Indiana's Push for Medical Marijuana

[jamil]

I’m not following you on this. What else is it about? I see it as a personal freedom issue, it is a big/vs small government issue, it is the same in some ways to a variety of other topics but they can all be disassembled down to very simple, basic questions.

Oh, and about disassembling into very basic questions, it’s not a valid question when the reduction oversimplifies the issue to exclude the very thing the other side objects to.

 

[phylodog]

No argument there

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Will you at least acknowledge that it’s more than just a plant. No one is advocating a war against tomatoes. It’s about this plant’s affects on the mind. That it’s a drug. And you can argue that that’s no one’s business. That’s what I think about it. But it’s specious at best to argue that it’s only about a plant.

No. It’s not more than a plant. I don’t add anything to it. I don’t alter it. It’s just a plant. The effects are irrelevant, because I didn’t alter them to have that effect, that’s how the plant reacts. Poison ivy has an effect on human bodies. Should it be illegal if it grows on your property? (I know it’s a stretch because it isn’t a mental effect, but nonetheless it isn’t anything that humans should have control over). Some people have a reaction to peanuts. It has an effect on them. This is all natural, that isn’t in any way altered from its pure form. If it has effects that people like so be it. The government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating which flowers are ok and which are not. They can’t even keep Epstein safe in prison.

 

[Trigger Time]

I do think that Marijuana should be legalized. But your question isn’t an important one to me that I need the other side to answer because it is too narrow. There is a bit more to their objection to legalize it than that it’s simply about being a plant. Obviously, because they’re not wanting all plants banned. It’s that it’s a drug that has nonzero negative consequences. So, if you’re going to put up an argument, argue against what they’re actually saying.

I think the only point of potential common ground is making it about whether there are enough societal consequences to justify continuing prohibition. As more states adopt legalization, we’ll have more data points to see if there actually is justification for prohibiting it.

We dont need common ground on constitutional issues. I hate hearing the term common ground and common sense relating to gun laws too.
You dont negotiate freedom

 

[Dead Duck]

But Mushrooms.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

We dont need common ground on constitutional issues. I hate hearing the term common ground and common sense relating to gun laws too.
You dont negotiate freedom

Ya the word common gets used a lot by the left. It’s a way for them to make you feel as if this is what most people want, hence “common”, and if you don’t want that it means you’re a minority and should feel bad. I don’t buy it. I’m tired of giving up my freedoms, even ones like this freedom that I would probably never use if it were legal. I still don’t wanna give it away even if I don’t partake.

 

[Trigger Time]

Ya the word common gets used a lot by the left. It’s a way for them to make you feel as if this is what most people want, hence “common”, and if you don’t want that it means you’re a minority and should feel bad. I don’t buy it. I’m tired of giving up my freedoms, even ones like this freedom that I would probably never use if it were legal. I still don’t wanna give it away even if I don’t partake.

Yeah like people think we need a majority opinion on things to run this country.
Thats not how this works. Not in a republic

 

[Dead Duck]

But Peyote.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Yeah like people think we need a majority opinion on things to run this country.
Thats not how this works. Not in a republic

Amen. It was just here the other day we had this discussion in a political thread. I believe it was kut that said something about it may not be a bad thing to be majority run. I can’t imagine what impact that would have had 100 years ago if the majority had complete control over the minorities.

I thank god we live in a constitutional republic. Now if we could just get it back to being ran BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE

 

[Hatin Since 87]

But Peyote.

And mushrooms

 

[Dead Duck]

But Jimsonweed.

 

[Dead Duck]

As you can see I'm a whoreticulturist.
That's just a fancy name for a shrubbery expert.

 

[jamil]

No. It’s not more than a plant. I don’t add anything to it. I don’t alter it. It’s just a plant. The effects are irrelevant, because I didn’t alter them to have that effect, that’s how the plant reacts. Poison ivy has an effect on human bodies. Should it be illegal if it grows on your property? (I know it’s a stretch because it isn’t a mental effect, but nonetheless it isn’t anything that humans should have control over). Some people have a reaction to peanuts. It has an effect on them. This is all natural, that isn’t in any way altered from its pure form. If it has effects that people like so be it. The government shouldn’t be in the business of regulating which flowers are ok and which are not. They can’t even keep Epstein safe in prison.

No one has advocated to make tomatoes schedule I drugs. It doesn't matter that you think it's only a plant. It is not the plant part that makes it a schedule I drug. It's the "gets you high" part.

Here are the reasons Marijuana is listed as a schedule I drug:

• The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
• The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S.
• It has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.

If you want it off the schedule, you can argue that it does not have a high potential for abuse. You can argue that it has a medical treatment use in the US that should be accepted. You can argue that it should be considered safe for use under medical supervision. Those are the reasons drugs get on the schedule. Arguing that it's just a plant isn't a legitimate argument.

Here's a legitimate argument: it's no one else's business if you want to get high, or if you want to use it to relieve some ailment that it helps to relieve, as long as you're not impacting other people. But then it's on you to make the case that it does not impact other people, or whatever negative societal impacts it has don't outweigh the negative societal impact of keeping it a schedule I drug.

 

[Jludo]

But Mushrooms.

Should absolutely be legal too, everyone needs to try mushrooms at least once

 

[bwframe]

Massive Poppy Bust: Why Home-Grown Opium Is Rare

 

[jamil]

We dont need common ground on constitutional issues. I hate hearing the term common ground and common sense relating to gun laws too.
You dont negotiate freedom

You're in a thread arguing about whether or not marijuana should be legalized or not. You're not a 3percenter in the revolution. You're in no position to negotiate. You just have the power of voting. What I'm talking about with common ground is finding the intersection of two points, like on a Venn diagram, where you can agree on what is objectively true about both sides of the argument, and what is objectively false about both sides of the argument. Then maybe what you come away with is something closer to resembling reality. And working within the things you agree are true and false, you also have the power of persuasion that you might convince someone that you're right about it.

To Hough's point pages ago, you're not talking to people who have any pull in changing the law one way or other. INGO doesn't make laws. You're just a person with an opinion on the internet like everyone else. The best you can hope for is to come away from the discussion with a little more understanding than you had before you participated. That's how you acquire wisdom. You can learn from the untenable parts of your argument, to make yours better. And, maybe you learn from the good parts of theirs. I've watched this thread and the arguments people have made, and both sides in this particular debate have some valid points, and some invalid points.

 

[Trigger Time]

You know its like gun laws. We (most all of us) follow the laws even though they are wrong. It would be easy to make an illegal firearm but we dont because we dont want to take a chance of our freedom being taken. Because I certainly dont not do it because I respect the government. Its not a moral issue.
Same with weed. We all could easily grow some plants and most likely never be caught. But is it worth the risk?

Well on the wees issue the feds are realizing they no longer have the resources or initiative to fight that battle. Too many states even who have told the government to **** off.
Thats what i hope will happen regarding guns soon. Freedom lovomg citizens say screw tyranny and just do it and get their states on board.

 

[jamil]

Ya the word common gets used a lot by the left. It’s a way for them to make you feel as if this is what most people want, hence “common”, and if you don’t want that it means you’re a minority and should feel bad. I don’t buy it. I’m tired of giving up my freedoms, even ones like this freedom that I would probably never use if it were legal. I still don’t wanna give it away even if I don’t partake.

"Common ground" is misused. As I said, real ass common ground is the intersection of two sets of ideas. It's the basis for understanding both sides of an issue in sufficient detail that you can decide if it's possible to come to an agreement. And maybe it's not. Maybe both sides have to walk away and just disagree. Hopefully, as I said above, you will have learned a bit more about where your own arguments fail to make them stronger, or areas where you may need to concede where the other side has a valid point. That's how two sides discuss disagreements in an intellectually honest way.

 

[Trigger Time]

I think its bull**** we have to pay a damn lawyer to exercise our freedoms or keep them from being trampled anymore in this country.
Thats the freaking problem is common ground and allowing everyone to believe that they have a voice and that their opinion matters. Because no, no everyone's opinion doesn't really always matter.

 

[jamil]

You know its like gun laws. We (most all of us) follow the laws even though they are wrong. It would be easy to make an illegal firearm but we dont because we dont want to take a chance of our freedom being taken. Because I certainly dont not do it because I respect the government. Its not a moral issue.
Same with weed. We all could easily grow some plants and most likely never be caught. But is it worth the risk?

Well on the wees issue the feds are realizing they no longer have the resources or initiative to fight that battle. Too many states even who have told the government to **** off.
Thats what i hope will happen regarding guns soon. Freedom lovomg citizens say screw tyranny and just do it and get their states on board.

I think that eventually, at least weed will be legalized. I don't think there's as strong a case for the really hard drugs like opioids or meth. I'm not sure those would ever be socially acceptable to enough people that they could be taken off the schedule. But I think there's a strong case for marijuana.

Guns are different. People aren't freedom loving. I think if they were at least as educated about the founding principles as they are about Social Justice, I think more people would be freedom friendly. But hell, as it is we're losing ground just on free speech. I think we're losing ground on guns too. We had some momentum going where the trend over the last 30 years has been favorable for relaxing gun laws, but then Sandy Hook changed that. The trends now are more towards more regulation. Of course the dishonest portrayal of the issue is why the trend changed so much. Point is, we're not winning that battle of opinion right now.