Half of Americans (50%) say they have tried marijuana at some time, a new high point for this behavior that has been inching up over the past quarter century.
Story Highlights
50% of U.S. adults say they have experimented with marijuana
About one in six Americans (17%) are current users
Three in four Americans are concerned about effects on young/teen users
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.
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.
More mastubatory logic there. If that were true, there would be no users of a product withing a generation of banning it.
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.
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.
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.
It has had that effect though.
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.
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.
The use of drugs is nominally victimless.
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.
Many leisure activities serve no immediate purpose other than relaxation.
And many such activities ultimately are harmfull and defending them is a result of one’s lack of self-discipline and lazyness.
I see you’ve ignored the socialization aspect of recreational drugs and their effects on the various arts too.
Both unnecessary, if one needs drugs to socialize, they need to seek medical help.
Uppers increase brain activity.
And typically have detrimental effects on the individual. There are risks and no benefits, therefor, ban.
Only to a selfish individualist who puts his one gain before the good of everyone else.
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.
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.
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.
Only to a selfish individualist who puts his one gain before the good of everyone else.
Examples of Victimless Crimes
There is no set definition of a victimless crime, and each person may have a different opinion about whether a criminal offense is actually victimless. Some of the common examples of actions that may be called victimless crimes include:
Please cite your source on all people believing the definition of the word being “selfish individuals”.
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.
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.
Please cite your source on all people believing the definition of the word being “selfish individuals”.
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.
Citation needed.
Literally look anywhere outside of the West, you wont see many people taking Western style slacking off as a granted.
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.
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.
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.