[Vpoll] Marijuana, Weed, Pot

[Buster Bluth]

1. That chart wouldn't change if heroin were legalized.

wat

2. "It goes back to that libertarian mental block of being stuck on looking at individuals and not a population." That's not a mental block. I'm well aware of it and I'm doing it on purpose. God made individuals and gave them liberty. If free people behave in a way that creates some unfortunate statistics and a scary-looking chart, so be it.

It absolutely is a mental block. A person with said mental block wouldn't know they have it though.

3. Addiction is real but nobody is addicted to anything before they do it voluntarily. So yeah, a heroin addict is addicted. But the heroin addict was not always addicted. At some point, he chose to stick the first few needles into his arm.

And here it is, an inability to comprehend context in decision-making. Basic shit like education--or the lack of it, or people's ability to manipulate others, or general stupidity, etc aren't complicated concepts, but to a Libertarian it's always "doesn't matter, something something liberty.." Never mind study after study done by sociologists, neurologists, and psychologists on what external factors create a drug user I guess, those don't add any decent context to the loaded word "voluntary."

What makes your stance here extra ridiculous is that the context isn't the important reason heroin is illegal, it's the outcome. If I manipulate a person into consuming sugar, they get fatter. If I manipulate a person into using opioids like heroin, they are a mindless drug addict soon to be destroyed by my product. And you'd want the practice of selling heroin, ie providing a monetary incentive to manipulate people into using heroin, to be completely legal? I know while reading this you're already thinking "manipulating?! GTFO he is voluntarily choosing to use the drug, that's his choice," which goes right back ignoring soooooo much of what we know about decision-making.

But don't take my word for it, history has shown that opioid use can be so destructive in its outcome that countries will fight wars over it.

4. It would be a great thing if individuals and private charities wanted to reach out to drug abusers and get them treatment for their addictions. That's nowhere near the same thing as taxpayers being forced to subsidize their habits through taxation under penalty of fine or imprisonment.

I would lol if I weren't smfh.

5. "Communism of the right," are you kidding me? If I said what I said on a GOP debate stage, I'd be run out of the room and accused of running to the Left of Bernie Sanders. That's what happens when your positions are built on actual principles and not bullshit pragmatism or feelz.

That says an enormous amount about the thinking inside the GOP.

"To hell with reality, we've placed the word principles on our opinions and that's that!"

 

[woolybug25]

 

[fightingirish26]

Aren't some babies born addicted to drugs (like heroin)?

Yes, I was one

 

[fightingirish26]

1. That chart wouldn't change if heroin were legalized.

2. "It goes back to that libertarian mental block of being stuck on looking at individuals and not a population." That's not a mental block. I'm well aware of it and I'm doing it on purpose. God made individuals and gave them liberty. If free people behave in a way that creates some unfortunate statistics and a scary-looking chart, so be it.

3. Addiction is real but nobody is addicted to anything before they do it voluntarily. So yeah, a heroin addict is addicted. But the heroin addict was not always addicted. At some point, he chose to stick the first few needles into his arm.

4. It would be a great thing if individuals and private charities wanted to reach out to drug abusers and get them treatment for their addictions. That's nowhere near the same thing as taxpayers being forced to subsidize their habits through taxation under penalty of fine or imprisonment.

5. "Communism of the right," are you kidding me? If I said what I said on a GOP debate stage, I'd be run out of the room and accused of running to the Left of Bernie Sanders. That's what happens when your positions are built on actual principles and not bullshit pragmatism or feelz.

Why wouldn't you want a government that tries to put its citizens in the best position to succeed?

Also, to go off of what Buster was saying, look at the tobacco industry. They run their businesses by trying to get young people addicted. If heroin, and cocaine, and meth, etc, were legal, there would be industries dedicated to trying to get young people addicted to these life-destroying drugs.

 

[wizards8507]

Why wouldn't you want a government that tries to put its citizens in the best position to succeed?

Because the government sucks at it. On balance, people making decisions for themselves will end up in better positions than if the government tries to place them where they determine is best.

Also, to go off of what Buster was saying, look at the tobacco industry. They run their businesses by trying to get young people addicted. If heroin, and cocaine, and meth, etc, were legal, there would be industries dedicated to trying to get young people addicted to these life-destroying drugs.

That industry already exists and it fucking beheads people. El Chapo and the Sinaloa Cartel are a hell of a lot scarier than Phillip Morris.

Regardless, both of the points you made could be used to ban anything that's deemed "bad for you." McDonalds markets to make you obese. Ban french fries!

 

[fightingirish26]

Because the government sucks at it. On balance, people making decisions for themselves will end up in better positions than if the government tries to place them where they determine is best.


That industry already exists and it fucking beheads people. El Chapo and the Sinaloa Cartel are a hell of a lot scarier than Phillip Morris.

Regardless, both of the points you made could be used to ban anything that's deemed "bad for you." McDonalds markets to make you obese. Ban french fries!

Fair, but you don't see ads for heroin in the window at your local 7-11

 

[Buster Bluth]

That industry already exists and it fucking beheads people. El Chapo and the Sinaloa Cartel are a hell of a lot scarier than Phillip Morris.

I won't defend cartels but cigarettes are attributable to ~480,000 deaths annually in just the US. Wake me up when the cartels can pull off that feat. Cartel murders can't hold a candle to the damage caused by manipulation via marketing, peer pressure, and ignorance.

 

[wizards8507]

Fair, but you don't see ads for heroin in the window at your local 7-11

That's kind of my point. You don't see ads for heroin yet people still do heroin.

Legalized: Steve buys heroin, gets addicted, dies in a gutter.

Prohibited: Steve buys heroin from a banger, gets addicted, joins a gang, serves five years in prison, dies in a gutter.

The lesson: Don't do heroin.

I won't defend cartels but cigarettes are attributable to ~480,000 deaths annually in just the US. Wake me up when the cartels can pull off that feat. Cartel murders can't hold a candle to the damage caused by manipulation via marketing, peer pressure, and ignorance.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're older than I am, right? There ain't no "peer pressure" to smoke cigarettes anymore.

 

[GoIrish41]

Because the government sucks at it. On balance, people making decisions for themselves will end up in better positions than if the government tries to place them where they determine is best.


That industry already exists and it fucking beheads people. El Chapo and the Sinaloa Cartel are a hell of a lot scarier than Phillip Morris.

Regardless, both of the points you made could be used to ban anything that's deemed "bad for you." McDonalds markets to make you obese. Ban french fries!

That would be a cruel thing to do to all the newly legal stoners.

 

[NDJimmy]

Deaths from prescription drugs are like having a jumbo jet crash every day.
God gave us marijuana and it has served man in many ways for thousands of years. God did not give us the stuff PhRMA makes.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're older than I am, right? There ain't no "peer pressure" to smoke cigarettes anymore.

Hmmmmm maybe that's why they target younger people? It's almost like younger people are more ignorant and suggestible than the more educated and/or experienced older crowd, thus that shit matters in decisions "voluntarily" made.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but education (read: government regulation and/or funding) has lowered the number of tobacco users tremendously. Chalk that up for evidence against the "On balance, people making decisions for themselves will end up in better positions than if the government tries to place them where they determine is best" malarkey. And for the record I am not taking the position of "government is omniscient." If there were ever an area where "people making decisions" needed an asterisk, it'd be drug use. This shouldn't be that hard to get behind. Part of me wonders if you're trolling.

 

[wizards8507]

Hmmmmm maybe that's why they target younger people?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but education (read: government regulation and/or funding) has lowered the number of tobacco users tremendously. Chalk that up for evidence against the "On balance, people making decisions for themselves will end up in better positions than if the government tries to place them where they determine is best" malarkey. If there were ever an area where "people making decisions" needed an asterisk, it'd be drug use. This shouldn't be that hard to get behind. Part of me wonders if you're trolling.

Just Say No to DARE - TIME

 

[Buster Bluth]

Just Say No to DARE - TIME

Oh that report on one government program? Neat.

How about the loads of government funding for research into the effects of cigarettes that revealed that cigarettes were cancerous? How about warnings on cigarette packages and the general PR campaigns done ad nauseam to increase the knowledge of just how harmful smoking was?

 

[Irish#1]

Hmmmmm maybe that's why they target younger people? It's almost like younger people are more ignorant and suggestible than the more educated and/or experienced older crowd, thus that shit matters in decisions "voluntarily" made.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but education (read: government regulation and/or funding) has lowered the number of tobacco users tremendously. Chalk that up for evidence against the "On balance, people making decisions for themselves will end up in better positions than if the government tries to place them where they determine is best" malarkey. And for the record I am not taking the position of "government is omniscient." If there were ever an area where "people making decisions" needed an asterisk, it'd be drug use. This shouldn't be that hard to get behind. Part of me wonders if you're trolling.

I have no stats to back this up, but I think they are when it comes to smoking and drinking. Kids think they're invincible. They typically don't think long term and figure if they want to, they can quit at any time. The number of new smokers that are 21 or under probably outpaces new smokers that started over the age of 21 by a mile.

Just looked this up. From study done by Illinois Dept of Health
"Smoking among teenagers, however, has not declined since 1980. Approximately 90 percent of all smokers start before age 18; the average age for a new smoker is 13."

 

[wizards8507]

Just looked this up. From study done by Illinois Dept of Health
"Smoking among teenagers, however, has not declined since 1980. Approximately 90 percent of all smokers start before age 18; the average age for a new smoker is 13."

That's an extremely misleading statistic. If there were 100 smokers and 90 of them started before age 18, that's hugely different than if there were 1 million smokers and 900,000 of them started before age 18, though the statistic would be the same.

 

[Irish#1]

That's an extremely misleading statistic. If there were 100 smokers and 90 of them started before age 18, that's hugely different than if there were 1 million smokers and 900,000 of them started before age 18, though the statistic would be the same.

Maybe, but I think that number would still be significantly higher for kids than adults.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Deaths from prescription drugs are like having a jumbo jet crash every day.
God gave us marijuana and it has served man in many ways for thousands of years. God did not give us the stuff PhRMA makes.

I can't get behind this reasoning because it's silly in my eyes. God gave us the precursors for everything and he also gave us hemlock and a variety of other "natural" poisons. "It's natural" isn't a legitimate argument.

I want to avoid PhRMA as much as possible but if I am diagnosed with cancer, I will assuredly follow western medicine along with altered diet, etc.