Wouldn't it be nice if instead of just bars with alcohol, there were establishments for people to consume cannabis while eating, playing board games, and socializing?
If anything, cannabis seems like a much better (and more profitable) drug around which to build a leisurely establishment.
You're viewing a single thread.
No it wouldn't. I'm sick and tired of the childish argument that if we accept alcohol then we have to accept or introduce other substance abuses because some find it more appealing.
Why shouldn't we accept it? Its already poven to be better for you than alcohol, many people enjoy it, and a lot less deaths per year will be caused by wee than alcohol. Should people who don't want to drink not be allowed to have a place they can hang out similar to a bar?
Here we go again. People who don't want to drink alcohol can hang anywhere and still don't drink acohol. The unwillingness to drink alcohol or that "many people like it" are not actual arguments to introduce and use other health damaging substances rerdless of their nature and effects.
I just want constancy. Weed is less dangerous than alcohol. Ban both, legalize both, legalize weed but not alcohol, or keep things the way they are and drop the premise that it has anything to do with health and safety.
That "less dangerous" is so subjective and unfounded that I'm not going to address.
On the other hand do you think it's a good idea to think in extremes? Alcohol is rooted in our culture since literally thousands of years to get it out is almost impossible now but we can struggle for moderation. Weed as we find it on the market didn't even exist 100 years ago. So maybe it's a good idea to introduce it get it common as alcohol so in 50 years we will have the problems with alcohol and with weed on top. Smart.
Then we can go further to other drugs because we cant leave them outside. We have to be consistent and some people really like it.
Complains about how dangerous introducing something is. Then says it is subjective and won't address it.
It's like the Santa Claus problem. Telling kids that Santa Claus is real and watching, then went they get older telling them it was all a lie. Surprise Pikachu face when they all turn atheist. Tell kids that weed is bad for their health. When they get older, watch as half the country legalise medical marajana. Surprise Pikachu when the kids all start trying meth "cause adults lied about one drug, what about the others?"
Consistency isn't just to make certain people feel better. Consistency prevents people from going down dangerous paths.
Well, actually reading a post and just glancing over it are two different things and I can asure you that only the first can help you understand what other person is saying.
Introducing a drug (for which we don't have yet the full table of clinical affections but the data that we have clearly shows it has negative long term effects) to unrestricted consumption and social acceptable norms is not ok especially in the context of how bad alcohol consumption is and how much damage is doing to consumers. But you actually don't care about alcohol consumption, it's just an argument you got flying around from the internet forums and subscribes ro whataboutism.
What I won't address is the comparison "less dangerous than" which is vague and unfounded. I can tell you why but I doubt that you care.
Telling people that weed it's bad for their health is the truth, especially to kids and that won't change when they grow older. But maybe you don't care because you're young and consuming and nothing bad happened to you.
Medical consumption and for leisure in a bar/coffee house consumption are 2 very different things. A medical drug is not something that is all good for you, it's something that consumed gives you more benefits than problems in the context of a health affection. Something recreational is something you consume just for fun. So the element of necessity (the health affection) is missing thus the trade-off between beneficial and detrimental is non existing. You actually have to be consistent in your arguments.
How meta. My only argument is that policy should be consistent, less people stop trusting the authority that is issuing the policy; and you complain that my argument is inconsistent.
Well if that is what you want then your inconsistent with what you ask for.
You see for the last years the consumption of alcohol, tobbaco, sugar, fat, etc. have been publicly "exposed" and criticised in campaigns, programs to discourage consumption have been publicly funded, restrictions regarding comercials, comercialisation and consumption have been gradually put in place and so on.
So actually the legalisation of weed consumption in various degrees is inconsistent with all the public health policies in place right now which tend to be more and more restrictive with unhealthy substances consumption. Just saying.
And how is my argument that we should regulate public consumption of addictive substances consistently contradictory to what you are arguing?
All I know is that I lost a good friend to alcohol induced liver failure, while I have a 3 year old cousin that takes marajana to prevent seizures. Both have the ability to be abused, both have medical applications, but only one is illegal.
Meth and heroin should have consumption venues and dedicated bars also?
You have to make up your mind, what are you speaking about: medical use, recreational use or what?
The consumption of weed per se because you like it or the consumption of derivate medical compounds (like CBD based treatments for child seizures)?