*promote for 4/20

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, April 20th, 2010 1:40pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter volumptuous.

#1 is the best reason as far as I'm concerned. Plus 13 Billion dollars a year, how can that be bad?

>> ^Duckman33:

#1 is the best reason as far as I'm concerned. Plus 13 Billion dollars a year, how can that be bad?


Certainly not bad for us. But it is bad for the recipients of the $7.7bn in federal spending on the war on Marijuana; law enforcement and prisons. And generally, they have more political power than potheads.

This is a great example of a relatively small but powerful group who's special deal with the government seems to trump the public good. Like corn farmers.

For us ignorants, what's the 420 thing?

>> ^kymbos:

For us ignorants, what's the 420 thing?


It's just a code for weed and lighting up.

>> ^kymbos:

For us ignorants, what's the 420 thing?


is on wiki, kids used to smoke at 4:20 in the 70s...

Also weed is harmless? try telling that to the kids for whom it triggered a debilitating-life ruining schizophrenic episode.

Even so, legalizing would do a fuck load more good, than bad.

>> ^kymbos:

For us ignorants, what's the 420 thing?


Sadly, everyone was too baked to remember.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/20/420-meaning-the-true-stor_n_543854.html

I have virginal lungs and even I say legalize it! Let freedom ring from the mountain tops to the alleys where people smoke out!

it seems there is a predisposition for schizophrenia among those cases...

"Schizophrenia can sometimes be triggered by heavy use of hallucinogenic drugs, especially LSD; but it appears that one has to have a genetic predisposition towards developing schizophrenia for this to occur. There is also some evidence suggesting that people suffering from schizophrenia but responding to treatment can have an episode as a result of use of LSD. Methamphetamine and PCP also mimic the symptoms of schizophrenia, and can trigger ongoing symptoms of schizophrenia in those who are vulnerable."


>> ^Raaagh:

is on wiki, kids used to smoke at 4:20 in the 70s...
Also weed is harmless? try telling that to the kids for whom it triggered a debilitating-life ruining schizophrenic episode.
Even so, legalizing would do a fuck load more good, than bad.

UP TO THE TOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's not "IF", it's "WHEN".

>> ^joel_eb:

UP TO THE TOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it's not "IF", it's "WHEN".


I disagree. A conservative PR campaign could still swing votes towards opposition. The fight to end prohibition needs to be maintained.

>> ^Raaagh:

is on wiki, kids used to smoke at 4:20 in the 70s...
Also weed is harmless? try telling that to the kids for whom it triggered a debilitating-life ruining schizophrenic episode.
Even so, legalizing would do a fuck load more good, than bad.

Yeah, sorry ragh but i've yet to see any proof for this other than speculation and anecdotal stuff. I would then like more proof to show that it wasn't just coincidental.

Like those studies that show 5 pieces of fruit a day makes you live longer, and suddenly we find out that people who eat 5 pieces of fruit a day are just more healthy in general and so live longer.

I believe the psychological problems angle was dropped a while ago because it had lost all credibility, and the only angle left was the "gateway drug" bullshit.

I don't smoke it, but even i know that the side effects are nowhere near as bad as alcohol or tobacco. Both of which can be abused and result in premature death or health problems. So let's not pretend that minor side effects are a big reason to ban something, shall we?

A- That's nonsense
B- Nothing in life is harmless
C- Not everything is about "kids". There are adults on this planet too.

>> ^Raaagh:
Also weed is harmless? try telling that to the kids for whom it triggered a debilitating-life ruining schizophrenic episode.

Alcohol, which is legal, makes me easily agitated and quick to initiate violence. Marijuana, which is illegal, makes me introspective, creative, hungry, and empathetic to those around me. Though I guess some of that depends on the strain, I've never once had anything negative happen to me other than getting a citation from a cop to go to court and attend a drug awareness class at a community college in Costa Mesa, CA -- where, oddly enough, the ex-cop teaching the class told us it didn't matter if we smoke it as long as we're behind closed doors on our own private property and not visible to pedestrians outside the enclosure. Obviously it DOES matter, but the sentiment of the ex-cop represents the "spirit" of most law enforcement (in California) towards the average user. Needless to say, the community college parking lot smelled delicious. Drug awareness, fah!

1. Prohibition is morally unjustifiable.

There are no other relevant arguments.

That's the usual argument from objectivists. Morally unjustifiable. Pfft, morals are tainted by points of view, so depending on who you ask, there's a different answer.

Just cost/benefit that shit and figure out if theres a higher cost than the benefit. Some people will say, absolutely, some will say absolutely not and a whole bunch of people will be in the grey area in between.

The problem is not the principle of prohibition; lots of things are illegal that should probably stay illegal, but that weed is not proportionally regulated compared to alcohol and cigarettes. It's thrown out into illegal land with meth, crack and heroin, which is hardly a fitting policy, when you look at its impact on people and society.

>> ^gorillaman:

1. Prohibition is morally unjustifiable.
There are no other relevant arguments.

>> ^gwiz665:

That's the usual argument from objectivists. Morally unjustifiable. Pfft, morals are tainted by points of view, so depending on who you ask, there's a different answer.
Just cost/benefit that shit and figure out if theres a higher cost than the benefit. Some people will say, absolutely, some will say absolutely not and a whole bunch of people will be in the grey area in between.
The problem is not the principle of prohibition; lots of things are illegal that should probably stay illegal, but that weed is not proportionally regulated compared to alcohol and cigarettes. It's thrown out into illegal land with meth, crack and heroin, which is hardly a fitting policy, when you look at its impact on people and society.


That's the usual argument from relativists. Pfft, by taking the time to argue the point aren't you implicitly accepting a common standard of truth? Without it no debate is possible. One standard, one correct solution.

Cannabis belongs with meth, crack and heroin - on a shelf in your local supermarket, next to the aspirin.

As long as its clearly marked, like tobacco and alcohol, I would have no problems with that. The benefits outweigh the cost of it - I would think, anyway.

>> ^gorillaman:

>> ^gwiz665:
That's the usual argument from objectivists. Morally unjustifiable. Pfft, morals are tainted by points of view, so depending on who you ask, there's a different answer.
Just cost/benefit that shit and figure out if theres a higher cost than the benefit. Some people will say, absolutely, some will say absolutely not and a whole bunch of people will be in the grey area in between.
The problem is not the principle of prohibition; lots of things are illegal that should probably stay illegal, but that weed is not proportionally regulated compared to alcohol and cigarettes. It's thrown out into illegal land with meth, crack and heroin, which is hardly a fitting policy, when you look at its impact on people and society.

That's the usual argument from relativists. Pfft, by taking the time to argue the point aren't you implicitly accepting a common standard of truth? Without it no debate is possible. One standard, one correct solution.
Cannabis belongs with meth, crack and heroin - on a shelf in your local supermarket, next to the aspirin.