pot makes you smarter - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-17-2005, 06:24 PM   #16
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Is the implication that there are violent crimes without arrests? Or that police should not enforce drug possession laws.

I with Melon on this. Keep it illegal and add tobacco to the list.


the implication is that, in order to look as if they are doing something about drug use, the Bush administration is targeting the most harmless of all drug users and targeting those most easy to nab -- those who possess pot, not those who sell it or manufacture it. it's suburban mom hysteria, combined with a pandering to a right wing base that views marijuana as somehow more evil than alcohol and tobacco that has roots in both the fear of communist take over in the 1950s and traditional racism towards Mexicans, that has created a policy that is essentially a waste of resources. the implication is that the drug possession laws do not fit the crime. the implication is that when you have more people busted for something less intoxicating than a fifth of vodka than for a violent crime, something is wrong.

i'm not for making tobacco illegal.

i am, however, for indoor smoking bans.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:28 PM   #17
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
But name one positive benefit for tobacco usage. There aren't any. We have banned many other prescription drugs for having even a small fraction of the danger that tobacco poses to everyone. It makes no sense to me for keeping it legal, and, once banned, not only would society be healthier, but future generations would grow up not even missing it.


how about egregiously unhealthy foods? foods laced with partially hydrogenated vegetable oil? with unnatural concentrations of fat and sugar? with corn syrup?

i understand the health-cost benefits of making smoking illegal, but it seems to me, particularly in the US and increasingly in the UK and Australia, obesity is a far, far greater strain on the health care system than smoking is -- heart attacks and cancer (not just lung).

i suppose i feel as if McDonalds is just as great a purveyor of evil as Marlboro, only Marlboro at least has the decency to market to teenagers whereas McDonalds markets to toddlers.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:28 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
But name one positive benefit for tobacco usage. There aren't any.
It gives you something to do after sex??



__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:28 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
But name one positive benefit for tobacco usage. There aren't any. We have banned many other prescription drugs for having even a small fraction of the danger that tobacco poses to everyone. It makes no sense to me for keeping it legal, and, once banned, not only would society be healthier, but future generations would grow up not even missing it.

Melon

I suggest that these kinds arguments could be extended to outlaw many kinds of risky behaviour, e.g.:

(1) Promiscous sexual behaviour leads to an increased risk of STD's

(2) Regularly engaging in risky sports such as rugby or American football leads to an increased risk of serious injury. Rugby players have had their necks broken on the field.

(3) Excessive consumption of fast foods leads to heart disease.

Are you in favour of legislation to outlaw each of the above, or significantly regulate them? (I engage in none on the three, so why should my tax-payers' money go to fund treatment for those who do?)

"Name one positive benefit for tobacco use." - all I can say to that is, it is impossible to put a monetary benefit on the enjoyment of smoking a good cigar. I am told that pipe smokers greatly enjoy their habit also.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:30 PM   #20
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by indra
I think we should legalise pot and ban tobacco.
Why, to suit YOUR personal preference? Indra, I am a little surprised to find you adopting a 'I don't like it, so let's ban it' argument!
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:30 PM   #21
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
But name one positive benefit for tobacco usage. There aren't any.


being a bit of a devil's advocate here, but many people will attest to smoking cigarettes and weight loss -- it curbs appetite and speeds up metabolism, and many people (including myslef) have noticed a correlation between those European countries where everyone apparently smokes and their relatively lack of the obese.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:34 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
i am, however, for indoor smoking bans.
Agreed, I have never had a problem with banning smoking in public areas.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:38 PM   #23
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 04:38 PM
The study was done on rats.

Anybody who does any kind of research knows that you can't extrapolate the research to human beings and anybody who does it without human studies is a fool.

JCI is also not one of the more rigorous journals when it comes to accepting papers. This type of paper would never get accepted in Science, Nature, Cell, EMBO and so on.

Sounds like a mediocre study to me, published in a mediocre journal. Could it have valuable insights? Maybe. But surely no serious policy maker would use it as a determinant.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:44 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
the implication is that, in order to look as if they are doing something about drug use, the Bush administration is targeting the most harmless of all drug users and targeting those most easy to nab -- those who possess pot, not those who sell it or manufacture it. it's suburban mom hysteria, combined with a pandering to a right wing base that views marijuana as somehow more evil than alcohol and tobacco that has roots in both the fear of communist take over in the 1950s and traditional racism towards Mexicans, that has created a policy that is essentially a waste of resources. the implication is that the drug possession laws do not fit the crime. the implication is that when you have more people busted for something less intoxicating than a fifth of vodka than for a violent crime, something is wrong.
Sounds like the concern is with the laws themselves, and not just with enforcement. I'd hate to see a society that enacts laws, then subsequently determines that some are not worthy of enforcement - that is a dangerous principle.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:47 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Sounds like the concern is with the laws themselves, and not just with enforcement. I'd hate to see a society that enacts laws, then subsequently determines that some are not worthy of enforcement - that is a dangerous principle.


doesn't that happen all the time?

were pre-2000 anti-miscegenation laws enforced in Alabama? how about pre-2003 anti-sodomy laws in Texas?

i think it does behoove a police department to prioritize, and it's simply a fact that drugs like crystal meth or heroin are vastly more harmful to the user and to society than marijuana.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:51 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Sounds like the concern is with the laws themselves, and not just with enforcement. I'd hate to see a society that enacts laws, then subsequently determines that some are not worthy of enforcement - that is a dangerous principle.
Interestingly enough, on that point, a London police commissioner decided some time ago that in the area he had responsibility for, his officers would simply caution those found in possession of small quantities of canabis and not arrested - but there has been no change in the UK legislation as such in relation to canabis, it is definitely still illegal when consumed for recreational purposes.

I believe that in Ireland, as in many other countries, it is illegal for a bar-tender to serve someone who is already intoxicated - yet, it probably occurs hundreds of times in any given night, but this is more to do with cultural differences and the manner in which drunkenness is not frowned upon as heavily in some countries, compared with others.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 06:58 PM   #27
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
I suggest that these kinds arguments could be extended to outlaw many kinds of risky behaviour, e.g.:

(1) Promiscous sexual behaviour leads to an increased risk of STD's

(2) Regularly engaging in risky sports such as rugby or American football leads to an increased risk of serious injury. Rugby players have had their necks broken on the field.

(3) Excessive consumption of fast foods leads to heart disease.

Are you in favour of legislation to outlaw each of the above, or significantly regulate them? (I engage in none on the three, so why should my tax-payers' money go to fund treatment for those who do?)
1) Promiscuous sexual behavior may lead to an increased risk of STDs, but it does not necessarily do so. Tobacco smoking, no matter how hard you wish upon a star, is cancerous. Needless to say, I tend to have a very harsh opinion of lushes.

2) Again, "increased risk," but most rugby/football players make it out alive and unharmed. Regular tobacco use will kill you, no question.

3) I have issues with our food standards in this nation. I believe much of our manufacturing standards are inadequate, thus destroying much of the nutritional benefits inherent in most of the ingredients. Standards should be tightened, and people should not have to fork out an arm-and-a-leg for healthy food like they currently do now. "Health food sections" of grocery stores should be the entire store, not just an aisle.

Quote:
"Name one positive benefit for tobacco use." - all I can say to that is, it is impossible to put a monetary benefit on the enjoyment of smoking a good cigar. I am told that pipe smokers greatly enjoy their habit also.
I know heroin addicts enjoy their habit too, but don't expect me to support it.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 07:09 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 10:38 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
Regular tobacco use will kill you, no question.
This is incorrect. Many experienced doctors will tell you of elderly patients who smoke in moderation with no discernable health effect. A French woman died at 107 some years ago- she had been the oldest woman in the world and had smoked in moderation up until into her nineties (in moderation, admittedly - one cigarette per day).

I fully accept that these are relatively rare EXCEPTIONS, but they do exist. Yes, all tobacco use is harmful, but really and truly a person smoking (say) two small cigars per annum at Christmas time each year - the health effects are probably so statistically insignificant, that they can be safely discounted. Unfortunately, owing to the addictive nature of nicotine, in practise such moderation in smoking is probably a rarity.

But bottom line, I would argue that every single one of your arguments for banning tobacco can be sufficiently addressed by simply amending the tax system to ensure that smokers pay for the cost of their medical treatment by increasing the cost of taxation on tobacco and ring-fencing the related income to treat illnesses caused by smoking. It's not that complicated, and doesn't require a blanket banning approach.
__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 07:41 PM   #29
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 04:38 PM
Smoking is one of those things that disgusts me to the very core of my being. It's destroyed my grandpa, it's destroyed my dad, it's caused my family and my extended family so much worry and pain and stress, all because a few people feel like it's their God-given right to inhale smoke. Call me stuck up or self righteous or whatever the fuck you want, but I simply cannot fathom why anyone in their right mind would think it's OK to put their own bodies and their families through that. There is nothing, NOTHING positive that comes from smoking, nothing.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 10-17-2005, 07:44 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Calluna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Cloud Cookoo Land
Posts: 3,542
Local Time: 02:38 PM
Hey guys, lets get this thread back on topic or I'm gonna have to close it. We've had the tobacco discussion a million times before on this forum. It's been done to death.

Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Sounds like the concern is with the laws themselves, and not just with enforcement. I'd hate to see a society that enacts laws, then subsequently determines that some are not worthy of enforcement - that is a dangerous principle.
In addition to financeguy's earlier example:

Quote:
Exerpted from The Stranger
By passing I-75, the initiative making marijuana possession Seattle cops' "lowest law-enforcement priority," in September 2003, voters handed potheads a pass to indulge in their favorite illicit substance without police interference. Starting in September, Seattle cops were ordered to ignore small-time possession and only arrest dope fiends dumb enough to flaunt their pot use in public.
By all evidence, Seattle's streets have not--contrary to some I-75 opponents' claims--been overrun with zonked-out hippies in VW buses veering, bong in hand, into oncoming traffic. more here
I think this is a positive thing because now Seattle police have more time to focus on more serious and dangerous crimes.
__________________

__________________
Calluna is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com