In response to:

I Am Not Stoned: Sobering Realities For Taxpayers On The Road To Legalizing Marijuana

michigander4 Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 8:06 AM
I have always been opposed to legalizing pot. My kid sister, on the other hand, grew up in the culture and relies on the "It's-no-different-than-alcohol" argument when we debate the issue. The two arguments I use against legalization are, 1. It's a gateway to hard drugs. While it's true that not everyone (including my sister) who starts with pot moves on to hard drugs, it is also true that virtually all hard drug users started with pot. 2. Most consumers of alcohol limit their drinking to social functions outside the workplace – we don’t see workingmen or women drop what they’re doing at 10 o’clock in the morning to take a 15-minute whiskey break. I believe the opposite would be true if pot were legalized. Bring on the pot-smoking trolls.
FlamingLiberalMultiCulturalist Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 10:05 AM
michigander4:
"... that not everyone (including my sister) who starts with pot moves on to hard drugs, it is also true that virtually all hard drug users started with pot."

Substitute the word 'beer' for 'pot', and the statement is just as true. Use 'milk' instead of beer, the satement is again just as true. It's not an argument agaainst legalization.

michigander:
"..Pot breaks (with union backing) would become as common as coffee breaks."

With more empirical data and precedent, and less prerjudice towards people who use pot, I say that pot breaks will be as common as beer breaks.
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 12:07 PM
RE: "Use 'milk' instead of beer, the satement is again just as true."

That's convoluted logic. Not all people who drank milk or beer become hard drug users. But nearly 100% of hard drug users smoked pot before moving to the hard stuff. Put that in your pot pipe & smoke it. LMFAO
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 12:19 PM
That's weird logic, too. Not all people who smoke pot become hard drug users. But nearly 100% of hard drug users drank alcohol before moving to the hard stuff. Put that in your glass and drink it.
And here's another link with a link to a study to back that up:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/05/study-the-gateway-drug-is-alcohol-not-marijuana/
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 12:34 PM
Studies conducted by pot heads don't impress me.
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 12:47 PM
People who will criticize the evidence that others provide while refusing to provide any of their own don't impress me.
I'm honestly surprised you'll throw away that research so quickly. It makes intuitive sense - ethanol is the most common psychoacitve drug in our society and the first one that most users will encounter. Doesn't logic hold that alcohol, then, is the real gateway drug?
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 6:13 PM
I never said alcohol wasn't a gateway drug. What I'm opposed to is legalizing yet another gateway drug. Alcohol, for all of its supposed evils, is a substance that man has been dealing with since the dawn of time. Legalizing pot is only the first step in legalizing all mind-altering substances. We already have about 30% of the population that won't get off the couch and go to work. Now we should have the other 70% on the porch in a semi-stupor waiting for the postman to deliver their next gubmint check. It ain't the kind of world I want to leave for my grandkids.
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 7:12 PM
Kinda surreal to hear alleged conservatives suddenly calling for the government to protect the unwitting citizen from himself. I'm guessing you support illegalizing big sodas, too?
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 10:57 PM
Illegalizing big sodas, too?

So, now you're conveniently a Libertarian? The sure sign of someone who lost a debate for lack of a logical argument, ie: Change the subject. LMAO
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 12:04 AM
Who changed the subject? Yes or no - do you think the government should keep pot illegal because ordinary people cannot be trusted to make good decisions about it? That's what it sounds like, and that's the same argument levied against big sodas.
(btw, what you're doing is called a Straw Man. Just some fun trivia!)
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 12:32 AM
RE: "Yes or no - do you think the government should keep pot illegal because ordinary people cannot be trusted to make good decisions about it?"

Are 12-year-old kids "ordinary people?" Can they be trusted to make good decisions about it? Think about it -- do you want your kids/grandkids growing up in a country where "anything" goes.... whatever feels good? Maybe you do, but I don't.
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 6:03 AM
Those 12-year-olds actually have more access to pot than ethanol today BECAUSE it's illegal. Liquor stores card - drug dealers don't.
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 6:57 AM
Maybe you have drug dealers selling to 12-year-olds in your town. We don't; we shoot 'em on sight.
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 11:32 AM
So you shoot kids? It's a sinister guy in the back alley selling to kids - it's kids in the bathroom.
Before I look up another reference or five to back me up that you'll just discount as "by potheads," let's just establish whether or not there's any point to us talking anymore:

Is there anything I could possibly tell you, any research I could possibly provide, that would convince you that marijuana prohibition makes pot easier for kids to access than marijuana legalization would? Are you open to the possibility that this, counterintuitive as it sounds, could possibly be true, or are you just going to sneer and call me a pothead some more?
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 11:45 AM
Ahem. It's NOT a sinister guy in a back alley - overwhelmingly, it's other kids who sell kids pot.
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 2:33 PM
RE: "......overwhelmingly, it's other kids who sell kids pot."

Yeah, right.... and other kids plant it, fertilize it, cultivate it, harvest it, package it, smuggle it and sell it to the kids who then sell it to our kids. No sinister guys involved at all. Just children of the world (BTW, wasn't there a hippy song by that title?) LMFAO
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 20, 2012 3:35 PM
And that whole operation you just mentioned has no incentive not to sell to kids since they are just as illegal to sell to as everyone else, right? Whereas if you were legally selling pot, there would be incentive to avoid selling to kids, just like liquor stores have. There'd be slips, of course, just like with liquor, but the point is the people who sell pot now have no reason to keep it from kids, and if it were legal, they would. Do you accept that reasoning?
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 6:48 AM
Every time I blow one of your postulations out of the water ("It's only kids selling to kids") you throw something else against the wall to see if it will stick. It won't. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this subject. It is my belief that pot has no socially redeeming value. I know that it's readilly available even though it's illegal, but that's not good reason to legalize it. Heroin & meth are also readilly available, and those substances shouldn't be legalized either. At least when a substance is illegal a message is sent that the stuff probably ain't good for you -- whereas if it were legalized, kids would conclude that, "Hey, it's legal.... must be okay to use it." (continued)
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 6:53 AM
A case can be made that pot is no worse than alcohol. I don't totally subscribe to that, but even if true, why would we want to legalize yet another mind-altering drug? I believe in the "slippery slope" theory, where all standards of behavior are being chucked out the window, and I'm simply doing all I can to forestall that inevitability for as long as possible for my grandchildren.
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 21, 2012 3:17 PM
Yeah, I agree. I think that keeping pot illegal causes many more problems than it solves, and that legalizing it would reduce those problems, reducing crime; reducing government waste on an unsuccessful war; and reducing the chance that some kid will try pot, realize it's not the horrible substance that his government told him it was, and then try heroin thinking that maybe none of the drugs the government warned him about are as bad as they claimed. But yeah, we're not going to convince each other. Have a happy thanksgiving, then.
IMCN-Red Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 8:23 AM
Those are your two arguments against? No wonder your kid sister doesn't listen.
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 11:44 AM
RE: "Those are your two arguments against? No wonder your kid sister doesn't listen."

Hell, my kid sister thinks it's okay to drive a car after smoking pot..... says it's not the same as driving after drinking..... says she actually drives better after burning one. Any of you trolls want to defend that, too? LMFAO
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 8:19 AM
As for your first reason: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/22/yale-study-alcohols-gateway-effect-much-larger-than-marijuanas/
So you kid sister takes the point on that one.
And for your second reason, we DO see some of those people (they're called alcoholics), but generally you're right. Everyone I know who smokes pot is gainfully employed and has no trouble keeping it from their workplace.
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 8:22 AM
Post-clarification - why do you think that would be true? Pot's not like tobacco where you can just smoke it and get back to work. if people can control themselves now with the cops cracking down, what reason is there to believe they won't be able to control themselves when it's their bosses and social pressure at work cracking down?
rreid Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 10:28 AM
But if legal how would they react?
jwilliams Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 11:08 AM
Probably the same way they react to alcohol, a legal intoxicant that they also enjoy, being legal - not using it at work.
michigander4 Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 8:16 AM
To clarify the last sentence:
I believe the opposite would be true if pot were legalized. Pot breaks (with union backing) would become as common as coffee breaks.
Chris from Kalifornia Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 10:45 AM
It's only a gateway because you have to go to a drug dealer to get it.
Wayne from the Hoosier state Wrote: Nov 19, 2012 11:29 AM
How certain are you of that?

Pot fans got what they wanted in Colorado: they finally convinced voters there to support the legalization of “recreational marijuana.” It’s seen as a huge victory for those who support the powers of the individual states, and a great example of “federalism” in action. But who is considering the burden of all of this on the American taxpayer?

Before I go further, let me be clear: I have never in my entire life consumed marijuana. When I was a kid I was out of step with my peers on this, but I’ve just never been interested in “trying it,” and that’s...