/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2796215
stupid. marijuana can cause psychosis. legalizing it would bolster the cultural sentiment that it's not bad for you

How does Marijuana or it's decriminalization relate to "Science" or "Mathematics"?

This is a political question. Take it to /b/.

It'll bring in more tax revenue. So, sounds like a better idea than filling the jails, getting no tax money, and having it lead to crime.

But they must be forced into submission like the smokers. I don't want to be forced to breathe in that garbage.

>>2796215

Why the fuck not?

>>2796229
Marijuana = Plant = Biology = Science = /sci/

>>2796229
because the science behind the effects of marijuana are really the center of the debate.

Just like one would ask a doctor what his opinion on it would be.

>>2796215
Long overdue and not /sci/-related.

>>2796238
Except this thread wasn't about Marijuana specifically, but Marijuana decriminalization.

And with that logic, anything is science related.

Women are beautiful = hormones = human body = science = /sci/ so it's /sci/-related to post naked girls.

I hope you don't use this logic to explain why Marijuana should be legalized, especially if you're asking why it has not been yet.

>>2796231
harm to the self is no reason to outlaw something

else the law is treating us like children, doing things "for our own good"

read js mill

>>2796231
Like how people think alcohol and cigarettes aren't bad for you.

>>2796252
>>harm to the self is no reason to outlaw something

who is the law protecting if not the people?

>>2796242
No, the center of this debate is about why it should be legalized. Right now, we're not arguing science at all.

Why it should or should not be legalized might have to do with its effects, but that isn't science-related at all.

You're not even being /sci/ related right now. You are an idiot.

>>2796215
Im for it...

The US spends BILLIONS of dollars to keep people in jail for simple marijuana-related offenses and they spend billions more to "fight the war on drugs" Not to mention if it was decriminilzed it could be mass produced and taxed.

Marijuana also has several possible health benefits that could be more accureately determined by research.

Personally I cant think of any reasons NOT to decriminalize

>>2796252

Weird, I recall murder being illegal as well. Wonder why...

Hipster prick.

>>2796259
So you think it should be illegal to do anything that could cause you harm? The laws protect people from people, it shouldn't be their choice what adults do with their own body if it's not effecting anyone else.

>>2796229

This is pretty heavily /sci/ related seeing as the only way you're going to determine whether a substance should be legal or illegal is through scientific research. Unless you want to render all of science purposeless, then gtfo. You're certainly not helping the quality of this board.

>>2796259
It protects us from the malice or negligence of others, not ourselves. I should be allowed to grow my own drugs, or buy them from someone if he/the-industry makes a good faith effort to tell me the risks of their consumption.

>>2796229
because its hard to have a intelligent convo on /b/...
-.-

>>2796291
And /sci/ won't have intelligent conversation either if it becomes an off topic board. Every religion thread posted here ever, for example.

>>2796259

It's the job of the law to protect people from other people, not themselves. If it's the job of the law to control chemical processes in the brain(equivalent to thoughtcrime), then that's sufficient justification to ban certain religions, to instate mandatory ethical/philosophy classes in the public education sector, and to control what music, art, culture, etc. that people are involved with. Also, it would definitely mean that alcohol should be illegal.

>>2796314

you're a faggot. go away. no one cares about your counter-productive whiney bullshit. if you don't like it, ignore the thread and post your own threads and post in thread that are relevant to your interest.

An individual should do whatever he pleases, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. It's not the state's job to protect people from what they knowingly consume.

I guess the problem lies in our unclear definition on the purpose of government and laws.

Whats the purpose of government? Why do we have laws exactly? How much power should the government have over our lives? Should it have power over what one does in the privacy of his/her home? Should it control what we put in our own bodies?

portugal decriminalised, not legalised, all drugs in 2001.

ALL DRUGS

every year the use, the dealing, the crime related to (mugging for drug money etc) drugs has fallen since.

if legalised the only people doing them would be the hardcores, the far outs getting shamn visions from salvia and ayahuasca and everyone else maybe very very occasionally for fun.

portugese guy at my work told me there are people doing heroin in college, and its just not really a problem.

>>2796322
truly victimless crime is not a crime.

It's annoying. I wish people would stop talking about this plant.


Potheads always say "WATS DA BIG DEEL ITS JUST A PLANT!!!"

Exactly, shut up about it.

>>2796352

Yeah, and blacks and women should have just shut up about slavery and women's suffrage.

>>2796358
Yes because weed being illegal is on par to slavery.

>>2796325
I've been posting in this thread ;__; and though it's relevant to my interests I think this thread would be better suited in a board made for this sort of discussion, rather than one it has nothing to do with. You can't argue that all the /b/ trolling and religion threads are a good thing.

>>2796322
That might be true, but like smoking cigarettes, people do it in the privacy in their own home, but it might be harming their children and other people in the home from the second hand smoke.

>>2796352
Amanita phalloides is "just a fungus"!!!

>>2796368

Which is completely irrelevant. The issue is about having policy that is fair and has any consistency whatsoever. People have to fight for small things just as much as big things, to set precedents, otherwise nothing ever gets done. There are a lot of things that other people do that don't infringe upon your being in anyway, but chances are, you feel the compulsion to speak out about them, because you feel that they are in some way a reflection of something that is bad about society

>i.e. pointing out that people should just "shut up about it"

>>2796368
And millions of dollars wasted on a drug war plus huge prison populations because of an asinine law should just be ignored because it annoys you.

>Canadian
>Don't smoke cigs or pot
>Believe we should legalize pot and illegalize weed
>Save millions on healthcare
>Treat it like booze, so it's consider a DUI if you're caught smoking it while driving.

It should have happened a long time ago for a myriad of reasons.

also TROLLS EVERYWHERE

>>2796376
>second hand smoke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ANGxp8-aCw

>>2796376

Which is comparable to physical abuse, which is also done in one's own home, and is also illegal... Banning cigarettes wouldn't be addressing the root of the problem.

>>2796386

>>Believe we should legalize pot and illegalize weed

>>2796392
its just an example of how "private" activities arent so "private"

I'd like to see it capitalized.

>>2796404

Right, but how is that an issue? Something that's physically harming another person can always be reported.

>>2796399
pardon me, typo.
Legalize weed and illegalize cigs

>>2796414
but should it be illegal in the first place?

If cigarrettes and alcohol aren't going to be banned, than for fucks sake don't ban pot, which isn't nearly as damaging as those two.

But none of those should be banned.
1) Personal choice
2) Saves money
3) Eliminates overcrowded prisons

Fuck anyone who says otherwise. Seriously. You have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

>>2796430
Then, again why isn't everything that can be used to hurt someone illegal.

>>2796430

The drug doesn't have to be illegal to protect people from secondhand smoke. There can always be regulations, and certain zones where it is okay and not okay to smoke.

>>2796444

>2) Saves money

Yeah, because the 10 billion dollars spent per year on alcohol advertising alone per year isn't a colossal waste of money, either.

>>2796454

this. we should just outlaw alcohol. dumb drug is dumb.

>>2796454
Alcohol advertising is not run on tax dollars you colossal faggot.

If you think cannabis is a dangerous and addictive substance, you've obviously never smoked it. It is objectively less harmful than alcohol, so why is it illegal while alcohol is legal?

Even if you disagree with its consumption, it is not illegal because it's "bad for you". It's illegal because the legalization of cannabis threatens many industries, ranging from the alcohol and tobacco companies to manufacturers of paper and industrial fibers. The arguments that were made in favor of criminalizing it back in the early 20th century were overtly racist. Cannabis was said to make black men want to rape white women, and negative stereotypes of Mexicans were also put forth. Don't believe me? Look that shit up.

>>2796454
Unless you want to live in an extremist socialist state in which advertising is banned you need to accept that advertising money is an essential part of economic activity and not a waste but the result of a functioning capitalist system.

I'm of the opinion that it may as well be legalized. Alcohol is far worse for the human body in terms of an intoxicant, and when it comes to smoke, tobacco is far worse as well, especially considering new studies that negates it's cancerous effects.

I'm not that big on it, I only smoke on Sunday to watch CBS Sunday morning and eat a nice homemade breakfast, and it enhances that quite a bit. And making it illegal just makes the problem worse anyway.

>>2796479
this guy has watched The Union

>>2796476

>implying whether the money is spent by the government or corporations is relevant to whether it is being wasted, you colossal derpwad

>>2796490

>tobacco is far worse as well, especially considering new studies that negates it's cancerous effects.

>>2796503
The money that is 'wasted' on alcohol goes to fund television channels, radio stations, magazines and newspapers as well as many events and charities. If you oppose the existence of all of these institutions your viewpoint is essentially unreasonable and I don't feel any need to address it.

>>2796503
>Implying a corporation spending money on advertising justifies tax dollars being wasted controlling a substance that is less harmful than alcohol in the first place.

>>2796509

The point wasn't even about advertising, it was about the fact that if that much money is being spent on advertising, there must be exponentially more money being spent on alcohol itself.

>>2796521

>implying we were talking about a substance other than alcohol in this conversation

>>2796536
In that case, you should also turn your attention to the music, television, and cinema industries as well as most of the publishing industry, where many more billions of dollars are utterly wasted on entertainment.

True science would flourish with no laws.

>> my face when /sci/ does not look at this from unbiased point of view

The benefits of Marijuana Legalization:
Arguable chance that crime will be reduced for a short amount of time ( As drug cartels and gangs transitions from marijuana into cocaine or other illict drugs; they could also move into the business itself creating a criminal white collar culture like in Japan)
The goverement could tax marijuana so that the whole of society could benefit from the monetary gain. (Note: This will not be much as smoking and alcohol recently only contributed to 1.8% to local and state tax revenues, ask for source if needed)
Disadvantages:
High risk of increased addiction as Marijuana becomes mainstream and potential market for cocaine and hard drugs also widen creating a cycle
High risk of drug-related Societal issues (Refer to China when Opium was main stream - Bottom Line: China went into one of its lowest economical state) Ask if you want specifics
The consumers will have to pay more for weed as it becomes commericalized
Onced commericalized it will not insure that the product will be the best produ but only the most economical (E.g cheapest but best value for that price)
This differs from the market right now of back-alley negotation-based products. Where theres a word of mouth of who sells the best weed and can negotiate a price for it(or else go to another dealer since theres so many).
Therefore the risks outweigh the benefits

>>2796562

1.8% is huge! That's enough to fund a head start program in 50/50 states.

/sci/ has caused considerably more cancer than marihuana. And incarcerations based on the illegal status of cannabis have undoubtedly destroyed more lives than cannabis alone could ever have.

It was illegalized because of lobbying by DuPont and a racist fear campaign spearheaded by Harry Anslinger.

Pic related, it's the retarded bullshit propaganda from when it was illegalized.

Anyone arguing for the status quo is just as retarded as this pamphlet.

>>2796592
Yes it is quite alot but is it enough to risk it?
You have to take into the account that it is a "No turning back Policy" (E.g prohibition with alcohol, once its legalised it'll stay untill the societal stance is changed)

>>2796562
>The consumers will have to pay more for weed as it becomes commericalized
>Onced commericalized it will not insure that the product will be the best produ but only the most economical (E.g cheapest but best value for that price)
hurp durrrrp
Industrial marijuana growers could easily produce prices around probably ~$1/ounce of cheap weed grown for maximum output, and there's no reason to believe that much more expensive quality strains would not be available both homegrown and from specialty retailers.

>>2796615

I'm not sure - let's tease it out a bit more.

The argument about opium is interesting - societal, er, munchies and laziness. So would you support something that is more of an upper? Helps you get things done, be more intelligent, etc?

Is it okay for someone to do something that will give them pleasure and satisfaction, even though such a thing may have negative consequences in the event of long-term use or abuse?

If the answer is no, then why draw the line at the currently illegal drugs, why not ban fatty foods, or skiing, or football, or smoking and drinking?


Drug use is a personal decision, not a public one.

Drug abuse is a medical problem, not a criminal one.

Lighting a bowl right now, so I felt it was appropriate to bump your shitty thread, OP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZSuLzn74HU&feature=related

>>2796215
mmMarijuana's bad, m'ckay

Fuck decriminalization and medical marijuana, I want it totally legalized.

The notion that the government can make a plant illegal is proof of just how psychotic the human race can become.

If marijuana was legalised it would probably go the way of tobacco AND alcohol combined:

- Illegal to grow your own (how the fuck do you expect your tax argument to hold up if you're not buying it from anywhere?)
- Sold in stores alongside cigarettes and pouches
- 18+ or 21+
- Illegal to smoke and drive (fair enough)
- Insurance would likely cover you for fewer things, or at a higher cost
- Illegal to smoke it in public

Personally I'm fine with it being legal. I overheard a conversation once and it was said "If you have a room of 100 people on alcohol, and a room of 100 people on marijuana, I know what room I'd rather be in." Which is very true. Someone's gonna get punched in the alcohol room.

But I also acknowledge it's a slippery slope to the decriminalisation of other drugs. But is that a bad thing? Talk to anyone who's seen the inside of a drug lab. You can say all you want about "Oh LSD and MDMA et al are fine for you!" Yes that may be true, but there is *zero* quality control or production regulations on illegal drugs. So if they were decriminalised they could be made pure, in a laboratory, by a scientist, under strict hygienic and production regulations.

Drugs aren't going anywhere, so would the most sensible thing not be to resort to "best practise" by improving quality, improving dosage/usage education, and removing the black market?

i just don't get how the world works.

it would drive the price down massively, rigth?
whats the point? you pay a premium for something just because society says its illegal?

>>2796877

wtf no.

Look gentlemen the main issue on the table here is homosexuals and their attempts to devalue American marriages.

PALIN 2012

>>2796939
Google:
- Capitalism
- Supply and demand

You seem fairly new to the world.

>>2796939
>>2796624

>HERP DERP CHEAP

You fucking idiots forgetting taxes? You realise that the price of alcohol or cigarettes without taxes would be a tiny fraction of what it is now, right?

>>2799217
>Implying that taxes isn't exactly what the Federal Reserve corporation wants.

>>2799220

Did you even read who I was replying to? Those fucktards actually thought the price of weed would go down if it was legalised.

>>2799217
You fucking stupid piece of shit, you think alcohol was that fucking cheap during prohibition? Or fucking tobacco wouldn't cost MORE than weed if it was illegal? The industrial costs for growing weed aren't significantly more than those for growing tobacco, if you seriously would have a problem paying $5 for 20 joints or $8 for an ounce of weed you dont deserve to smoke.

I haunt smoked in a many years but proabition dosnt work. It didn't for alcohol and the decades we've been fighting a unsinkable war on drugs is a hypocrisy and testimony to the inevitable conclusion : legalize it

In short if a stoner wants to smoke his brains out fuck it let him. I've got bigger plans that require I not be full retard

alcohol and tobacco are not illegal to grow/make in limited amounts for personal use. if pot was legalized, it would probably have similar limitations.

>>2799236
the price of pot would come down significantly, depending on what current price point you are referring to. it would be vastly cheaper than the current "retail" end-user is paying.

the price of a pack of pot smokes would be cheaper to manufacture than the same amount of tobacco smokes, and would probably cost the same, thus having a greater tax revenue potential.

>>2799256

Are you retarded? I'm saying that the government is going to tax the shit out of that stuff. They are going to try and get as much revenue as they can, and will likely try to only beat the illegal sellers by a small margin.

>>2799236
It would come down to about 16$ a lb.

Then it would get taxed to, at most, double that.

Hemp makes for nice, durable paper, so it's really a 2 for one for the growers, too.

>>2799271
Yeah but if they're beating the illegal sellers <span class="math">the price is still going down.[/spoiler]

I swear, you people are worse than the malthusians.