The Gaming Den

s/defending/upholding/

-Crissa

mean_liar wrote:Shoehorning in the Civil Rights Act under the Intrastate Commerce Clause was always a kludge. It was righteous, but not exactly solid on its legal foundation.

Umm, not even remotely true. To the point that if someone tried to challenge it in court at any point since it was passed it would be laughed out of court.

The Catholic Church are being assholes about life-saving abortions again, this time in Phoenix. As usual the better half of the Church are being more reasonable.

CatharzGodfoot wrote:The Catholic Church are being assholes about life-saving abortions again, this time in Phoenix. As usual the better half of the Church are being more reasonable.

Crazy shit? In Arizona? I'm *shocked*!

ubernoob wrote:Awesome speech is awesome

I call bullshit on the kid's stats. Compared to alcohol and tobacco, it may very well be less dangerous, but the number of deaths is nonzero.

Cannabis aside, it is commonly smoked and that means deaths from accidental fires caused via carelessness with open flame as well as horrible things happening on the inside of the lungs.

The number of deaths are not really calculable. There may be deaths from fires (not included in his stats on cigarettes, either) or intoxicated driving.

Still, they're much lower than the legal drugs, and probably lower than the other illegal drugs. It's been mentioned on this board that there are other illegal drugs not known for any deaths as well.

fbmf however did not want us to talk about illegal drugs.

-Crissa

PS: I'll also guess Josh doesn't smoke pot - it doesn't burn as well or as hot as tobacco. Not that I do, but I've known smokers since I can remember.

Josh_Kablack wrote:

ubernoob wrote:Awesome speech is awesome

I call bullshit on the kid's stats. Compared to alcohol and tobacco, it may very well be less dangerous, but the number of deaths is nonzero.

Cannabis aside, it is commonly smoked and that means deaths from accidental fires caused via carelessness with open flame as well as horrible things happening on the inside of the lungs.

It is hard to include every correlation, especially when "Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half".

Yeah, marijuana smoking still increases prevalence of emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Tabacco smoking isn't just bad for you because of the lung cancer and the ischemic heart disease (admittedly: neither of which is caused by marijuana).

It is however the truth that the health problems of marijuana smoking are tenuous enough that no one has "marijuana" listed as their cause of death. There are no lethal doses of marijuana being consumed and no mountain of evidence linking marijuana as the primary causative factor in any deaths. So while there may well be a bunch of deaths out there that would not have happened if weed had not been involved, those deaths are multifactorial and we cannot isolate them.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Yeah, marijuana smoking still increases prevalence of emphysema and chronic bronchitis. Tabacco smoking isn't just bad for you because of the lung cancer and the ischemic heart disease (admittedly: neither of which is caused by marijuana).

It is however the truth that the health problems of marijuana smoking are tenuous enough that no one has "marijuana" listed as their cause of death. There are no lethal doses of marijuana being consumed and no mountain of evidence linking marijuana as the primary causative factor in any deaths. So while there may well be a bunch of deaths out there that would not have happened if weed had not been involved, those deaths are multifactorial and we cannot isolate them.

-Username17

So, smoking marijuana is about as dangerous as watching TV instead of going to the gym? I can buy that.

Hmm. It's decriminalised here*. Does that mean it's not an illegal drug here and I get special rights to talk about it?

Not that I know enough about the stuff to do so. Though one day I want to make a pavlova or soufflé with marijuana in it, simply so I can say I have done so.

"I made some hash brownies/electric flapjack last night."
"Amateur."

*Possession and consumption are "not crimes", though carrying any beyond the confines of your home is a misdemeanour, and intent to sell, such as having large amounts or putting price tags on it, is still a... felony I think. You'd have to ask a uni student. So basically they're saying it's okay to be a hippy, but not a drug dealer. No complaints here.

ubernoob wrote:Awesome speech is awesome

While I don't disagree with the premise, is it just me or did that come across as the complete collection of loosely-organized, slightly paranoid, marijuana information tidbits that you've ever been verbally assaulted with at a party?

I think I've had that very speech, or something variation on it, actually speeched at me. On more than one occassion even.

You expect an organised, structured, rational argument from a dopehead?

Koumei wrote:You expect an organised, structured, rational argument from a dopehead?

I assume periodic episodes of lucidity, yes.

What's paranoid about the facts in the matter? Those businesses and people mentioned actually did exist and did do those things.

Next you're going to say it's paranoia that tire and auto companies bought out mass transit in promotion of their support for the Freeway system?

C'mon, you're smarter than that.

-Crissa

Crissa, it's not the factual quality of the piece, it's the manner in which it's conveyed. When some marijuana afficianado is educating you (or maybe just me) about the jacked up shit that the Feds/DuPont/whoever pulled back in the 1930s, it is invariably communicated in the hushed manner of a person conveying vital information for the resistance and on a constant lookout for THE MAN.

I'm flattered that you've tried to recruit me for the cause there, Che, but you need to drop the Roswell tone--it's not helping at all.

violence in the media wrote:Crissa, it's not the factual quality of the piece, it's the manner in which it's conveyed. When some marijuana afficianado is educating you (or maybe just me) about the jacked up shit that the Feds/DuPont/whoever pulled back in the 1930s, it is invariably communicated in the hushed manner of a person conveying vital information for the resistance and on a constant lookout for THE MAN.

I'm flattered that you've tried to recruit me for the cause there, Che, but you need to drop the Roswell tone--it's not helping at all.

You'd be happier if he had he had qualified every statement by "but it's not a conspiracy, and I'm sure they had only the noblest of intentions"?

The one thing that really annoyed me was some mention of a guy looking like a pig. If there's one sure-fire way to weaken your argument, it's 'He did bad things. Also, he looks like a pig so he must be bad'. I saw Penelope, so I know that's just not true.

The single greatest enemy to the legalization of marijuana is the proponents of said legalization.

Psychic Robot wrote:The single greatest enemy to the legalization of marijuana is the proponents of said legalization.

That's embarrassingly true, if not actually true.

To quote Bill Bailey:

"The problem is, the only people interested in legalising it are dope heads, and cannabis smoking and coherent debate don't go hand in hand. It starts out all good... right, we need a clear, focused agenda here *puff* we should start by talking about the pain-relieving qualities, *puff*, clear and concise, *puff* the, pain, rel... *puff* the... what are you doing in my house?

Still, it hasn't turned me into a bug-eyed druid, has it?"

I'm more interested in legalizing it because it's expensive to prosecute and expensive to keep people incarcerated. I'm in it for the money.

I would never touch the stuff though. Pot turns people into douchebags. (Don't go anywhere with a pothead because they can't leave the house without getting high first and they make you late. Don't have a pothead as a roommate because they will steal anything that can be used to ream out a pipe and ruin it with resins, even if said thing has your name on it. Propriety has no meaning when their pipe is clogged. Also, the resin gets every damn place and potheads in general will not clean it up. It's filthy, stinks up the whole house, and makes you not consider the opinions of those around you. On a personal level, I hate it.)

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I'm more interested in legalizing it because it's expensive to prosecute and expensive to keep people incarcerated. I'm in it for the money.

Yeah, I always figured cost could be a big consideration.

That, and I'm from Michigan and I look at the taxes people pay on their cigarettes. It seems that from a tax standpoint alone, this would be a great money maker.

CatharzGodfoot wrote: You'd be happier if he had he had qualified every statement by "but it's not a conspiracy, and I'm sure they had only the noblest of intentions"?

No. I'm think it's just that I don't actually care why pot is illegal, and the amount of effort that many proponents expend to illuminate this injustice is tangental to the actual issue. Like Count, I agree that it shouldn't be illegal based on the economic factors, but with a bit of a personal freedom angle thrown in.

The one thing that really annoyed me was some mention of a guy looking like a pig. If there's one sure-fire way to weaken your argument, it's 'He did bad things. Also, he looks like a pig so he must be bad'. I saw Penelope, so I know that's just not true.

Yeah, that was entirely unnecessary.

The pig guy was very scary, historically. He was making an excuse for his job to continue and expand after breaking up the opium dens.

And some people really make the argument 'but there must be some reason it is illegal!'. Without knowing the history, how do you argue against that? (actually, knowing the history, the answer is, 'because', which isn't very satisfying to argue against, either.)

-Crissa

Republicans troll themselves while making taxpayers foot the bill. There's some discussion whether this 'policy discussion' in an election year, targeted to create results for Republicans in September may be political in nature, and not for general constituents.

-Crissa