Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutal SS
Have you ever seen these films/posters/articles? It doesn't sound like you have. "Reefer Madness" is pure fantasy, made up by the people who want to control it. People don't beat their mothers to death with frying pans as dipicted in the film, just because they were 'mentally derranged' from smoking it. What evidence can be pointed to to prove to you that references like these just are not reality based?
|
Apparently we're talking about two different things. I guess I haven't seen any of the films/posters/articles that you're making reference to. If you feel like providing some material for the rest of us to see what you're talking about, by all means. But I have no interest in seeking out this stuff if it's just a bunch of misleading and lame propaganda like you propose it is.
Why would I want to seek out and watch anything if it's obvious that the people who made it are whack-jobs?
This is the same reason I try to refrain from watching anything made by Michael Moore. But that delves into politics and I don't want to see this discussion closed
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutal SS
To even ask that question "has it been debunked?" demonstrates that you don't really care about what's true. May I suggest a bit of research on propaganda techniques, and maybe a little history on this topic. If you care about what is true, then you will pursue the truth wherever it leads; even if it challenges your whole world-view. It's called intellectual honesty. In this case, common sense should be enough, because the stuff in this propaganda film from 1936 is patently untrue.
|
Wait, wait, wait, wait. This propaganda film you're speaking of was created in 1936?!
Why on Earth would anyone be taking a film created in 1936 as any kind of "truth" in relation to an issue occurring in the 2000's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutal SS
I don't smoke or drink, but if someone drank a few beers in their home, is it my business (or yours)? I think not. Again, I personally don't have a dog in the fight, but who is it really hurting if someone had an ailment, or if someone who simply just wanted to be high? Why should you care if it isn't hurting you or anyone else if it's used responsibily?
|
Let me be clear. What someone does in the privacy of their own home is their own business and no one else's. But the discussion we're having here is not only about what people do in the privacy of their home.
We're talking about legalizing a drug that alters your ability to function like a normal human being, and not in a good way. It impairs a person's judgement and ability to, for example, operate a motor vehicle.
I do not believe that arguing we should legalize one drug (weed) because another drug (alcohol) is legal is a legitimate reason. In fact, I would think that form of argument would actually undermine your intent to start out with. Look at how many people die everyday due to alcohol related incidents. And that's with a legalized drug. If we were to legalize marijuana, the availability to the everyday person who might not normally consider ever using it would be exponentially higher.
Even if your argument is that it's already available to anyone who wants it, you're still overlooking how penalties would be affected for possessing it. Right now, if you have any weed on you, and an officer finds it on you while driving, you get arrested. So most people who partake, refrain from operating a motor vehicle while high because they simply don't want to risk it. So, while marijuana is illegal, most people really do only use it in the privacy of their own home or residence.
But if it's legalized, the risk of "being caught" with any on you while driving is no longer there. So now that the officer can't arrest you for possession, the argument then becomes, how are we going to prove if someone is impaired while driving?
Alcohol intoxication is easily measurable. How high someone is, however, is not so easy to measure, just like kalimus has been saying.
How is it going to be proven that someone is impaired while driving due to marijuana? I will be honest here and say I have no idea if there is a test that can be performed by an officer (similar to a breathalyzer) that can conclusively determine how intoxicated a person is by marijuana. Yeah, they can administer a field sobriety test, but if the subject fails the sobriety test, then what? Is there a blood test at the station that can determine this intoxication level?
My concern is that if you legalize a psychoactive drug, what is going to be done to protect society from a bunch of people driving "drunk" on marijuana?
And to add to this, we have a hard enough time as it is eliminating the drunk drivers right now. So why should we be pushing to add another intoxicant to the legalized drug list before we solve the current issues first? Let's figure out a way to eliminate drunk drivers before we go and compound the problem with more legalized drugs.