Marijuana

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

But what about personal freedom? Applying outrageous taxes to something to raise the price is just as bad as outlawing it.

</p>

<p>Not at all. The difference between taxing and outlawing is clear and drastic.</p>

<p>

It’s an incredibly conceited view to think that you know exactly what’s best for the populace and to think that you should use the government’s power to force people into not doing what you deem “stupid ****.”

</p>

<p>Not really. Obviously something like suicide is harmful to a person and not in their best interest. Other lesser harms are likewise not in the person’s best interest (to a lesser degree). Then it’s worth considering that nobody lives in a vacuum, and that anything a person does effects the people around them. I think anyone would agree that your freedom to harm the people around you should be limited. And of course taxation does not by any means force someone not to do something.</p>

<p>And thanks for the lecture on the rhetorical effect of sarcasm. Would you like a lecture on the rhetorical effect of hyperbole?</p>

[jackbenimble4]

<p>

Then it’s worth considering that nobody lives in a vacuum, and that anything a person does effects the people around them. I think anyone would agree that your freedom to harm the people around you should be limited.

</p>

<p>Here lies the fundamental differences in our opinions. I suppose if you accept that the collective is more important than the individual, you would feel justified in limiting personal freedom like you suggest. I could never accept that fundamental premise.</p>

<p>

And of course taxation does not by any means force someone not to do something.

</p>

<p>Taxation is, by its very nature, a forceful action. And, if you consider the extremes of taxation, it obviously is a forceful means of preventing personal behavior.</p>

<p>

And thanks for the lecture on the rhetorical effect of sarcasm. Would you like a lecture on the rhetorical effect of hyperbole?

</p>

<p>“Lecture?” No, that’s quite alright. It seems you just adequately demonstrated it yourself.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

Here lies the fundamental differences in our opinions. I suppose if you accept that the collective is more important than the individual, you would feel justified in limiting personal freedom like you suggest. I could never accept that fundamental premise.

</p>

<p>I don’t think it makes any sense to distinguish between the individual and the collective, as the collective is just all other individuals. It doesn’t make any sense to limit the freedom of those other individuals so as to accommodate a single person.</p>

<p>

Taxation is, by its very nature, a forceful action. And, if you consider the extremes of taxation, it obviously is a forceful means of preventing personal behavior.

</p>

<p>Something can be forceful without actually forcing something. Sitting on a box suspended by strong cables, for instance, may impart a force on the box without actually moving. Now in extreme cases, the box may move, and you’ll have my sympathy when the government makes you pay $1M for a box of cigarettes.</p>

[jackbenimble4]

<p>

I don’t think it makes any sense to distinguish between the individual and the collective, as the collective is just all other individuals. It doesn’t make any sense to limit the freedom of those other individuals so as to accommodate a single person.

</p>

<p>Let’s be clear, you’re not “[limiting] the freedom of those other individuals” by not applying a sin tax to people who smoke. The other individuals are not losing freedoms when someone lights up. There’s a difference between losing freedoms and being inconvenienced.</p>

<p>

Something can be forceful without actually forcing something. Sitting on a box suspended by strong cables, for instance, may impart a force on the box without actually moving. Now in extreme cases, the box may move, and you’ll have my sympathy when the government makes you pay $1M for a box of cigarettes.

</p>

<p>We’re dealing with minute semantics here. As I understand it, you admit that a sin tax forcefully prevents a certain personal behavior, but to a degree relative to the size of the tax, which I can concede.</p>

<p>However, I find the very notion of violence, or force, being used to prevent or influence personal behavior repulsive. After all, isn’t violence itself worse than the harm a smoker does to society?</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

Let’s be clear, you’re not “[limiting] the freedom of those other individuals” by not applying a sin tax to people who smoke. The other individuals are not losing freedoms when someone lights up. There’s a difference between losing freedoms and being inconvenienced.

</p>

<p>First of all, the harm to others often goes beyond inconvenience. Second hand smoke can be very dangerous, and alcoholism can have very harmful effects too, from the destruction of families to car crashes. Being able to live is the most important freedom.</p>

<p>If one assumes that as a result of taxes, less people smoke (or whatever), then that does help people that would otherwise be affected.</p>

<p>

However, I find the very notion of violence, or force, being used to prevent or influence personal behavior repulsive. After all, isn’t violence itself worse than the harm a smoker does to society?

</p>

<p>Tax =/= violence, however forceful each may be.</p>

[HonorsCentaur]

<p>I’m for legalization, but with limits.
Kinda like policies with alcohol and cigarettes and stuff, there’s gotta be age restrictions.</p>

[proletariat2]

<p>

I assume by “we” you mean the government.</p>

<p>Our economy definitely does not need sin taxes. In fact, without sin taxes, consumers would save considerable amounts of money. Those savings would then be spent in other industries, spurring employment and more economic production. We, undoubtedly, do not need sin taxes to “survive economically as a country.”</p>

<p>The government may be currently relying on sin taxes, but by no means does even the government need sin taxes to “survive economically.” We could abolish all sin taxes and in replace, raise taxes across the board in a nondiscriminatory way. Or, better yet, reduce the size of government to compensate for lost revenue.

</p>

<p>Um.</p>

<p>We are the government.</p>

<p>Yeah.</p>

[jackbenimble4]

<p>

First of all, the harm to others often goes beyond inconvenience. Second hand smoke can be very dangerous, and alcoholism can have very harmful effects too, from the destruction of families to car crashes. Being able to live is the most important freedom.</p>

<p>If one assumes that as a result of taxes, less people smoke (or whatever), then that does help people that would otherwise be affected.

</p>

<p>The problem is that a sin tax legislates against all uses of cigarettes or all uses of alcohol. It doesn’t isolate the bad behavior, such as smoking in a publicly-owned place or drinking and driving. Everyone, including people who only light up in their cars or only have one drink safely within their homes, is taxed.</p>

<p>In addition, for issues like second-hand smoke, in most cases it’s avoidable. I agree with legislation prohibiting smoking on publicly-owned property, such as sidewalks. But other private places such as restaurants or bars or even malls all succumb to market pressure. If the majority of people don’t want to have to breathe in someone’s smoke while they’re eating, most restaurants will adopt no-smoking policies. For the people who don’t care, or want to smoke as they eat, a few restaurants will remain smoking friendly. </p>

<p>The effects of smoking on the rest of the populace are almost nothing. They’re just faced with the inconvenience of ensuring the places they visit are smoking free before they visit them. </p>

<p>

Tax =/= violence, however forceful each may be.

</p>

<p>If you don’t pay the tax, you’re violently arrested and imprisoned. We often forget that behind the request for payment that is a tax, there is the looming threat of violence if we don’t. </p>

<p>The very idea of governance is centered around the use of violence.</p>

[romanigypsyeyes]

<p>^ You know, if you hate the government, you are more than welcome to move to a country without taxes :).</p>

[jackbenimble4]

<p>

Um.</p>

<p>We are the government.</p>

<p>Yeah.

</p>

<p>Our government’s economic survival and our economical survival are two very different things, as I clearly explained in that post.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>

The very idea of governance is centered around the use of violence.

</p>

<p>So what? I think this is the fundamental philosophical difference.</p>

[jackbenimble4]

<p>

^ You know, if you hate the government, you are more than welcome to move to a country without taxes .

</p>

<p>I’m not an anarchist.</p>

<p>

So what? I think this is the fundamental philosophical difference.

</p>

<p>So the violence of government should only be used in response to other violence. Putting aside the revenue argument as we did earlier, a sin tax uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.</p>

<p>I think you may be right. This may be where our fundamental differences are.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>Requiring that kids goes to school uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Illegalizing shoplifting uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Illegalizing corporate fraud uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Car emissions requirements use violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Health and Safety regulations use violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Requiring cooperation with airport security uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Restricting libel and slander uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Any governance uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.</p>

<p>If you’re not advocating anarchy, then this point is completely irrelevant to the actual issue.</p>

[jackbenimble4]

<p>

If you’re not advocating anarchy, then this point is completely irrelevant to the actual issue.

</p>

<p>I’m not advocating anarchy, but I am advocating libertarianism. </p>

<p>

Requiring that kids goes to school uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Illegalizing shoplifting uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Illegalizing corporate fraud uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Car emissions requirements use violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Health and Safety regulations use violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Requiring cooperation with airport security uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Restricting libel and slander uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.
Any governance uses violence to punish a nonviolent act.

</p>

<p>I don’t know whether you want me to go individually through each of those cases, but for each one I’d either agree in the immorality of the government program you mentioned, or disagree with your assessment of the act as nonviolent. </p>

<p>To give a few examples:
I don’t support compulsory education.
Shoplifting is theft, which is an aggressive and violent act.
Fraud, in all its types, is also theft.
Car emissions damage not only your own property but the property of others, which is, succinctly, violence.</p>

[ThisCouldBeHeavn]

<p>violence - rough or injurious physical force</p>

<p>

Cigarette emissions damage not only your own property but the property of others, which is, succinctly, violence.

</p>

[jackbenimble4]

<p>

violence - rough or injurious physical force

</p>

<p>Alright, maybe I’m misusing the word violence. How about agression? </p>

<p>

Cigarette emissions damage not only your own property but the property of others, which is, succinctly, violence.

</p>

<p>As I already stated, I completely agree—when it actually does damage others’ property without their consent. Smoking in your home doesn’t harm anyone or anyone’s property. Smoking in a smoking restaurant may damage the restaurant’s furniture and other customers’ lungs, but it does so with the restaurants and the customers’ consent. When you walk into a private establishment like a restaurant, you agree to abide by their rules, which include tolerating smoking in a smoking establishment.</p>

[proletariat2]

<p>People are dumb and don’t want taxes. Sin taxes are the only non-controversial taxes. You go out and convince millions of people to take an income tax hike and then come back.</p>

<p>

Our government’s economic survival and our economical survival are two very different things, as I clearly explained in that post.

</p>

<p>The government doesn’t “need” sin taxes. The people have come to expect certain services, and government (which is made of people who have been chosen by other people…you know) uses sin taxes as a means of fulfilling those expectations. It still doesn’t defy the basic logic that, economically speaking, government would collapse without the people, and the people would collapse without government (although a new government would probably quickly form), because in the case of America they are (theoretically) the same. (And still largely in practice.)</p>

[connormesan]

<p>Agreed. You can’t separate the government’s health (measured in economic terms) from our society’s or individuals’ economic survival.</p>

[andrewexd]

<p>the misconceptions (or plain ignorance) in this thread is sad, mostly because people actually believe the BS they teach you in DARE or in 7th grade health class, especially people who don’t live on the coasts.</p>

<p>The FACTS are that marijuana </p>

<p>dos not kill brain cells (I can’t believe they still teach this)
does not cause cancer
does not kill
is not physically addictive
does not impair the ability to drive (well not enough)
80% of all illegal drug users ONLY use marijuana
people are overwhelmingly in favor of legalizing medical marijuana (70-80% last time I saw)
eases pain, helps people keep food down and makes food delicious (too bad for me), helps people sleep (insomniacs) and can help people with ms, cancer, aids, etc.
there is not ONE case of marijuana caused death in history of the US.
It would take over 20,000 joints smoked in 20 minutes to overdose (you would pass out before anyway)
has not risen in potency (THC). I still laugh that I learned this in the 8th grade. The THC content in marijuana is based on the plant itself. Low-grade (schwag, mexi brick) weed will have low THC contents compared to that dank **** they sell at medical clinics. Also, you can control how much you smoke ! </p>

<p>think about it, have you ever heard on the news “man jumps off a building, smoked weed.” or “10 car pile up, under the influence of marijuana” me neither. Marijuana is not physically addicting, it can be psychologically addicting of course, but anything can be (ie. world of warcraft, food, exercise).</p>

<p>I have no problems with people who think marijuana should illegal, that is your opinon. but don’t go around bashing it and spreading bull **** for no reason. Marijuana was illegalized in the 30s because mexicans and other immigrants were “stealing” jobs in America. William Hearst went on a smear campaign writing fake news articles about the dangers of marijuana and the propaganda films like reefer madness. The gov. creates the stamp act to sell or buy weed, but they don’t exist and weed is officially outlawed. </p>

<p>Guess what ? prohibition doesn’t work, that’s why alcohol prohibition was lifted. When you prohibit something especially a plant, people will find ways to get it. Except now that it’s illegal you have the mob making moonshine and people getting killed over alcohol. Same with marijuana, we have the drug now in the hands of drug dealers and cartels, drug dealers don’t check ID.</p>

<p>In California marijuana IS the #1 cash crop (2nd is grapes), so obviously making something illegal works right ? If you regulate and tax marijuana you take it out of the criminals hands and you let the government control it. Buying weed in LA is easier than buying alcohol, especially in high school / college. Not to mention if you put a $50 tax on every ounce the state will bring in billions of dollars every year and the overall price of marijuana will go down drastically. It’s ridiculous if you think about it, an ounce of dank costs like $300 for a PLANT. How many plants cost $300 an ounce let alone $10 an ounce ? so now you bring down the price of weed, you run the cartels out of business. </p>

<p>I didn’t want to get into this, but if weed was legal the gov. could not justify the billions they spend on the “war on drugs”. 80% of all drug users only use marijuana. No prisoners = no money. Most prescription and OTC drugs are obsolete compared to mmj without any of the harmful side effects. Unless you think the munchies, being tired and having short term memory loss is harmful. </p>

<p>Smoking marijuana can cause breathing/lung problems as any smoke would. also, weed teaches kids the metric system. lol. </p>

<p>California has a ballot to legalize weed THIS YEAR in November. so go vote vote vote (unless you’re voting against ) I think its AB390 </p>

<p>here’s some links if you don’t want to believe me. </p>

<p>general
[Above</a> The Influence of Ignorance | Medical Marijuana & Hemp Facts](<a href=“http://www.abovetheignorance.org/faq.html#a1]Above”>http://www.abovetheignorance.org/faq.html#a1)
history
[History</a> of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States](<a href=“http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm]History”>History of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs in the United States - Introduction)
does not cause lung cancer
[Large</a> Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer: Scientific American](<a href=“http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=large-study-finds-no-link]Large”>Large Study Finds No Link between Marijuana and Lung Cancer | Scientific American)
no brain damage
[Heavy</a> Marijuana Use Doesn’t Damage Brain](<a href=“http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20030701/heavy-marijuana-use-doesnt-damage-brain]Heavy”>Mental Health Disorders Center: Types, Symptoms, Treatments, Tests, and Causes)
does not cause cancer
[Study</a> fails to find link between marijuana use and cancer](<a href=“http://www.ur.umich.edu/0607/Oct16_06/01.shtml]Study”>http://www.ur.umich.edu/0607/Oct16_06/01.shtml)
does not impair ability to drive (only affect is driving SLOWER)
<a href=“http://cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html[/url]”>http://cannabisculture.com/articles/4131.html&lt;/a&gt;
gov. info
[Marijuana</a> - InfoFacts - NIDA](<a href=“http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html]Marijuana”>http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofacts/marijuana.html)
shrinks tumors
[Pot</a> Shrinks Tumors; Government Knew in '74 | | AlterNet](<a href=“http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/]Pot”>http://www.alternet.org/story/9257/)
promotes brain cell growth
<a href=“http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20050913230228_health_news.shtml[/url]”>http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20050913230228_health_news.shtml&lt;/a&gt;
reduces lung cancer and tumors
[Marijuana</a> Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows](<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm]Marijuana”>Marijuana cuts lung cancer tumor growth in half, study shows | ScienceDaily)</p>

<p>tell me if you want more scientific proof.</p>

<p>The Union is a fantastic documentary about marijuana and i would highly recommend it. </p>

<p><a href=“http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007[/url]”>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

[andrewexd]

<p>these are the negative side effects (<a href=“http://www.erowid.org%5B/url%5D”>www.erowid.org</a> )</p>

<p>although I can honestly say the only ones that have happened to me is coughing and clumsiness. Maybe paranoia I will get caught by the police. </p>

<ul>
<li>nausea, especially in combination with alcohol, some pharmaceuticals, or other psychoactives </li>
<li>coughing, asthma, upper respiratory problems </li>
<li>difficulty with short term memory during effects and during periods of frequent use (Ranganathan M, D’Souza DC, Psychopharmacology, 2006) </li>
<li>racing heart, agitation, feeling tense </li>
<li>mild to severe anxiety </li>
<li>panic attacks in sensitive users or with very high doses (oral use increases risk of getting too much) </li>
<li>headaches </li>
<li>dizziness, confusion </li>
<li>lightheadedness or fainting (in cases of lowered blood pressure) </li>
<li>paranoid & anxious thoughts more frequent </li>
<li>possible psychological dependence on cannabis </li>
<li>clumsiness, loss of coordination at high doses </li>
<li>can precipitate or exacerbate latent or existing mental disorders</li>
</ul>

<p>wanna know the side effects of ibuprofen ? (advil) <a href=“Yahoo | Mail, Weather, Search, Politics, News, Finance, Sports & Videos”>http://health.yahoo.com/pain-medications/ibuprofen/healthwise--d00015a1.html#d00015a1-sideeffects&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>chest pain, weakness, shortness of breath, slurred speech, problems with vision or balance;
black, bloody, or tarry stools;
coughing up blood or vomit that looks like coffee grounds;
swelling or rapid weight gain;
urinating less than usual or not at all;
nausea, stomach pain, low fever, loss of appetite, dark urine, clay-colored stools, jaundice (yellowing of the skin or eyes);
fever, sore throat, and headache with a severe blistering, peeling, and red skin rash;
bruising, severe tingling, numbness, pain, muscle weakness; or
fever, headache, neck stiffness, chills, increased sensitivity to light, purple spots on the skin, and/or seizure (convulsions).
Less serious side effects may include:</p>

<p>upset stomach, mild heartburn, diarrhea, constipation;
bloating, gas;
dizziness, headache, nervousness;
skin itching or rash;
blurred vision; or
ringing in your ears.</p>