October 22, 2010

A Pot Rant

Since marijuana is up for vote on California's ballot this election to legalize it for everyone, I thought I would rant about it for a moment. I have had many conversations about this subject, and some of these rants are taken from some of them.

The logic being used by drug addicts and advocates are evidence for their drug use. Its skews their thinking quite a bit.

Lets examine some of the reasons why people want it legalized.

1. Some say "Hey it's natural, God made it"

My response is, there is nothing "natural" about drying, inhaling and smoking on purpose. That is man made event. In a forest fire, animals run away from such events.

Also, God gave us many examples of things we are not allowed to touch. The tree of knowledge in the garden of Eden as a prime example. God made pigs also, but called them unclean and the Jews were not to eat Pork either, or shellfish for that manner. Just because it is on the earth doesn't mean we can partake in it. There are frogs out there that if we eat them we die within minutes, but they are here on earth though, so the logic doesn't stand.


2. We are going to do it anyway.

So we should reward law breakers? Would it be OK for us to rob banks until robbing banks is legalized? See if these following points sound familiar. People get a real rush from robbing banks and people would be less likely killed, if it were legal. People don't fall asleep in the get away cars after robbing banks like alcohol does. The prisons would be a lot less crowded if the bank robbers were not so aggressively persecuted. There is no hangover either. You can rob banks and still keep a job. My boss likes me and I only rob banks on weekends. It is much healthier on the body then alcohol also. If it were legal it would make things much easier for us bank robbers to exist in society. Why are you persecuting us? See how absurd this logic sounds?

3. Why should marijuana remain illegal while alcohol and tobacco companies are making millions in profit from selling their drugs that are much more harmful?

I agree that just because it is legal, drug dealing doesn't make it right. Viagra is the most popular drug on the market, how many of those actually need it. The porn industry is thriving because of it though. It is a drug, not any type of medication. Sudifed is purchased in 55gal drums from Mexican manufacturers. Do you really believe that many Americans have that many colds to justify that kind of demand? Nope, its the main ingredient for meth though. Coincidences don't exist. So again, are we to reward this behavior? Logic Fail.

4. What happened to freedom?!?!

Freedom to harm others and society? No, that is not what the constitution is about. Yes LSD, cocaine, and hash were all legal at one time. So ask yourself why did they ban them? Why? Were people being destroyed? Was society being eroded into a drug infested, and family destroying lifestyle? Psst, the answer was, Yes! Anyone living in the 60's will attest to the problems associated with those drugs.

5. Its not harming anyone

If you were a child that grew up in a pothead/drug user's house you would understand what I am talking about more here. The children have no voice in your society. The strangers stopping by at short periods throughout the days and night, telling the kids to "go away while the adults play", the funny smells and loud adults laughing and partying all the time. Its not a good environment for children, and we all know this as fact.

What "feels good" is not the goal here either, although I am sure pedophiles side with that worldview. This is a society that does not tolerate people harming others. Pedophiles, drug addicts, and pot heads harm others. Logic Fail.

6. During the days of alcohol prohibition, criminal organizations prospered and profited greatly from the underground alcohol trade. It created a black market that's practically identical to that of illegal drugs today.

Preaching to the choir now! You cannot put the cart before the horse either. You created the cartel and you will be judged for that. The people who drank at those bars during prohibition created Al Capone who murdered so many people with those Tommy guns. You cannot take back murders and you cannot take back the cartels and gangs that you helped create because of your pure disregard for our constitution and laws of our society. You are a wretched human for doing such a thing just to get your way. Many are crying and bawling at this very second because their child was killed by a pot trafficker, dealer, or cultivator. You will have to face God on Judgment day for that and you appear not to even care. So take that flapping lipped glib attitude of yours and go break more laws. Wait for your porn of "High Times" and smoke big ol bong hits as children are dying for what you are doing. You don't care, and keep acting accordingly. You are a criminal and deserve all that is coming to you, because you have already killed many lives. Again, you cannot take back murder, and that is what you all have done. Pot murders children. Pot HARMS! If they legalize it today you still have past crimes that you have committed and made our society worse then it should have been. You are truly UN-American. To think I fought for your freedom to murder children. Pshaw! This is one completely messed up world. I choose Christ. Save us Lord!

Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Sorcery, Strong's g5332 pharmakeus (φαρμακεύς),  comes from the Greek root word pharmakon (φάρμακον: a drug, i.e. spell-giving potion) it is also where we get today's word pharmacy. That fate is not something I wish on anyone. Please repent and ditch the habit, man!

California, in their backwards thinking, will most likely give amnesty to illegal immigrants at some point and reward, and thus encourage, law breaking citizens. They need to show themselves as consistent after all. Why should they stop now with marijuana?

Its wrong to reward law breakers, that's why. A NO vote to Proposition 19 will show some logical encouragement for California. Potheads are not all that logical though so I will not hold my breath, like they are.This is not the hippy pot of the 70s. It's far more potent.

Also, I fully admit, because we live in a fallen creation, to a medical benefit of CERTAIN, few, medical issues with great results. I also still think that law enforcement is picking low hanging fruit and locking up medical patients, not drug addicts. THAT is not only immoral, but criminal subject to "We the people".



bit.ly/potrant  

21 comments:

  1.      "Freedom to harm others and society?"
         I was under the impression that this was about legalizing something for one's personal use -- not allowing people to shove it down others' throats. There is a difference.

         I see no compelling reason for the drug laws. Arguing that something should be illegal because it's already illegal is not something I find persuasive. And really all the drug laws mean is BIG GOVERNMENT. I've heard people say that we need the laws because people will steal to support their habit and then turn around and say that jobs need drug pre-screening so that users won't be able to support their habit without stealing. In short the drug laws are being used to create their own "justification." In that sense, they are very much like prohibition.
         I'm not going to argue that marijuana is some wonderful thing that everyone should try. Personally, I think it's stupid. But I do not support outlawing stupid. And I think it's just about a display of power anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hysteria, thy name is Dan.

    Legalising marijuana for people's personal use is not going to signal the end of the world as we know it. Some states here in Australia have got as far as decriminalising it, so that possession only carries a fine rather than a criminal conviction and possible jail term. As far as I can see, our society is still functioning.

    There are inevitably and always going to be people who abuse drugs, whether those drugs are legal or not. Alcohol is the perfect example. The majority of people understand how to use it responsibly, but some don't, and the results are in some cases horrific. We hear reports in the news almost every day about alcohol-fuelled violence. I have yet to hear of anyone who has beaten up their spouse or been involved in a bar fight whilst stoned.

    That's not to say that marijuana isn't a dangerous drug - taken over extended periods, it can lead to loss of short-term memory, clinical depression and in severe cases, psychosis. But these things are also true of alcohol. If marijuana is smoked, it damages the lungs, as does tobacco.

    If marijuana were legalised for personal use (and I believe it is actually legal for medical use in some states...correct?) there would undoubtedly be people who would suffer ill-effects from their usage - but probably not significantly more than there are already.

    I am inclined to agree with Pvblivs - it is not the job of government to save people from themselves. I say this from Western Australia, which is becoming such a nanny state that it's getting hard to set foot outside one's front door without breaking some regulation or other. Is that the kind of society you'd like to live in, Dan?

    ReplyDelete
  3. For me, it boils down to the argument that alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous, but are still legal. If that's true, I don't understand on what basis marijuana can be made illegal for recreational purposes. It just doesn't make sense to me.

    You completely dodged the question. You said: "It is a drug, not any type of medication." Which is true, but alcohol isn't any kind of medication either.

    "If you were a child that grew up in a pothead/drug user's house you would understand what I am talking about more here. The children have no voice in your society."

    What about children whose parents are alcoholics? ALl your arguments can also be made against alcohol, but as far as I know, you don't support banning alcohol. Why not?

    For the record, I've never smoked tobacco or marijuana. I've drunk alcohol twice.

    ReplyDelete
  4. H_brummer:

         From reading Dan's post, I got the sense that, if he had the power, he would bring back prohibition. Arguing that alcohol and tobacco are worse will not sway him if he favors outlawing those as well.
         Of course, anything that anyone might enjoy can be reclassified as a "drug" because, if nothing else, the body releases chemicals. I mean, drop the "funny smells" and what Dan wrote under heading #5 could apply to anything adults found enjoyable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pvb,

    Yea, I wrestled with the "Big Government" issue myself. I am all for freedom, voting for Ron Paul even. RP wants everything legal also. For me though, I just cannot condone crack shacks and heroin dens in a society though. Can you imagine going for a walk to the grocery store with your kid passing those store along the way? Libertarians want everything legal but it would not work in today's societies. Its a pipe dream, no pun intended.

    Anarchy promotes no government but they create a void that gets filled by, you guessed it, the anarchists themselves. So it turns into a totalitarian society, so its doesn't work. No matter how much libertarians and anarchists decry, regulations, laws, and boundaries are NEEDED for a civil society.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Brummer,

    >>What about children whose parents are alcoholics? ALl your arguments can also be made against alcohol, but as far as I know, you don't support banning alcohol. Why not?

    I do! If its against God, its against me. Drunkards are damned to hell, booze has created a lessor society then our potential. It has ruined many families and killed stadiums full. Bad fruit will not bear good fruit. I cannot condone or encourage behavior that will get people certain damnation. Granted lying will get you a ticket to hell even but I cannot in good conscience pass laws allowing evil.

    >>For the record, I've never smoked tobacco or marijuana. I've drunk alcohol twice.

    How? How did you survive your youth without ever touching it? How did your parents feel about it? I feel that parents and upbringing has to be the primer. My wife was the same way, until I corrupted her that is.

    Parents play a large part in these sorts of things. My first cigarette was stolen from my parents when I was 9 yrs old and I believe I bought my first carton with money I got from my 10th birthday.

    Anyway, I am curious how your parents raised you to get those great results. If anything I would like to make a batch of my, near famous, lemon-aid for them. Great job!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Reading this was the high point of my day.

    Sorry. Had to do it.

    ReplyDelete
  8.      Laws and boundaries are indeed needed. But not all laws and boundaries are needed. Government has a legitimate purpose in protecting the citizenry from abuse -- either by prosecuting or dis-empowering the abusers. It also has a legitimate role in defending against invaders. It does not have a proper place to make excuses to snoop in on what people do in their own homes. It just doesn't.
         So I ask you. Do you really think that legalizing marijuana (or indeed all drugs, that is a plausible goal of the people advancing the proposition) would lead to some group becoming a de facto tyranny? I think it would deprive the gangs of their income -- removing their incentive for turf wars.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I for one know that legalization of weed isn't going to make a noticeable mark on organized drug crime. Obviously, there's a point where decriminalizing controlled substances WILL impact it, but marijuana is simply not where the violence lies.

    People kill for small amounts of crack & heroin, even ecstasy. Assault is rare where weed is concerned, unless we're talking truckloads of the stuff. And at that point, illegal tobacco gets violent too.

    I lean in the direction of equating pot and alcohol, in terms of its effects on society. Does this mean it should be decriminalized? I think we should take the same approach that Canada does: in large quantities you get jail time, in small quantities (aka. personal use) you get fined. Regulate its use and prevent it from becoming a public nuisance.

    Much of Dan's rant seemed about as intelligent as one would expect. However, I wont claim there are NO valid concerns IRT legalization.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pvb,

    >>Do you really think that legalizing marijuana (or indeed all drugs, that is a plausible goal of the people advancing the proposition) would lead to some group becoming a de facto tyranny?

    If the tyrannical group wants to dumb down our society? Sure. Doing things that are illegal, like the current situation, certainly did. Gangs and cartels already have been created and are now flourishing because of people that broke laws. You cannot reverse it. We now have to deal with them because of law breakers.

    >>I think it would deprive the gangs of their income -- removing their incentive for turf wars.

    Not as long as there are people willing to break laws. If there was an anthrax gang and people bought anthrax that killed millions your logic would be to legalize anthrax so the gangs have no control over it. It just is illogical. People that buy anthrax are the criminals here, no matter if its illegal or not. Anthrax kills and lessons society or the true potential, as do all drugs. Should God make lying and murdering OK so liars and murderers can go to heaven? Its just not sound logical thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  11.      No, Dan, the fact that anthrax is used to kill third-parties is the justification for outlawing anthrax. As it is, though, the gangs exist because of the anti-drug laws. The gangs cannot be a reason for keeping the anti-drug laws unless you want to keep the gangs for their own sake.
         As near as I can tell, you are trying to argue that drugs should be illegal because they are, in fact, illegal. That's a terrible argument.
         "Doing things that are illegal, like the current situation, certainly did. Gangs and cartels already have been created and are now flourishing because of people that broke laws."
         In other words, they would not be flourishing if those particular laws were not there to break. After all, if those people who want to do drugs could buy them at the local supermarket, they wouldn't be funding the gangs. The line "drugs fund gangs" is actually an argument for legalization because if they were legalized, they wouldn't be funding gangs.
         Let me hit this close to home. If the government were to outlaw bibles, a criminal enterprise would form to supply them. Such an enterprise forming (because people would be breaking the law) would not validate such legislation.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Pvb,

    >>As it is, though, the gangs exist because of the anti-drug laws.

    Wrong again, and if you were intellectually honest you would know this. The ONLY reason why gangs and cartels exists is because of the LAW BREAKERS that gave them business. IF they followed the laws there would be no such thing as cartels.

    >>As near as I can tell, you are trying to argue that drugs should be illegal because they are, in fact, illegal. That's a terrible argument.

    Well your "near" is very far then. Drugs should be illegal because they are wrong. They are illegal because of that fact. Same with pedophilia or a host of any other wrongs.

    >>In other words, they would not be flourishing if those particular laws were not there to break.

    There would be a lot less pedophiles, or bank robberies, if it were legal? Bzzzt!! Logical failure yet again.

    >>After all, if those people who want to do drugs could buy them at the local supermarket, they wouldn't be funding the gangs.

    Reward and make it convenient for law breakers. Got it. Bzzzt!! Logical failure yet again.

    >>The line "drugs fund gangs" is actually an argument for legalization because if they were legalized, they wouldn't be funding gangs.

    Refer to the bank robbers analogy again then. Plus, after the fact that they already broke laws that is. They ALREADY created cartels. I have a better idea. Whoever breaks the law will burn eternally.

    >>If the government were to outlaw bibles, a criminal enterprise would form to supply them. Such an enterprise forming (because people would be breaking the law) would not validate such legislation.

    So now this hypothetical government is a tyrannical government or "for the people by the people"?

    Anyway, to answer the question though, that is where absolute authority comes into play. Much like "when a child is told by her father to lie on the telephone, or, far worse, to submit to his advances, the resulting sense of conflict can be intense. In such cases the human authority must be disobeyed, but this is not an exception or an exemption to an absolute, for the absolute is defined in such a way that obedience is to be rendered only when human commands do not violate clear scriptural prohibitions and instructions." You, and drug addicts, have no such an avenue. You all created cartels and will pay dearly for it. You only have one option to save yourselves. The option that I ran to.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Does anyone else find it amusing to see Dan worrying about the dumbing down of society?

    ReplyDelete
  14.      "Wrong again, and if you were intellectually honest you would know this. The ONLY reason why gangs and cartels exists is because of the LAW BREAKERS that gave them business. IF they followed the laws there would be no such thing as cartels."
         It is not possible to break a law that is not on the books. Absent the anti-drug laws, there would not be the gangs and cartels.
         "Well your 'near' is very far then. Drugs should be illegal because they are wrong. They are illegal because of that fact."
         So far, you have not persuaded anyone that drugs are wrong. You haven't even given a reason (other than that they are illegal -- see the way you put "lawbreakers" in all-caps) why you think they are wrong.We are back where we started. You argue that they should be illegal because they are illegal.
         "'In other words, they [gangs] would not be flourishing if those particular laws [anti-drug laws] were not there to break.'
         "There would be a lot less pedophiles, or bank robberies, if it were legal? Bzzzt!! Logical failure yet again."
         That is an analogy fail. I didn't say that drug use would be down if it were legal. I am saying that black markets fall when the product can be sold legally.

    ReplyDelete
  15.      "Refer to the bank robbers [analogy fail] again then. Plus, after the fact that they already broke laws that is. They ALREADY created cartels. I have a better idea. Whoever breaks the law will burn eternally."
         Before the anti-drug laws were on the books? No, they hadn't forms gangs or cartels.
         "So now this hypothetical government is a tyrannical government or 'for the people by the people'?"
         It would be the same type of government that would outlaw drugs. Perhaps you've noticed, the public tends to vote for legalization; but government officials decide that they don't care.
         The anti-drug laws are bad law. It really is that simple. The government does not have a compelling interest to prevent people from doing drugs (laws against stupid are not a compelling interest.) Any particularly adverse condition used as "justification" (like the gangs) would not be there if it weren't for the anti-drug laws.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Pvblivs: If the government were to outlaw bibles, a criminal enterprise would form to supply them. Such an enterprise forming (because people would be breaking the law) would not validate such legislation.

    Dan: So now this hypothetical government is a tyrannical government or "for the people by the people"?


    Dan, your hysteria over drugs seems to be blinding you to a few basic truths here - not the least of which is the fact that you are actually advocating a tyrannical religion (I mean, have you actually read the Bible?)

    Pvblivs's example was intended to draw your attention to the fact that it is prohibition that leads to the situation that currently exists in regard to illegal drugs.

    I don't think anyone here is arguing that addictive substances are harmless. Only that people are going to make choices regarding what they put into their own bodies, and that attempting to legislate against personal choice is a form of tyranny that leads to more and greater evils.

    Should governments legislate against food because of widespread obesity? Or against cars because of road accidents? Almost everything we do in life carries an element of risk, to ourselves and to others. The sensible thing to do is to weigh the risks against the benefits, and choose our actions accordingly. People who make poor choices and harm others ought to be held to account for it, just as being drunk is not an excuse for assault nor for dangerous driving.

    Prohibition, particularly of addictive substances that can be used to manipulate people, on the one hand removes an element of personal autonomy from people's lives; and on the other hand creates opportunities for unscrupulous and avaricious people to create and exploit markets for such substances. It adds another layer to the problem of drug abuse, rather than addressing it meaningfully. That is the material point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Drugs should be illegal because they are wrong. They are illegal because of that fact."

    Why are drugs wrong? What classifies marijuana as a drug? Is tobacco a drug?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pvb,

    Drugs should be illegal because they are wrong. They are illegal because of that fact.

    >>So far, you have not persuaded anyone that drugs are wrong.

    Well, OK, now we are going to have to determine what is right or wrong to you then. Even if we completely take the factor that God Himself says its wrong.

    Is it wrong to give pot to a child? If yes, why? Is it wrong to shoot up a child? If yes, why? Is it wrong to give kids alcohol? If yes, why? (rhetorical questions really, follow the path.)

    Speed up the dialog for convenience. If these things are wrong, which they are, why should it be illegal? So, these "things" are bad for kids then? Good (hopefully).

    What about adults then. Is it wrong for an adult to shoot up, get high, drink anytime? If not, why not? Can people drive with alcohol? If there were no laws against it there would be a lot less DUI's. If a parent wants to shoot up their family, their child, who is it to say that impairing is wrong is your argument Pvb.

    If getting impaired in the safety of your own home who is to say its the governments business to care? Right, that is your argument?

    So the LOGIC that I am posing is that drugs IMPAIR people and need to have laws regulating its use. Agree? If not, why not? Otherwise we have drunk, or high, people driving on the road or going to work. So you might say, laws about the use in public areas can be made.What if children are stepping over the high parent to get their own lunch? Is that abuse? What if the child has to, as some do, clean up their parents vomit from drinking too much before lunch? Is that none of the governments business still? Is that abuse?

    So when someone is getting high is the comfort of their own home, EVEN IF THEY ARE SINGLE, is effecting their family because everyone has parents, friends, and family no matter how small. These members are being affected by the user's use. Do they have a say in watching their family member self destruct and die? If not, why not? Is a child being harmed by watching their parent die of addiction? Is a spouse being harmed by watching their lover die of addiction?

    What is wrong, on the subject of drugs, to you? I guess you are suggesting that if people are single with no children, no friends, and dead parents then, and only then, the adult can do as they please? Is that, in itself, logical to make that one exception in a society? I cannot follow this to its logical conclusion.

    If that is not logical then how does one deal with drugs in a society? So Pvb, your the president, how do you handle this subject.

    This sure is a rant...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dan:

         "Is it wrong to give pot to a child? If yes, why? Is it wrong to shoot up a child? If yes, why? Is it wrong to give kids alcohol? If yes, why? (rhetorical questions really, follow the path.)"
         I shall respond anyway, mostly so that you can see that the path does not lead where you want it to. There are two issues in your example, coercion and the fact that a child is too inexperienced to look out for his own well-being. An adult is able to or should be able to understand the inherent risks of these substances (that would be the risk that comes from the substances themselves, not from law enforcement; I understand you have difficulty distinguishing) and determining for himself whether he wants to take those risks. A child is not in a position to understand those risks and cannot make an informed decision.
         I answered your first set of questions first and it rather derails the rest of your rant. Everything you do affects others to some degree -- usually due to the fact that family members care about one another. But I don't want government micromanaging my life. Perhaps you would like to be told that home-schooling is not an option ("government knows best.") Hey, you can sign your entire life away to the government. Let them make all your decisions for you. You don't need to manage your own finances. The government can take better care of that for you. You just treat yourself like a child.
         I, however, am not a child and do not care to be treated as such. I do not want a "nanny state." I do support some "safety net" programs largely because I don't want a return to feudalsim or de facto slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  20. UPDATE: Prop 19 failed to pass. Nice try, stoners! Maybe there is hope for Cali just yet. Wait, Brown won?!? ...never mind.

    ReplyDelete
  21.      "Prop 19 failed to pass. Nice try, [people who want government out of private lives]!"
         I fixed it for you. Let's face facts, actual stoners probably don't even bother to vote or sign petitions. This had to be advanced by people who simply thought government was sticking its nose in where it didn't belong. But I'm sure you know that, Dan.

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>