As I say, I'm for decriminalization. I'm for taking the criminal shame/blame and miscarriage of legal justice out of it. And yet, I personally cannot support something that I don't want continued. Particularly in the realm of substance abuse. To support it, condone it, or turn a blind eye to it is enabling it, which is an equally psychologically maladaptive stance, and a part of the toxic puzzle. So, to return the issue to the realm of the psyche, and address the actual issues is where I stand, and decriminalization is a start.
We're somewhat on the same page...
However, I don't think that taking the criminal shame/blame, and miscarriage of justice out of it is akin to supporting, condoning or enabling. It's simply a more just, more humanitarian, more economically sound approach to the issue of substance abuse.
but substance abuse, no matter how detrimental to one's body, should really only be only the business of those who wish to abuse it. in the decriminalized society many of us seem to support, someone with a habit or an addiction would have a much better chance at maintaining a livelihood in which they could be a working, productive member of society. this is much harder than a society in which all drugs are illegal. So what if a person chooses to work primarily to support a habit? how is that any different than someone working just so they can afford premium cable so they can sit on their ass and wach tv all day?
angelica, i fear it may sound as though i'm posting to argue with you, but i assure you that's not my intention. your posts are interesting and insightful, so i'm simply enjoying the exchange
I always welcome respectful countering of opinions.
No matter what works well in theory, what is ultimately needed is the support of many, many people with the idea of decriminalization.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
We're somewhat on the same page...
However, I don't think that taking the criminal shame/blame, and miscarriage of justice out of it is akin to supporting, condoning or enabling. It's simply a more just, more humanitarian, more economically sound approach to the issue of substance abuse.
I could have been clearer with what I'm saying. I'm completely behind decriminization. And like yourself, I don't feel that decriminalizing it is at all about supporting or enabling. For sure.
I am not on board with legalization. Decriminalization has inherent to it the potential "slippery slope" of further decriminalization which is only beneficial in addressing the real issues. Again, this is not a criminal issue in my mind.
Legalization is a whole different ballgame. I wouldn't support enabling legalization and getting the ball rolling in that entirely different direction. I don't care what people do...I just won't personally support what I know is psychologically maladaptive, like many millions of others.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I could have been clearer with what I'm saying. I'm completely behind decriminization. And like yourself, I don't feel that decriminalizing it is at all about supporting or enabling. For sure.
I am not on board with legalization. Decriminalization has inherent to it the potential "slippery slope" of further decriminalization which is only beneficial in addressing the real issues. Again, this is not a criminal issue in my mind.
Legalization is a whole different ballgame. I wouldn't support enabling legalization and getting the ball rolling in that entirely different direction. I don't care what people do...I just won't personally support what I know is psychologically maladaptive, like many millions of others.
Ok, but is it better to condone criminal activity (cultivation/distribution) by decriminalizing or to condone drug use by legalizing?
Decriminilization does nothing to deal with the problems associated with the black market industry, and does not take enough burden off of law enforcement and the justice system....thereby allowing less funding for treatment. I honestly don't know what the answer is, I just find it soooo frustrating that the US government stifles any discussion of alternatives.
oh, and about the psychologically maladaptive practice angle...I know it's a crutch and I'm ok with that. It's better than most alternatives. To suggest that no one should have a vice is to pine for unachievable utopia....kudos to you if you recognize these issues and are able to deal with them, but for many it just doesn't work that way.
Right, because being direct is the same as being passively-agressive.
You know what they say about when you point the finger.........
no, i don't. but i know you have a knack for playing that "well, im pretty clearly right and if you don't see it it's becos there is something wrong with you and your perceptions" game.
Can you please explain how you see that decriminalization condones criminal activity?
As I understand decriminalization, it either makes a small amount legal for possession, or changes the laws from an offense that gives you a permanent criminal record to one that carries a fine....but still makes cultivation, production and distribution illegal and punishable by prison, etc. Is there not still a double standard? It has to come from somewhere...if we decrim, it does nothing to address the issues with organized crime or violence associated with vigilante justice in the trade. Some people would see decriminalizing street level use as condoning the crime in the industry.
Ok, but is it better to condone criminal activity (cultivation/distribution) by decriminalizing or to condone drug use by legalizing?
I don't support and/or condone the death penalty; I don't support and/or condone abortion; I don't support and/or condone the Iraq war. I don't support and/or condone many things, yet many things happen despite my own stance. And once more, I don't support or condone the criminal activity that accompanies drugs. I am not responsible for the criminal choices of others in any way, because I don't control those choices. I am very responsible for my own choices, however, and I take that seriously--as does the average person when forming opinions about important topics such as the ramifications of drug use.
As I understand decriminalization, it either makes a small amount legal for possession, or changes the laws from an offense that gives you a permanent criminal record to one that carries a fine....but still makes cultivation, production and distribution illegal and punishable by prison, etc. Is there not still a double standard? It has to come from somewhere...if we decrim, it does nothing to address the issues with organized crime or violence associated with vigilante justice in the trade. Some people would see decriminalizing street level use as condoning the crime in the industry.
You see a double standard. I do not. People looking to profit from drug "marketing" at the expense of humans, are accountable for their actions. Those who have a psychological substance abuse issue are responsible for their actions--and still having a substance abuse concern is very different than profiting from the fallibility of others.
This is one of those slippery slope arguments that prevents many from agreeing with even decriminalization--because it's clear the justifications that arise, pertaining to trying to set further and further precedents, that actually condone such behaviours. And people see that potential and do not accept that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
You see a double standard. I do not. People looking to profit from drug "marketing" at the expense of humans, are accountable for their actions. Those who have a psychological substance abuse issue are responsible for their actions--and still having a substance abuse concern is very different than profiting from the fallibility of others.
This is one of those slippery slope arguments that prevents many from agreeing with even decriminalization--because it's clear the justifications that arise, pertaining to trying to set further and further precedents, that actually condone such behaviours. And people see that potential and do not accept that.
are you not contradicting yourself by saying their is no double standard, but there is a slippery slope?
What about this....cultivation, in all suggested decriminalization scenarios I've seen, would still be illegal. If a marijuana user grew his own, and didn't sell or profit from it, he would still run the risk of being sent to jail for growing it. This is all I really care about in the decrim vs legalization debate. Let people grow their own.
I also do not understand this prevalent attitude towards condoning other people's behaviours. I don't overly care what you think about what I do...if it doesn't affect you, why should I care if you support my decision? I'm a grown up and I can make my own decisions. You say I use substances as a maladaptive practice to hide from my problems...that's your opinion. I could suggest that you hide in literature and overbearing grandstanding on message boards for the same reason, no? To each their own.
are you not contradicting yourself by saying their is no double standard, but there is a slippery slope?
I'm contradicting myself by making logical statements?
What about this....cultivation, in all suggested decriminalization scenarios I've seen, would still be illegal. If a marijuana user grew his own, and didn't sell or profit from it, he would still run the risk of being sent to jail for growing it. This is all I really care about in the decrim vs legalization debate. Let people grow their own.
I also do not understand this prevalent attitude towards condoning other people's behaviours. I don't overly care what you think about what I do...if it doesn't affect you, why should I care if you support my decision? I'm a grown up and I can make my own decisions. You say I use substances as a maladaptive practice to hide from my problems...that's your opinion. I could suggest that you hide in literature and overbearing grandstanding on message boards for the same reason, no? To each their own.
You can do exactly what you'd like to do. The issue here is that for your purposes, you need the support of many people in order to have the laws changed.
Many people, myself included, are not willing to support legalization, due to the consequences of drugs that we see. Accepting accountability for our own actions, we can only make decisions we are comfortable with and feel are in good faith. I've logically backed up my opinion, with the known psychological understandings on codependency and substance abuse.
If you feel that is reason for you to try to degrade my opinion, so be it. It only shows your lack of balance.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I'm contradicting myself by making logical statements?
You can do exactly what you'd like to do. The issue here is that for your purposes, you need the support of many people in order to have the laws changed.
Many people, myself included, are not willing to support legalization, due to the consequences of drugs that we see. Accepting accountability for our own actions, we can only make decisions we are comfortable with and feel are in good faith. I've logically backed up my opinion, with the known psychological understandings on codependency and substance abuse.
If you feel that is reason for you to try to degrade my opinion, so be it. It only shows your lack of balance.
i love this perfect case... "if you disagree with me, it shows there is something wrong with you."
so given your flawless and inarguable authority on codependency and substance abuse, i assume that you would apply your views to alcohol as equally as marijuana? ie. since you would never support legalization of pot due to the consequences, you WOULD support a renewed prohibition on alcohol doe to the consequences (which are the same, if not worse as pot). this is another slippery slope... shall we protect people from their choices through sterilization? ban fast food? impose mandatory exercise? how far do you go? alcohol, shopping, coffee, all can become addictive and compulsive behaviors.
I'm contradicting myself by making logical statements?
You can do exactly what you'd like to do. The issue here is that for your purposes, you need the support of many people in order to have the laws changed.
Many people, myself included, are not willing to support legalization, due to the consequences of drugs that we see. Accepting accountability for our own actions, we can only make decisions we are comfortable with and feel are in good faith. I've logically backed up my opinion, with the known psychological understandings on codependency and substance abuse.
If you feel that is reason for you to try to degrade my opinion, so be it. It only shows your lack of balance.
I apologize for the personal attack, my time online this weekend has been sporadic and I've made a few knee-jerk posts as a result.
I obviously don't understand your logic. I don't see why your morality and viewpoint on drugs is something that I, as an adult, should be subjected to. The majority of people, in most studies I've seen, support decriminalization. I think if they were more informed on the subject, they'd support legalization (in fact, I think the majority don't understand the difference - most people that support decrim also say, "tax it"...which is not possible under a decrim scenario)...so in the case of marijuana, the slippery slope is not a bad thing, in my opinion, it is desirable.
I tried to explain what I mean by your seemingly contradictory statement by asking why it would not be a criminal offense to possess marijuana, but growing it for personal use would be. There are too many fine lines with decrim. IMO. Of course, it would be a step in the right direction.
I tried to explain what I mean by your seemingly contradictory statement by asking why it would not be a criminal offense to possess marijuana, but growing it for personal use would be. There are too many fine lines with decrim. IMO. Of course, it would be a step in the right direction.
You know, as I was reading through this, I realized that I might not understand what 'decriminalization' is exactly. Perhaps you might clarify it for me (or I could look it up, but that requires effort )
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
You know, as I was reading through this, I realized that I might not understand what 'decriminalization' is exactly. Perhaps you might clarify it for me (or I could look it up, but that requires effort )
Most of the scenarios I've seen suggested or in practice entail fines (similar to a bylaw or traffic offense - a ticket) for personal possession...say, under 30 grams, but actually RAISE penalties for cultivation or distribution.
I obviously don't understand your logic. I don't see why your morality and viewpoint on drugs is something that I, as an adult, should be subjected to.
Bottom line: You can do whatever you want. However, if you seek to change the laws, you need the cooperation of many--millions.
The majority of people, in most studies I've seen, support decriminalization. I think if they were more informed on the subject, they'd support legalization (in fact, I think the majority don't understand the difference - most people that support decrim also say, "tax it"...which is not possible under a decrim scenario)...so in the case of marijuana, the slippery slope is not a bad thing, in my opinion, it is desirable.
The point is the logic doesn't support legalization, except in terms of the drug user being able to do what they want to do..."it doesn't hurt anyone". When one looks further, this logic is false. Number one, you and others have implied that I should support you doing what you want, and with that line of thinking, you expect me to change my view, so *I* don't do what I want. You can't make that logic work. It's a false justification.
Number two, the poor emotional reasonings that get laced in with these arguments are exactly the fallout of one not resolving their inner issues and then using substances and other behaviours to keep such maladaptive patterns in place. When one is regularly using substances, they are crippling their thought processes. Then, they are not able to support their own case, and not only do the arguments come up short...but then the imbalanced emotional arguments enter in, including degrading and otherwise infringing on others, illustrating the crippled thought processes I speak of. The drug-abuser perspective has inherent to it, a rationale that undermines itself and creates fallout that they heap onto others. It happens all over this board, all the time.
I don't support any kinds of psychological imbalances, period, because people justify false logic, and they justify treating others improperly--as has been shown in this thread. Granted, a large majority (estimated at 95% by numerous sources) perpetuate this codependent behaviour and it's largely "normal" at this time. It remains unhealthy and harms ALL--every single relationship we have, from with our families/children/spouses, on up to how we relate on message boards. Again, it's far reaching.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
I obviously don't understand your logic. I don't see why your morality and viewpoint on drugs is something that I, as an adult, should be subjected to.
That's what you have to live with being in a democratic society, if indeed her viewpoint on this is the same as the majority's (I think it is, but I haven't checked the Gallup polls lately). It has nothing to do with being an adult, it has to do with being a citizen in a republic such as this. If most people don't want it legal, it shouldn't be legal. That's all there is to it, if you support the idea of democracy. You can live freely without weed...it's not a civil rights issue as many supporters of legalization try to make it look like.
Bottom line: You can do whatever you want. However, if you seek to change the laws, you need the cooperation of many--millions..
What I'm saying is that, depending on which sources you cite, the majority does support decriminalization, and I feel that if they hadn't been subjected to 30+ years of intense propaganda, they would probably support legalization instead.
The point is the logic doesn't support legalization, except in terms of the drug user being able to do what they want to do..."it doesn't hurt anyone". When one looks further, this logic is false. .
How so? Please explain what you see when you look further. I know you will come back to the point made at the end of the post - the effect that mind altering substances has on our reasoning and our relationships/interactions with others....and I say to you again, you are striving for an unrealistic, unobtainable utopia. This ignores the basic human curiosity with mind alteration, and the fact that a lot of people do not think along the same lines as you (in regards to psychoanalizing themselves).
Number one, you and others have implied that I should support you doing what you want, and with that line of thinking, you expect me to change my view, so *I* don't do what I want. You can't make that logic work. It's a false justification..
Why should I support your views? I've been forced to my whole life....What exactly would you be doing that you didn't want to do if marijuana was legal? I'm not trying to make you do what you don't want to do. I just want you to leave me the fuck alone
Number two, the poor emotional reasonings that get laced in with these arguments are exactly the fallout of one not resolving their inner issues and then using substances and other behaviours to keep such maladaptive patterns in place. When one is regularly using substances, they are crippling their thought processes. Then, they are not able to support their own case, and not only do the arguments come up short...but then the imbalanced emotional arguments enter in, including degrading and otherwise infringing on others, illustrating the crippled thought processes I speak of. The drug-abuser perspective has inherent to it, a rationale that undermines itself and creates fallout that they heap onto others. It happens all over this board, all the time. .
Yes, it happens all the time, and I'm sure you do it all the time too. This is why I mentioned that perhaps your maladaptive practice is an addiction to studying and the internet. Everyone has their vice, and for you to tell me mine is punishable by the courts and not even address yours seems unfair to me. I am aware of and ok with my crutch...I don't think that has a lot to do with whether it should be legal or not.
I don't support any kinds of psychological imbalances, period, because people justify false logic, and they justify treating others improperly--as has been shown in this thread. Granted, a large majority (estimated at 95% by numerous sources) perpetuate this codependent behaviour and it's largely "normal" at this time. It remains unhealthy and harms ALL--every single relationship we have, from with our families/children/spouses, on up to how we relate on message boards. Again, it's far reaching.
oh gawd...now I'm not being nice enough on the board because I smoke pot :rolleyes:...seriously...I respect your knowledge of codependency, you obviously have done your homework. But to the majority of the people in the world, this is psychobabble that means nothing to them. this is the kind of thing we could be educating people about instead of locking them up.
How so? Please explain what you see when you look further. I know you will come back to the point made at the end of the post - the effect that mind altering substances has on our reasoning and our relationships/interactions with others....and I say to you again, you are striving for an unrealistic, unobtainable utopia. This ignores the basic human curiosity with mind alteration, and the fact that a lot of people do not think along the same lines as you (in regards to psychoanalizing themselves).
It sounds like there is a misunderstanding. Here is what I mean about the logic, and how it doesn't work to the benefit of legalization at this point in time:
You want your purposes, which is to have marijuana legalized. I want my purposes--to decriminalize marijuana or leave it as is (like the seeming majority of people). We have two different views. They both stand. You see things one way; I see them another. We have a disagreement. What happens is that as Saturnal says, we have a majority rule. That's the way it works.
Any logic that asks me to give up my purposes, for another person's purposes (for example your own) does not have a basic logic that works and therefore people won't listen. That's the bottom line. Therefore the logic of expecting others to change and give up their own purposes and personal perspectives is faulty.
I can completely accept your perspective and let it stand fully as your view. I can accept what you want. I just see that it's not going to happen.
Yes, it happens all the time, and I'm sure you do it all the time too. This is why I mentioned that perhaps your maladaptive practice is an addiction to studying and the internet. Everyone has their vice, and for you to tell me mine is punishable by the courts and not even address yours seems unfair to me. I am aware of and ok with my crutch...I don't think that has a lot to do with whether it should be legal or not.
When any argument undermines itself by using emotionally crippled distortions, the argument will not stand--it's based on a faulty premise. Therefore when people cripple their processes with imbalanced maladaptations, the situation is what it is. The situation and imbalance is self-evident and speaks for itself. I've gone out of my way to deal with my inner issues in order to resolve imbalance so as to become personally empowered. I did this because for my own purposes, I need to make certain things happen in my life and in the world. If one undermines their own abilities rather than heal themselves, they will not be able to access their potential and use their inner ability to it's fullest to create what one feels they need to. As I said--the method of drug abuse maladaptation undermines itself and any idea of legalization by using crippled brain processes in order to achieve it. And therefore it is a movement that has self-sabotage inherent to it. (self-sabotage is usual for maladaptation. It's life's/evolution's way to force us to replay our unworking patterns over and over until we learn to address our own issues and resolve them, thusly getting on track with actual adaptation and evolution rather than paralysis.)
oh gawd...now I'm not being nice enough on the board because I smoke pot :rolleyes:
Anytime people act imbalanced, they show their imbalance.
...seriously...I respect your knowledge of codependency, you obviously have done your homework. But to the majority of the people in the world, this is psychobabble that means nothing to them. this is the kind of thing we could be educating people about instead of locking them up.
I'm interested in my own purposes. What others think or care about is about them.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
What I'm saying is that, depending on which sources you cite, the majority does support decriminalization, and I feel that if they hadn't been subjected to 30+ years of intense propaganda, they would probably support legalization instead.
I'm talking about reality of the majority. I'm talking about who people are now, including their currently existing perspectives. And despite any "what if" scenarios, the true and real majority does not support legalization.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
i love this perfect case... "if you disagree with me, it shows there is something wrong with you."
so given your flawless and inarguable authority on codependency and substance abuse, i assume that you would apply your views to alcohol as equally as marijuana? ie. since you would never support legalization of pot due to the consequences, you WOULD support a renewed prohibition on alcohol doe to the consequences (which are the same, if not worse as pot). this is another slippery slope... shall we protect people from their choices through sterilization? ban fast food? impose mandatory exercise? how far do you go? alcohol, shopping, coffee, all can become addictive and compulsive behaviors.
I'm not interested in straw-man arguments.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
it IS a good counterpoint that at least deserves some sort of explaination as to why one is any more detrimental than the other...all other considerations aside, considering the extremely unhealthy and physically--as well as mentally--damaging effects of alcohol, isn't it fair to say that the maintenence of marijuana's legalization calls for a renewed prohibition on alcohol?
i think the problem is that when america adopted prohibtion, they had already lived in a world where alcohol was legal and accepted. after seeing what things were like with it being illegalized, they realized that it was easier and more sensical to have it be a legalized item. marijuana lacks this luxury though. since our society has never known what life is like with legalized marijuana, it seems a frightening and radical notion.
Do you see the way that tree bends?
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
It sounds like there is a misunderstanding. Here is what I mean about the logic, and how it doesn't work to the benefit of legalization at this point in time:
You want your purposes, which is to have marijuana legalized. I want my purposes--to decriminalize marijuana or leave it as is (like the seeming majority of people). We have two different views. They both stand. You see things one way; I see them another. We have a disagreement. What happens is that as Saturnal says, we have a majority rule. That's the way it works. .
The opinion of the majority has been changing for the last 35+ years in the US. Since gallup was mentioned earlier: http://www.csdp.org/research/gallup_marijuana_2005.pdf
Note the information given below the summarized poll results, demonstrating demographics and the chart showing the trends in public opinion. I would be willing to bet that the rises and dips in that chart go along with funding increases for drug war campaigning. There are other aspects regarding demographics that I won't get into for fear of looking prejudiced against certain groups, but the charts are telling in regards to who supports what.
The most frustrating thing for me is this: http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300 http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/info_statistics.html
In Canada (my home country), LEGALIZATION (not decrim) IS ALREADY SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY. Unfortunately, we have no politicians willing to stand up to the bullying tactics of our largest trading partner. I also think the public would cave to these tactics if it meant economic harship...which it would. I also read that a 2007 poll in Britain showed similar numbers.
Is it coincidence that the country with the highest amount of money spent on anti-drug campaigning has the lowest support for legalization? Keep in mind that these ads say nothing about codependency, and a lot about girls being sexually exploited, kids being run over by stoned drivers, and getting busted at concerts. fear fear fear....
Any logic that asks me to give up my purposes, for another person's purposes (for example your own) does not have a basic logic that works and therefore people won't listen. That's the bottom line. Therefore the logic of expecting others to change and give up their own purposes and personal perspectives is faulty. .
Is this not the very definition of prohibition when related to drugs, as well as the reason it will never work? Under the current system, you are not giving up your purposes, but I am...how is that not a double standard?
When any argument undermines itself by using emotionally crippled distortions, the argument will not stand--it's based on a faulty premise. Therefore when people cripple their processes with imbalanced maladaptations, the situation is what it is. The situation and imbalance is self-evident and speaks for itself. I've gone out of my way to deal with my inner issues in order to resolve imbalance so as to become personally empowered. I did this because for my own purposes, I need to make certain things happen in my life and in the world. If one undermines their own abilities rather than heal themselves, they will not be able to access their potential and use their inner ability to it's fullest to create what one feels they need to. As I said--the method of drug abuse maladaptation undermines itself and any idea of legalization by using crippled brain processes in order to achieve it. And therefore it is a movement that has self-sabotage inherent to it. (self-sabotage is usual for maladaptation. It's life's/evolution's way to force us to replay our unworking patterns over and over until we learn to address our own issues and resolve them, thusly getting on track with actual adaptation and evolution rather than paralysis.) .
I ask again - what about your internet usage? I have a list of vices that I am working on...self improvement, getting away from maladaptive practices (two weeks tobacco free tomorrow! )...I prioritized them with internet usage WAY above my marijuana usage. Simply because the loss of productivity, and the compulsive way I am drawn to the computer, I find to be a lot more detrimental than my compulsions or loss of productivity from mj. You have over 6500 posts in less than two years. I would bet that the majority have been in the last year (since I started noticing your posts more often). What have you done, in all of your righteous self-empowerment, about this practice? And again, (using the maladaptive practice angle to support prohibition), if you are less productive because of the internet, thereby effecting your relationships, etc...how is this any better or worse than pot smoking?
I'm interested in my own purposes. What others think or care about is about them.
If you're interested in your own purposes, and what other think is about them....why do you care about majority rule? Why should anyone...and by that logic, why should I care about your laws and your choice to only serve your own purpose? Does this statement not sound intolerant to you?
Some more food for thought:
There are a lot of interesting items to note in this collection of poll questions http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm
Like this particular poll statement:
"We are losing the drug war."
agree 74 disagree 20 don't know 6
But it seems that the majority of people surveyed are supporting EVERYTHING that is asked...arresting users, dealers, and importers, educating the public, more funding and military support for foreign governments, health care for addicts...to me, this demonstrates mass confusion and a lack of direction, as anyone with a brain knows that it's not feasible to have effective domestic and foreign enforcement, education, rehabilitaion, etc etc...there is a finite amount of money available for these programs. Everyone knows the status quo isn't working. But there is no serious discusision of an alternative...WHY NOT?
Is this not the very definition of prohibition when related to drugs, as well as the reason it will never work? Under the current system, you are not giving up your purposes, but I am...how is that not a double standard?
You obviously have not given up your purposes. The majority does not support yours and therefore it is not the norm or law.
I can completely accept your perspective and let it stand fully as your view. I can accept what you want. I just see that it's not going to happen..
]I wouldn't say that. Check the charts linked above again. I think the public is awakening to the folly of prohibition.
Then you have nothing to worry about....
anytime people act arrogant, they show their arrogance, what's your point?
I made that point twice in the past two posts. When you are willing to hear it, you will.
If you're interested in your own purposes, and what other think is about them....why do you care about majority rule. Why should anyone...and by that logic, why should I care about your laws and your choice to only serve your own purpose? Does this statement not sound intolerant to you?
You're saying that because I follow my own inner vision no matter what people think that it sounds intolerant to you? Interesting.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
it IS a good counterpoint that at least deserves some sort of explaination as to why one is any more detrimental than the other...
When someone makes up a pretend stance and ascribes it to me, I recognize that as rhetoric and leave it be. It never was about me, but in this case, about soulsinging.
I make and defend my points. And they stand. The straw man argument doesn't have any real power because it's an illusory way of trying to prove a negative. It's all about soulsinging's imagination and what he's making up and pretending to be my stance.
The bottom line is, if I am the most dysfunctional person in the world, and I'm out drinking all night, and then I come in this forum and say what I've said, what I say STILL stands by virtue of the fact that it is realistic, 100% valid and true. The truth stands. All else falls away.
In other words, everyone can say what they want about me, and judge my personal life and my intentions. The fact remains, when you (soulsinging or Drowned Out) has a valid counter argument on the subject matter at hand, you'll use it. I don't give personal judgments of myself any power--they are side issues. I'm not interested in debating people's imaginations.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
When any argument undermines itself by using emotionally crippled distortions, the argument will not stand--it's based on a faulty premise. Therefore when people cripple their processes with imbalanced maladaptations, the situation is what it is. The situation and imbalance is self-evident and speaks for itself. I've gone out of my way to deal with my inner issues in order to resolve imbalance so as to become personally empowered. I did this because for my own purposes, I need to make certain things happen in my life and in the world. If one undermines their own abilities rather than heal themselves, they will not be able to access their potential and use their inner ability to it's fullest to create what one feels they need to. As I said--the method of drug abuse maladaptation undermines itself and any idea of legalization by using crippled brain processes in order to achieve it. And therefore it is a movement that has self-sabotage inherent to it. (self-sabotage is usual for maladaptation. It's life's/evolution's way to force us to replay our unworking patterns over and over until we learn to address our own issues and resolve them, thusly getting on track with actual adaptation and evolution rather than paralysis.)
and there's no way you could have reached this enlightenment if pot was legal?
so you basically have no logically consistent response then? just your own personal past issues with drugs clouding your views with fear and judgment... since you struggled with addiction, everyone who smokes pot ipso facto HAS to have psychological problems to smoke pot?
where do you get this "98% of humans are fucked up" statistic you keep throwing around? i think it's fantastic that you consider yourself to be in the elite 2% of the human population who are superior to all the rest of us in terms of 'self-actualization' and all, but perhaps you ought to let us find it on our own rather than climbing onto your throne and trying to impose it?
When someone makes up a pretend stance and ascribes it to me, I recognize that as rhetoric and leave it be. It never was about me, but in this case, about soulsinging.
I make and defend my points. And they stand. The straw man argument doesn't have any real power because it's an illusory way of trying to prove a negative. It's all about soulsinging's imagination and what he's making up and pretending to be my stance.
The bottom line is, if I am the most dysfunctional person in the world, and I'm out drinking all night, and then I come in this forum and say what I've said, what I say STILL stands by virtue of the fact that it is realistic, 100% valid and true. The truth stands. All else falls away.
In other words, everyone can say what they want about me, and judge my personal life and my intentions. The fact remains, when you (soulsinging or Drowned Out) has a valid counter argument on the subject matter at hand, you'll use it. I don't give personal judgments of myself any power--they are side issues. I'm not interested in debating people's imaginations.
for all your psychobabble, you've clearly never taken a single philosophy class. straw man arguments, as you like to so haughtily dismiss them, are simply tests of your idea's truth. if your idea is so weak it cannot be used consistently, it lacks truth. your idea seems to be we should outlaw pot becos some people will use it as a means of escapism to mask psychological issues. why does this only apply to pot and not the several dozen other forms of escapism?
why is mj use automatically thought of 'substance abuse'....? does anyone who drinks socially considered an alocoholic? if not, i can hardly think someone who indulges in a joint or two here or there...1-2 a week, whatever...as an 'abuser.' even a daily toke, in and of itself...does not dsignify 'abuse.' nor anymore than someone who may have a glass of wine with dinner every night.
the only 'problem' i can see with mj is its present state of illegality. otherwise, i personally see nothing wrong with it, and in this area i think the dutch are far ahead of the curve. so to me, that's the only issue...you know you're breaking the law, and sure...supoorting an illegal culture when you partake. my father, who was quite a conservative man, ALWAYS believed mj should be made legal...b/c he too did not see it as 'worse' than alcohol, and also felt if legal, taxes could be levied, and it could be more legislated/protected for purity/safety, etc.
Comments
However, I don't think that taking the criminal shame/blame, and miscarriage of justice out of it is akin to supporting, condoning or enabling. It's simply a more just, more humanitarian, more economically sound approach to the issue of substance abuse.
No matter what works well in theory, what is ultimately needed is the support of many, many people with the idea of decriminalization.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I am not on board with legalization. Decriminalization has inherent to it the potential "slippery slope" of further decriminalization which is only beneficial in addressing the real issues. Again, this is not a criminal issue in my mind.
Legalization is a whole different ballgame. I wouldn't support enabling legalization and getting the ball rolling in that entirely different direction. I don't care what people do...I just won't personally support what I know is psychologically maladaptive, like many millions of others.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
Decriminilization does nothing to deal with the problems associated with the black market industry, and does not take enough burden off of law enforcement and the justice system....thereby allowing less funding for treatment. I honestly don't know what the answer is, I just find it soooo frustrating that the US government stifles any discussion of alternatives.
oh, and about the psychologically maladaptive practice angle...I know it's a crutch and I'm ok with that. It's better than most alternatives. To suggest that no one should have a vice is to pine for unachievable utopia....kudos to you if you recognize these issues and are able to deal with them, but for many it just doesn't work that way.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
no, i don't. but i know you have a knack for playing that "well, im pretty clearly right and if you don't see it it's becos there is something wrong with you and your perceptions" game.
As I understand decriminalization, it either makes a small amount legal for possession, or changes the laws from an offense that gives you a permanent criminal record to one that carries a fine....but still makes cultivation, production and distribution illegal and punishable by prison, etc. Is there not still a double standard? It has to come from somewhere...if we decrim, it does nothing to address the issues with organized crime or violence associated with vigilante justice in the trade. Some people would see decriminalizing street level use as condoning the crime in the industry.
You see a double standard. I do not. People looking to profit from drug "marketing" at the expense of humans, are accountable for their actions. Those who have a psychological substance abuse issue are responsible for their actions--and still having a substance abuse concern is very different than profiting from the fallibility of others.
This is one of those slippery slope arguments that prevents many from agreeing with even decriminalization--because it's clear the justifications that arise, pertaining to trying to set further and further precedents, that actually condone such behaviours. And people see that potential and do not accept that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
are you not contradicting yourself by saying their is no double standard, but there is a slippery slope?
What about this....cultivation, in all suggested decriminalization scenarios I've seen, would still be illegal. If a marijuana user grew his own, and didn't sell or profit from it, he would still run the risk of being sent to jail for growing it. This is all I really care about in the decrim vs legalization debate. Let people grow their own.
I also do not understand this prevalent attitude towards condoning other people's behaviours. I don't overly care what you think about what I do...if it doesn't affect you, why should I care if you support my decision? I'm a grown up and I can make my own decisions. You say I use substances as a maladaptive practice to hide from my problems...that's your opinion. I could suggest that you hide in literature and overbearing grandstanding on message boards for the same reason, no? To each their own.
go take 20lbs. of pot down to your local police station....
dump it on the front desk....
and im pretty sure the police officer working the front desk will be more than happy to remind you all of the negative side of marijuana.....
Till there aint nothing left worth taking away from me.....
You can do exactly what you'd like to do. The issue here is that for your purposes, you need the support of many people in order to have the laws changed.
Many people, myself included, are not willing to support legalization, due to the consequences of drugs that we see. Accepting accountability for our own actions, we can only make decisions we are comfortable with and feel are in good faith. I've logically backed up my opinion, with the known psychological understandings on codependency and substance abuse.
If you feel that is reason for you to try to degrade my opinion, so be it. It only shows your lack of balance.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i love this perfect case... "if you disagree with me, it shows there is something wrong with you."
so given your flawless and inarguable authority on codependency and substance abuse, i assume that you would apply your views to alcohol as equally as marijuana? ie. since you would never support legalization of pot due to the consequences, you WOULD support a renewed prohibition on alcohol doe to the consequences (which are the same, if not worse as pot). this is another slippery slope... shall we protect people from their choices through sterilization? ban fast food? impose mandatory exercise? how far do you go? alcohol, shopping, coffee, all can become addictive and compulsive behaviors.
I apologize for the personal attack, my time online this weekend has been sporadic and I've made a few knee-jerk posts as a result.
I obviously don't understand your logic. I don't see why your morality and viewpoint on drugs is something that I, as an adult, should be subjected to. The majority of people, in most studies I've seen, support decriminalization. I think if they were more informed on the subject, they'd support legalization (in fact, I think the majority don't understand the difference - most people that support decrim also say, "tax it"...which is not possible under a decrim scenario)...so in the case of marijuana, the slippery slope is not a bad thing, in my opinion, it is desirable.
I tried to explain what I mean by your seemingly contradictory statement by asking why it would not be a criminal offense to possess marijuana, but growing it for personal use would be. There are too many fine lines with decrim. IMO. Of course, it would be a step in the right direction.
You know, as I was reading through this, I realized that I might not understand what 'decriminalization' is exactly. Perhaps you might clarify it for me (or I could look it up, but that requires effort
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Most of the scenarios I've seen suggested or in practice entail fines (similar to a bylaw or traffic offense - a ticket) for personal possession...say, under 30 grams, but actually RAISE penalties for cultivation or distribution.
The point is the logic doesn't support legalization, except in terms of the drug user being able to do what they want to do..."it doesn't hurt anyone". When one looks further, this logic is false. Number one, you and others have implied that I should support you doing what you want, and with that line of thinking, you expect me to change my view, so *I* don't do what I want. You can't make that logic work. It's a false justification.
Number two, the poor emotional reasonings that get laced in with these arguments are exactly the fallout of one not resolving their inner issues and then using substances and other behaviours to keep such maladaptive patterns in place. When one is regularly using substances, they are crippling their thought processes. Then, they are not able to support their own case, and not only do the arguments come up short...but then the imbalanced emotional arguments enter in, including degrading and otherwise infringing on others, illustrating the crippled thought processes I speak of. The drug-abuser perspective has inherent to it, a rationale that undermines itself and creates fallout that they heap onto others. It happens all over this board, all the time.
I don't support any kinds of psychological imbalances, period, because people justify false logic, and they justify treating others improperly--as has been shown in this thread. Granted, a large majority (estimated at 95% by numerous sources) perpetuate this codependent behaviour and it's largely "normal" at this time. It remains unhealthy and harms ALL--every single relationship we have, from with our families/children/spouses, on up to how we relate on message boards. Again, it's far reaching.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That's what you have to live with being in a democratic society, if indeed her viewpoint on this is the same as the majority's (I think it is, but I haven't checked the Gallup polls lately). It has nothing to do with being an adult, it has to do with being a citizen in a republic such as this. If most people don't want it legal, it shouldn't be legal. That's all there is to it, if you support the idea of democracy. You can live freely without weed...it's not a civil rights issue as many supporters of legalization try to make it look like.
How so? Please explain what you see when you look further. I know you will come back to the point made at the end of the post - the effect that mind altering substances has on our reasoning and our relationships/interactions with others....and I say to you again, you are striving for an unrealistic, unobtainable utopia. This ignores the basic human curiosity with mind alteration, and the fact that a lot of people do not think along the same lines as you (in regards to psychoanalizing themselves). Why should I support your views? I've been forced to my whole life....What exactly would you be doing that you didn't want to do if marijuana was legal? I'm not trying to make you do what you don't want to do. I just want you to leave me the fuck alone Yes, it happens all the time, and I'm sure you do it all the time too. This is why I mentioned that perhaps your maladaptive practice is an addiction to studying and the internet. Everyone has their vice, and for you to tell me mine is punishable by the courts and not even address yours seems unfair to me. I am aware of and ok with my crutch...I don't think that has a lot to do with whether it should be legal or not. oh gawd...now I'm not being nice enough on the board because I smoke pot :rolleyes:...seriously...I respect your knowledge of codependency, you obviously have done your homework. But to the majority of the people in the world, this is psychobabble that means nothing to them. this is the kind of thing we could be educating people about instead of locking them up.
You want your purposes, which is to have marijuana legalized. I want my purposes--to decriminalize marijuana or leave it as is (like the seeming majority of people). We have two different views. They both stand. You see things one way; I see them another. We have a disagreement. What happens is that as Saturnal says, we have a majority rule. That's the way it works.
Any logic that asks me to give up my purposes, for another person's purposes (for example your own) does not have a basic logic that works and therefore people won't listen. That's the bottom line. Therefore the logic of expecting others to change and give up their own purposes and personal perspectives is faulty.
I can completely accept your perspective and let it stand fully as your view. I can accept what you want. I just see that it's not going to happen.
When any argument undermines itself by using emotionally crippled distortions, the argument will not stand--it's based on a faulty premise. Therefore when people cripple their processes with imbalanced maladaptations, the situation is what it is. The situation and imbalance is self-evident and speaks for itself. I've gone out of my way to deal with my inner issues in order to resolve imbalance so as to become personally empowered. I did this because for my own purposes, I need to make certain things happen in my life and in the world. If one undermines their own abilities rather than heal themselves, they will not be able to access their potential and use their inner ability to it's fullest to create what one feels they need to. As I said--the method of drug abuse maladaptation undermines itself and any idea of legalization by using crippled brain processes in order to achieve it. And therefore it is a movement that has self-sabotage inherent to it. (self-sabotage is usual for maladaptation. It's life's/evolution's way to force us to replay our unworking patterns over and over until we learn to address our own issues and resolve them, thusly getting on track with actual adaptation and evolution rather than paralysis.)
Anytime people act imbalanced, they show their imbalance.
I'm interested in my own purposes. What others think or care about is about them.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
i think the problem is that when america adopted prohibtion, they had already lived in a world where alcohol was legal and accepted. after seeing what things were like with it being illegalized, they realized that it was easier and more sensical to have it be a legalized item. marijuana lacks this luxury though. since our society has never known what life is like with legalized marijuana, it seems a frightening and radical notion.
Does it inspire?
Leaning out to catch the sun's rays...
A lesson to be applied.
Best night of my life. . .
Noblesville, IN 06-22-03.
myspace.com/justonemorebottle
http://www.csdp.org/research/gallup_marijuana_2005.pdf
Note the information given below the summarized poll results, demonstrating demographics and the chart showing the trends in public opinion. I would be willing to bet that the rises and dips in that chart go along with funding increases for drug war campaigning. There are other aspects regarding demographics that I won't get into for fear of looking prejudiced against certain groups, but the charts are telling in regards to who supports what.
The most frustrating thing for me is this:
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/view/16300
http://frankdiscussion.netfirms.com/info_statistics.html
In Canada (my home country), LEGALIZATION (not decrim) IS ALREADY SUPPORTED BY THE MAJORITY. Unfortunately, we have no politicians willing to stand up to the bullying tactics of our largest trading partner. I also think the public would cave to these tactics if it meant economic harship...which it would. I also read that a 2007 poll in Britain showed similar numbers.
Is it coincidence that the country with the highest amount of money spent on anti-drug campaigning has the lowest support for legalization? Keep in mind that these ads say nothing about codependency, and a lot about girls being sexually exploited, kids being run over by stoned drivers, and getting busted at concerts. fear fear fear....
Is this not the very definition of prohibition when related to drugs, as well as the reason it will never work? Under the current system, you are not giving up your purposes, but I am...how is that not a double standard?
I wouldn't say that. Check the charts linked above again. I think the public is awakening to the folly of prohibition.
I ask again - what about your internet usage? I have a list of vices that I am working on...self improvement, getting away from maladaptive practices (two weeks tobacco free tomorrow!
anytime people act arrogant, they show their arrogance, what's your point?
If you're interested in your own purposes, and what other think is about them....why do you care about majority rule? Why should anyone...and by that logic, why should I care about your laws and your choice to only serve your own purpose? Does this statement not sound intolerant to you?
Some more food for thought:
There are a lot of interesting items to note in this collection of poll questions
http://www.pollingreport.com/drugs.htm
Like this particular poll statement:
"We are losing the drug war."
agree 74 disagree 20 don't know 6
But it seems that the majority of people surveyed are supporting EVERYTHING that is asked...arresting users, dealers, and importers, educating the public, more funding and military support for foreign governments, health care for addicts...to me, this demonstrates mass confusion and a lack of direction, as anyone with a brain knows that it's not feasible to have effective domestic and foreign enforcement, education, rehabilitaion, etc etc...there is a finite amount of money available for these programs. Everyone knows the status quo isn't working. But there is no serious discusision of an alternative...WHY NOT?
Then you have nothing to worry about....
I made that point twice in the past two posts. When you are willing to hear it, you will.
You're saying that because I follow my own inner vision no matter what people think that it sounds intolerant to you? Interesting.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I make and defend my points. And they stand. The straw man argument doesn't have any real power because it's an illusory way of trying to prove a negative. It's all about soulsinging's imagination and what he's making up and pretending to be my stance.
The bottom line is, if I am the most dysfunctional person in the world, and I'm out drinking all night, and then I come in this forum and say what I've said, what I say STILL stands by virtue of the fact that it is realistic, 100% valid and true. The truth stands. All else falls away.
In other words, everyone can say what they want about me, and judge my personal life and my intentions. The fact remains, when you (soulsinging or Drowned Out) has a valid counter argument on the subject matter at hand, you'll use it. I don't give personal judgments of myself any power--they are side issues. I'm not interested in debating people's imaginations.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
and there's no way you could have reached this enlightenment if pot was legal?
so you basically have no logically consistent response then? just your own personal past issues with drugs clouding your views with fear and judgment... since you struggled with addiction, everyone who smokes pot ipso facto HAS to have psychological problems to smoke pot?
where do you get this "98% of humans are fucked up" statistic you keep throwing around? i think it's fantastic that you consider yourself to be in the elite 2% of the human population who are superior to all the rest of us in terms of 'self-actualization' and all, but perhaps you ought to let us find it on our own rather than climbing onto your throne and trying to impose it?
for all your psychobabble, you've clearly never taken a single philosophy class. straw man arguments, as you like to so haughtily dismiss them, are simply tests of your idea's truth. if your idea is so weak it cannot be used consistently, it lacks truth. your idea seems to be we should outlaw pot becos some people will use it as a means of escapism to mask psychological issues. why does this only apply to pot and not the several dozen other forms of escapism?
the only 'problem' i can see with mj is its present state of illegality. otherwise, i personally see nothing wrong with it, and in this area i think the dutch are far ahead of the curve. so to me, that's the only issue...you know you're breaking the law, and sure...supoorting an illegal culture when you partake. my father, who was quite a conservative man, ALWAYS believed mj should be made legal...b/c he too did not see it as 'worse' than alcohol, and also felt if legal, taxes could be levied, and it could be more legislated/protected for purity/safety, etc.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!