless of your position in society, you're better off living a balanced, healthy lifestyle than you are using Marijuana and fostering any addiction. Violence, crime, destroyed lives and relations, and all sorts of chaos are inextricably linked to Marijuana-- maybe not in a cause/effect relationship, but linked nonetheless. It's simply safer, smarter, and cheaper to stay away from weed, so why use it?
If you have an awesome life going, with great grades and you're on a sports team like a previous poster, why risk it all for something expendable? You could lose everything for some stupid weed, so why do you even waste your time with it?
There's simply no reason to want Marijuana besides fostering self-destruction, painful addictions, and misguided foolery-- like joining a violent street gang. I still never have heard a direct, personal answer to the most critical question of all in this debate.
