here we go, i found it


http://www.illuminati-news.com/marijuana-conspiracy.htm

I think it is immoral to base a decision like this on any economic alleviation legalization may provide. Whatever the verdict be, it should to the benefit of the health of the populace. This recession won't last forever and if marijuana is legalized the decision will (likely) never be reversed- don't make permanent solutions to temporary problems.

I spoke to a Domestic Violence Prosecutor today and he told me he could only remember a couple cases that didn't involve the involved being under influence. Nothing substantive to the argument, but at least notable. I really don't care about how harmful marijuana is to the user, what I really object to is the effect can they have on innocent people around them. The fact of the matter is that being high does impair your judgment, and like excessive alcohol often leads to some seriously poor choices with terrible consequences. If you ask me alcohol should be illegalized as well.

And lol? Illuminati news? Some people..

I've smoked for 3 years now and I haven't even been tempted to do other drugs, and I do it every so often. I smoke pretty much every other weekend in moderate amounts. I don't endanger myself in anyway when I do it (I usually just chill at home). It has never effected my school performance (because I know better), I've quit for months at a time, and I've never been a heavy drinker, and I've probably smoked 12 cigarettes in my whole life and now I don't even want to touch them.

But, Bill Clinton (no offense to you obviously), you say that it should not be legalized, but medical marijuana is okay. People can fake being hurt to get medical marijuana, and I believe recreational use of it can far benefit the economy and the social status of smoking marijuana. Most kids will stop because it won't be "cool", and a lot of people's mindset on it will change permanently.

If they're high from their own choices, rather than made to get high, it reflects a weighted conscious decision that reflects their intelligence: people of different intelligences often come to different conclusions when contemplating their options, therefore the sample groups would have different bell curves if you didn't control them.

Good game.

Another point, pot doesn't make you as stupid as it's made out to be. You guys are making a useless argument.

Different people already have different IQ levels, but there's also common sense coming into play, and different situations. A standardized test with a high person vs. a sober person would obviously differ greatly. However, when I'm high I think about all the possible solutions, it also helps me delve into thought. I sound like a fucking pothead, but I bet you right now I could quit this week, right now, and be fine.

Cigarettes were cool until they became death...
Legalizing something doesn't make unpopularize it.

What will probably happen: Large industry will move into the sector of marijuana sales. These international companies/Tobacco firms will push most of the current dealers out of business. No longer able to compete with a professional system, they will face two routes.
1. They get hired, which is likely for some people, but most likely, the people that sell cigarettes will simply start selling Marijuana too.
2. They move on. This could either be good or bad. People will be forced to change life paths. They may decide to go and get a normal job, or (more likely) they will change the drugs that they traffic. The profit for illegal substances will usually trump legal ones when it comes to price per commodity, and so many dealers will switch to something else.
In essence, legalization would not stop crime, it would simply change the norm.

Although, in all fairness there is almost nothing government can do against crime. The best solution is to have the utility, but not to be a jerk about things.

I smoke pot maybe once or twice a year. (When I do, I go all out. Like a pound over a weekend.) I don't find any urge to smoke, nor do I find any deterring effects from it.

I agree that the temporary boost in economy is not a valid reason to enforce it, however I'd not be opposed to this idea: The government sold the drug in private, government owned facilities (Not the pharmacy), the staff were obliged to ID people who came in and it was recorded onto their records that on that day the person had purchased x amount of weed at y price and through purchasing it that person agree's not to smoke in public, not to cause disorder under the influence, not to supply those underage, not to re-sell the product and finally are aware of any risks they impose on themselves.

This would require drug enforcers to continue tracking drug dealers competing with the governments prices (maximize profits) Also tracking those suppling underage users, and those in public.

I suggest this because it would bring in tax money, it would eliminate one form of gateway (dealers), those who opt not to do it, don't have to deal with those who do and finally, those who do it are actually allowed to. Fair?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 26 2009, 7:23 pm by Vrael. Reason: Combining

There are dispensaries for medical maurijuana that already do that, however, since it is technically against "federal" law, they get shut down a lot even though they are perfectly compliant and legal within Californian law. A business is a business, the government will profit either way.

There are laws against drinking and driving, but there are still tons of accidents that are caused by people driving under the influence of alcohol, while most people are intelligent about their smoking, it's not worth legalizing it so most can enjoy it, when a few idiots ruin it by doing things they shouldn't while high. Sure, the majority is suffering for the minority, however, marijuana, while it's enjoyable is not necessary.

Nothing is necessary except food and water.
Weed should be legalized. More money, more business, less crime, less wasted taxes on jail. Isn't it just common sense?

Necessary to life, you mean? What's your point?

The list you mentioned are possible effects, not proven effects. More money/business seems reasonable, since there seems to be some demand for this product. But how much more money? Enough to validate the legalization despite some other repurcussions? And upon deeper inspection, there may be factors that actually take away from the new income, like an increase in auto-accidents, or people getting fired because they go to work high. As for crime, it will certainly be decreased if you restrict your observations to possession/use of marijuana crimes, but overall, perhaps drug dealers will simply find a new drug, people will die over other drugs, and maybe the increased abundance of MJ will lead to an increase in the aformentioned auto-accidents. None of these things are proven effects of legalization, they are all theoretical, but that's my point. It isn't merely "common sense" because we are making unfair extrapolations based on insufficient data.

It's extremely difficult to say what the effects of legalization are without actually observing our society with legalized marijuana, they could just as easily be positive as they could be negative, and it really boils down to who uses it, in my opinion. If all MJ users happened to be toking in their own homes after a long day of work just to chill, well there's really no problems with that, are there (except maybe neighbors complaining about the smell)? But if people using it at a party decide to drive home stoned, problems can arise.

Another thing I think ought to be mentioned for you age<18 folks out there, even if it is legalized, it won't be legalized for minors: cigarrettes and alcohol aren't, so there's no reason to think MJ will be. If you support legalization in the hopes that you'll be able to buy weed without legal repurcussions, think again ( at least until you're 18 or 21, whatever they set the age to).

First post states 21 years of age. I think it could be trialed but if they don't respect the public by keeping to themselves and all applicable laws hat come with it, then they ruined it for themselves.

The intellegence bell curve already has everyone's intellegence accounted for, so no differences exist. I think your assuming that the marijuana would effect the intellegence level of a person when its clear that people's intellegence levels are already spread out as is. And besides, the intellegence bell curve is created without any control, therefore, you would get the SAME BELL CURVE:

The original test isn't controlled, and neither is ours, we would get the same bell curve.

This is assuming you're using a perfect, standardized IQ test and reading it as is intended...
Syphon's argument was, so far as I read, that the population taking the marijuana would be biased. A test of some quality, trait, or aspect of a population versus another population, in which one is biased towards/away from the quality, trait, or aspect than the other, will show different results for the two.
1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, ... are "spread out", as are 1, 3, 9, 27, 81, 243, 729, ...; However, both sets of values are very different. If they were the IQs of some test-takers on marijuana vs. off, then it would be perfectly reasonable to infer that people who are willing to take marijuana differ in intelligence, whether it be because of their use of it or not.
What is this "original test" you claim you "would get the same bell curve" as, and how is it relevant?

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Feb 27 2009, 2:34 am by EzDay281.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_Distribution

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/8/c/e8cf730ec1a7587ee84403dbc1c64008.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bell_Curve

This is what IQ is modelled with -- the bell curve which is standard normal distribution. Select any parts of the population randomly, and you get similar bell curves. Its pure statistics and calculus. Note that I have said random. If you use a selection bias with random selection, would would get different, but similar bell curves.

Hey, you can't take in the human factor though. Just because someone has a high IQ doesn't mean they have a lot of common sense and they could fuck up an answer.

Your reasoning is pretty flawed if you take that into account, and if you don't think it is, I'm probably just confused as fuck about the whole process.

I'm more confused about what it is you are exactly referring to. I'm only taking into acount IQ. There is a lot we can talk about when discussing marijuana, I merely decided to take a chunk off and debate it.

I'm familiar with IQ, and, though to a more non-technical degree, bell curves.
A. "Select any parts ..."
"Marijuana users" and "non-marijuana users" are not "any"; furthermore, this is only if you calibrate the test answers->IQ to each group individually. This would be a patently stupid idea, and is not the one implied by the use of an IQ test.
By your arguments, if we were to take a random sample of the mentally retarded ( using the IQ standard, i.e. technically our sample is entirely composed of those with an IQ below 70 ) , and compared it to a random sample of people in general, we would get the same distributions.
B. "Note that I have said random." You didn't state random samples; you stated that "a random distribution... forms a bell curve."
You stated "similar" for your own case, also.
And the only way to know if this degree of "similar"ity is within statistical insignificance, one would have to actually perform the tests.

I don't even know why I'm saying as much as I am. It all comes down to the fact that we are talking about two different groups of people who could, possibly, exhibit different intelligence distributions for a variety of reasons, the only way to necessarily know will not be the case before seeing results being to intentionally and very precisely control the samples ( i.e. non-random ) , or to, as I stated before, calibrate the IQ results for each group individually, instead of using the same scale for the entire group of test-takers- which, as I also stated before, is absurd and rediculous for such purposes as testing how marijuana affects intelligence or how users of it tend towards some abnormal degree of intelligence.

Do you know what I mean by similar bell curves? I doubt that you do, because you'd realize that the distribution of their test scores would be similar to the overall population. Have you taken a mathematics course on statistics?

On another note, you are using biased samples based on IQ, which is unethical. You can't base your selected groups on age, race, ethnicity, mother tongue, IQ and so on. Notice that ethicality was a major part of my first post. There are two parts to my post, the part about ethics and the part about data, both are equally important, and you keep breaking one of the ethical issues...

Thank you for proving my point.

This is why to study the effects without bias you could not do what you originally stated.