Slashdot Mirror

If they've done something wrong, jail them for that and ignore the pot. Punishing someone for having or using Cannabis is never ok. Not ever.

That is your own opinion, which is counter to the opinion of the state.

It's the only opinion that's compatible with any sensible interpretation of justice. All men are created equal. That means all men have the same rights. From that it follows that my rights stop where your rights stop, i.e. no one has the right to interfere with the rights of others. Now, if I smoke pot, that doesn't interfere with anyone elses rights at all. But prohibiting me from smoking pot interferes with my rights, by definition.

If that's not good enough for you, consider the concept that the punishment should fit the crime. It's even in the bible, an eye for an eye as it were. Since no one is hurt when I smoke pot, I should not be hurt by others for doing so.

And you've yet to demonstrate any threat to the public safety because of marijuana use.

I already listed several plausible scenarios that could arise from pot use. But you chose not to read them. They are still back there, if you'd like to look at them again.

Ok, I admit, I haven't read ANY plausible threats to the public in any of your posts. If you could point them out to me again I'd appreciate it.

Is this the passage you're talking about:

You don't know what a stoned person will do in public anymore than you know what a drunk person will do in public. Sure, the behaviors may be different, but they still can pose a danger to others. You don't know if either one may step out into traffic. You don't know if either one may sexually harass someone else. You don't know what either one may try to do to get money.

Because I not only read it, I responded to it. But if that response was inadequate, I'll try again. The problem here is that these aren't plausible. There's no evidence that smoking pot makes anyone more likely to jaywalk, sexually harass, or rob. And even if someone were to smoke pot and jawalk, harass, or rob someone, there are already laws against that.

So should we disband all police forces and forbid arrest? Should we not care about any law enforcement anymore because you feel that arrest is the same as assault and kidnapping?

No hardly. Sometimes you have to pick between the lesser of two evils. A safe and human arrest, while unfortunate, is often necessary to prevent greater harm to others. Smoking Cannabis does not pose a threat to others, so an arrest is completely unjustifiable.

Have you ever been present at an arrest of any kind, or are you just taking police brutality cases from the media and using that to pass judgment against law enforcement?

It doesn't have to be brutal to be assault.

I've already addressed this, you have already ignored it. There's no point in continuing to argue it because you appear to believe that pot is safer than milk.

Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.
DEA Judge Francis Young

Sounds pretty safe to me. Certainly not any more dangerous than caffeine, nicotine or alcohol. If you want to ignore the fact that the illegal drug Cannabis is safer than most legal drugs; if you want to ignore the fact that thousands of people are in jail because of that insanity, then you are complicit in that injustice.

I've already said this once, but as a member of the public I have a right to use the public space as long as I don't interfere with anyone else's use of it. Being stoned in no way interferes with anyone else's use of the public space.

I'm not sure how you can support that statement. Particula

Besides my personal experience there is: this. I'll grant that it is anecdotal however and is thus not to be taken as fact. Regardless I didn't make anything up. Unless you're referring to marijuana addiction. If that's the case I'll refer you to Here and Here and Here

You are wrong about cannabis impairing driving. It also doesn't make you stupid. I suppose you think Carl Sagan is stupid? I agree that all drugs should be used in moderation. Cocaine is not the horrific drug that people make it out to be, and can eb used responsibly by many people. Heroin is dangerous, but as I stated elsewhere, I have met functional 60 year old heroin addicts. Crack is just cocaine with a slightly faster delivery method. LSD is only dangerous if used in an improper setting, or with an improper mindset. Ecstatsy was used as a psychotherapeutic drug for years. It is a methamphetamine, and can lead to depression, but almost all cases of death due to ecstasy are actually due to dehydration, due to the fact that it plays havoc on your bodies temperature controls. Meth is dangerous, no doubt about it.

I have seen what they do to people. Some people are prone to addictive behaviors. If not drugs, then food, sex, gambling, what-have-you. Those people would find something to ruin their lives with anyway. As a libertarian, I'm sure you can see how people who use drugs responsibly don't like to be punished for the actions of a small minority. I educate myself on the physical and psychological properties of any substance I ingest, and I can honestly say that for most people, most drugs are not nearly as bad as society makes them out to be. And that disjunct between drug myth and drug reality makes many people question the dangers of even truely dangerous drugs like meth.

Let me set the record straight. This site has links to various recent studies on this topic.

The U.S. Government does not want you to know this, but all the studies that have been done regarding the effect of marijuana on driving show that it has very little impact on driving performance.

UK: Cannabis May Make You A Safer Driver (2000)

University Of Toronto Study Shows Marijuana Not A Factor In Driving Accidents (1999) (To be fair, this one is a "study of studies")

Australia: Cannabis Crash Risk Less: Study (1998)

Believe it or not, there's even one from the United States!

Being high on marijuana has not been demonstrated to have a negative effect on driving performance.
http://www.ccguide.org.uk/driving.html

The tales of marijuana's health risks, like tales of Mark Twain's death in 1897, are greatly exaggerated.

The relationship between cancer and marijuana seems to be a myth. Consider that the lung effects apply only if you smoke it instead of eat it (people smoke it for maximum affect because of the inflated cost due to prohibition. Also, unlike tobacco, marijuana enlarges rather than restricts passages so the airways don't become clogged. It is particles that stick in the lungs for very long periods of time that cause cancer. And while it was reported that marijuana was more carcinogenic than tobacco, people smoke less of it. Also, the claims of its carcinogenic properties are falsified. Marijuana was shown to be less irritating than tobacco to 28 out of 29 areas of the lung. The one area where it appeared more irritating (irritating != cancerous) was an area where tobacco has little effect (so, you have a division by zero problem here). After that, government funding was cut to all studies of those 28 areas of the lung. Oh, and pot doesn't need all the radioactive fertilizer used on tobacco (you did know that one of the ways of disposing of certain types of radioactive waste is to scatter them by incorporating them into fertilizer). "[...] not one single case of lung cancer in someone who only smoked cannabis, has ever been reported." . On the contrary, marijuana smoking has actually been shown to be benificial for emphysema, cancer patients with nausea, glacoma patients. And it has been shown that cigarette smokers are healthier if they also smoke pot. And one study that was commissioned to show immunosuppression actually showed that marijuanna reduced tumers.

The DEA administration must have shit bricks sideways when their own agency Judge concluded:

In strict medical terms marijuana is far safer than many foods we commonly consume. For example, eating ten raw potatoes can result in a toxic response. By comparison, it is physically impossible to eat enough marijuana to induce death. [...] Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.

Study after study commissioned by the government has come out in favor of marijuana. The government has taken to commissioning bogus studies that do not specify the test methods used and it has taken years to sue for that information which once released is immediately ripped to shreds. For example a study that showed that marijuana destroyed brain cells in monkeys actually proved that suffocation destroyed brain cells (equivalent of 63 joints administered in 15 minutes through a facemask). They still also like to quote studies by Dr. Nahas who has 1) been renounced by his own university, 2) been declared ineligable for NIH funding, 3) 3) been subject to ridicule by other scientists, and 5) renounced his own studies in 1983. "Study Finds No Association Between Marijuana Use And Incidence Of Oral Cancer" . This study refutes a previous study that had shown a cancer link. However, the prior studies "control" group, which the marijuana smokers were compared to, consisted of blood doners; blood doners are a lower risk population than the population at large.

Next time you see a study mentioned in the press about marijuana, get a copy of it and see who funded it, if its conclusions were accurately reported, if the conclusions were supported by the results, and if the methodology is sound.

Most of the health information cited comes from the first link, since that is the source I read most recently. Sometimes I really do wonder why I don't use the stuff myself.

Hemp for Fuel

Google