• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Responsible Utilization of Narcotics

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cemetery

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
185
Location
incognito
I'm a heavy user of marijuana. I am not dependent on this substance, though. Merely recreational.

The reason why marijuana was banned, is because of outdated, conservative, and societal stances on drug use and artificially altering moods. So, we have a contradiction in regards to alcohol, caffeine, and pharmaceutical drugs.

The reason why these particular substances are legalized is simply because they can be taxed, regulated, and monitored, ensuring profit for governmental forces. Marijuana? There are probably grow-ops down your street.

Not everybody has the patience, knowledge, or understanding of alcoholic beverages to start an underground and illegal brewery. During Prohibition, several people died because of poorly made and toxic batches.

Pharmaceutical companies are the main contradiction. These pills can be, and essentially are designed, to be addictive. I've gotten completely stoned by purchasing cough syrup capsules from Shoppers Drug Mart, all for $5 and they're -easily- accessible. But, due to their inherently complicated method of production, the government can ensure money is earned, the public will definitely be brainwashed into thinking they have a malady which only this particular drug will cure, and most importantly, it's completely monitored and regulated. Imagine needing the precise understanding of chemicals, reactions, and mathematics in order to produce these in your basement apartment.

If they could successfully tax weed, and regulate it, perhaps things would be different. There's not one legal, addictive substance that doesn't reap excessive profit, and society isn't dependent upon.

Marijuana isn't as healthy as drinking water, granted, but nobody in given history has died due to a direct use from it. Look at tobacco and alcoholic consumption statistics.
 

Xianglian

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
275
Location
Craptown (Buffalo, NY)
I'm a heavy user of marijuana. I am not dependent on this substance, though. Merely recreational.

The reason why marijuana was banned, is because of outdated, conservative, and societal stances on drug use and artificially altering moods. So, we have a contradiction in regards to alcohol, caffeine, and pharmaceutical drugs.

The reason why these particular substances are legalized is simply because they can be taxed, regulated, and monitored, ensuring profit for governmental forces. Marijuana? There are probably grow-ops down your street.

If they could successfully tax weed, and regulate it, perhaps things would be different. There's not one legal, addictive substance that doesn't reap excessive profit, and society isn't dependent upon.

Marijuana isn't as healthy as drinking water, granted, but nobody in given history has died due to a direct use from it. Look at tobacco and alcoholic consumption statistics.
You contradicted yourself with the first and last statements you made. You yourself stated that you are not dependent on marijuana. You state at the end of your argument that there isn't one legal substance that society isn't dependent upon. Marijuana supposedly is not an addictive drug. Therefore, according to your argument it would ultimately fail in with profits because people wont have the urge to buy marijuana because they aren't addicted to it.

Even though ballin4life and I are on opposite sides of this argument he made a great point:

For another example: I can focus only on the negatives of things like sports (injury) or fast food (being unhealthy to eat), but this does NOT mean we should ban these things.
Alcohol is meant for recreation. It has no benefits, just like marijuana, it's purely recreational.

Caffeine is a stimulant. It's purposes are self explanatory

(not finished, will continue at a later time)
 

Cemetery

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
185
Location
incognito
How did I contradict myself?

Just because marijuana is not addictive, doesn't mean people don't consume it for recreational use. Nice try though.
 

Xianglian

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
275
Location
Craptown (Buffalo, NY)
How did I contradict myself?

Just because marijuana is not addictive, doesn't mean people don't consume it for recreational use. Nice try though.
You completely missed my point. You said that you are a heavy recreational user. And your argument stated that if the government could capitalize on society's dependency of this drug, then is should be legalized. But marijuana is supposedly not addictive, therefore, there would be no reason for it to be legalized because you can go without it if you don't have the money to by it, and there is no dramatic withdrawal that scares users into continuously taking the drug. This is an obvious contradiction.

I don't even want to finish my counter argument now :c
 

Cemetery

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
185
Location
incognito
Please stop posting, your lack of reading comprehension or understanding of marijuana is saddening.

There is no contradiction. People still buy tons of cannabis for recreational use, dependency isn't required.

Does recreational usage of alcohol make you addicted or dependent? No, people consume it every once in a while because they like having a good time with friends at the bar, or a romantic encounter with a certain someone.

The government, whether the population is dependent or not, can still tax this substance to earn a considerable profit. Individual semantics don't matter. You could be addicted or not addicted to tobacco or caffeine, yet if taxed and regulated, the government still reaps a reward.

You don't have a counter argument. Marijuana itself is not addictive, yet there are drug dealers living next door to you that chop weed and make decent money.
 

Xianglian

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Mar 11, 2010
Messages
275
Location
Craptown (Buffalo, NY)
Please stop posting, your lack of reading comprehension or understanding of marijuana is saddening.
Insulting me is not an argument.


There is no contradiction. People still buy tons of cannabis for recreational use, dependency isn't required.
You based your argument on the basis of dependency in society, I'm not going to repeat myself.

The government, whether the population is dependent or not, can still tax this substance to earn a considerable profit. Individual semantics don't matter. You could be addicted or not addicted to tobacco or caffeine, yet if taxed and regulated, the government still reaps a reward.
That's just it. Something that has a multi-million dollar underground profit machine is not going to be legalized. Politicians make too much money off it already. It's been banned for far too long, and about half of the country is either strongly opposed or opposed to the legalization of this drug. The government can regulate something that is already chaotic. Marijuana should not be legalized, it should be decriminalized.

You don't have a counter argument. Marijuana itself is not addictive, yet there are drug dealers living next door to you that chop weed and make decent money.
Drug dealers that live next door to me aren't going to be taxed, because what they are doing doesn't end with marijuana. This argument is ultimately irrelevant and has nothing to do with the legalization.

I'm upset that this is still a marijuana debate.

Wait what the hell? Recreation isn't a benefit? You must be the life of the party.
You're Godd*mn right I am. I'm talking about benefits in regard of your physical health, not your happiness.
 

Cemetery

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
185
Location
incognito
Sigh.

They -can't- regulate marijuana, is my point. Dependency is irrelevant, especially since you used that argument against me personally.

The underground market simply doesn't exist anymore if it's legalized. Why go through all the legal hassles and repercussions?
 

Cemetery

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 28, 2008
Messages
185
Location
incognito
A black market, in this case, drugs, wouldn't need to be underground and hidden if it was endorsed by governmental forces and approved.

Alcohol was banned during Prohibition, and was re-legalized. After that point, it wasn't underground, but mainstream once again.

This is all useless semantics, anyways. Not important, really.

*Edit* Generally though, when it comes to organs, children, and women, trafficking being allowed takes away the status, but not necessarily the cost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom