280
Fully Half of Americans Have Tried Marijuana
(news.gallup.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
280 points (95.2% liked)
politics
19254 readers
2280 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's an arbitrary classification that you brought up...
That's objectively untrue. Not only is it stupid when you think about it for like 45s, but just because it's an argument you might not accept doesn't mean there isn't an argument for it. Additionally, the current system (in the US) does exactly that. It schedules those mind altering drugs based on their medical applications.
If you want to go down that road, then every classification is arbitrary as there is no definition of drugs sent down from the heavens. In any case this is just sophistry, call it what you want, it is irrelevant. The point still stands, it is a heavily mind altering substance that has no benefits when used recreationally (this is the point of the word recreational), and as such must be banned.
What? How does that point stand? That logic is heavily mastubatory at best. Most recreational activities have "no benefits" beyond the recreation itself. Banning them isn't the answer.
Banning a common activity is itself harmful. The decrease on organized crime in states that have legalized should be proof enough that the ban just doesn't fit our society.
Most recreational activies are productive and serve a purpose other than mindless pleasure, be it reading, exercising, creative projects or other such activites. Recreational drug use serves no such purpose and only exists to numb one's mind from the outside world, and likely their troubles, this fact just is covered by pretty words about "relaxation" and such.
Banning a substance (with strategic eye of course, for example a total immediate ban on alcohol would cause more problems than it would solve, a incremental ban is better in this case) that complements this behaviour also discourages this behaviour, as no-one who isn't addicted to the substance will take the risk of procuring it illegally. And the ones who are addicted obviously require medical care.
The decrease of organised crime in drug trade is no argument, one could argue that murder should be legal since the amount of convicted murderers goes down if it is legalised. Not to mention how the ban on certain drugs in America isn't designed to lower the usage of drugs to begin with, rather simply profit off it in various ways.
More mastubatory logic there. If that were true, there would be no users of a product withing a generation of banning it.
If murders only harmed the murderer that might be the case. The use of drugs is nominally victimless. And the only decision we need to make about a popular product in a free society is do we want CVS or Walmart selling it or organized crime.
It has had that effect though.
Many leisure activities serve no immediate purpose other than relaxation. I see you've ignored the socialization aspect of recreational drugs and their effects on the various arts too.
Also only half the drugs roughly "numb ones mind." Those are downers. Uppers increase brain activity.
I did say that anyone not addicted wouldn't procure substances illegally, not everyone with a drug problem seeks medical help you know.
It is not, society itself is the victim as the drug user is wasting their potential and time on drugs instead of something productive. Not to mention the wasted effort and resources on producing the drugs and dealing with trouble users.
And many such activities ultimately are harmfull and defending them is a result of one's lack of self-discipline and lazyness.
Both unnecessary, if one needs drugs to socialize, they need to seek medical help.
And typically have detrimental effects on the individual. There are risks and no benefits, therefor, ban.
So victimless. That's the definition.
Is it? It is it just reasonable to realize that millions of years of mamillian evolution have led to leisure as normal a part of the species.
What?
Only to a selfish individualist who puts his one gain before the good of everyone else.
Literally only in the opulent West and in the last few decades is it considered normal for one to slack off doing absolutely nothing usefull for the better part of the day.
Increased brain activity in itself isn't a benefit, not to mention relying on drugs to keep yourself going is the opposite of healthy. There are perfectly healthy ways to keep one's brain activity up, exercise, healthy diet, enough sleep and so on.
Source
Please cite your source on all people believing the definition of the word being "selfish individuals".
Citation needed.
And why should i care what American lawyers think? Like i said, it's a victimless crime if one is a selfish individualist liberal who cares only for themselves, and not society as a whole, so Americans and American lawyers especially.
What? I said selfish individualists, and that is what they are, people that put their own benefit and enjoyment before the good of their society, otherwise they wouldn't be arguing for recreational drugs, as there is no collectivist argument for them, only individualist ones.
Literally look anywhere outside of the West, you wont see many people taking Western style slacking off as a granted.
Nah fr. At my old university the school found out alot of students who quit marijuana had their grades improve, not because weed =bad, but rather that removing the CBD allowed them to increase their ambition.