Indiana's Push for Medical Marijuana

[jamil]

All we really have to do is vote for this. Lets get it on track for the 2020 election. Referendum to legalize pot or not on the 2020 ballot, lets get it done...

Yeah. It should be a referendum. I’m good with that. Up/down vote. Legalize it or not. But, if it’s legalized at the state level, I’d like to see some nullification of the federal disqualifier for owning firearms. Having ever smoked marijuana should not disqualify firearms ownership any more than ever having drank alcohol.

 

[phylodog]

I'm arguing in favor of an intellectually honest discussion about it where you don't assume the worst motives for why people disagree with you.

I appreciate what you’re trying to do. That said, right or wrong this is where I stand.

I am being intellectually honest about my perspective and opinion. Like TT, it is a simple, black and white issue for me. Not because I feel so strongly about MJ but because tippy toeing into the grey area is how things get so screwed up.

Using MJ in any form, for any reason is not fundamentally wrong.

People in this country should have the freedom to pursue whatever they choose so long as it doesn’t interfere with others doing the same.

Whether I personally agree with what some choose to pursue should be completely irrelevant. To my mind there simply is no valid motive for disagreement other than a belief that some people are simply more important than others.

 

[Dead Duck]

If MJ was legalized(not Michael Jackson), would we start making hemp rope again?

 

[jamil]

I appreciate what you’re trying to do. That said, right or wrong this is where I stand.

I am being intellectually honest about my perspective and opinion. Like TT, it is a simple, black and white issue for me. Not because I feel so strongly about MJ but because tippy toeing into the grey area is how things get so screwed up.

Using MJ in any form, for any reason is not fundamentally wrong.

People in this country should have the freedom to pursue whatever they choose so long as it doesn’t interfere with others doing the same.

Whether I personally agree with what some choose to pursue should be completely irrelevant. To my mind there simply is no valid motive for disagreement other than a belief that some people are simply more important than others.

I think that last statement should be an indicator that you don’t fully understand the perspective of the people who disagree with you. We have here two sides with opposing perspectives, which is what drives the different opinions. They seem to be assuming the worst motives for having your perspective. You seem to be assuming the worst motives for theirs. Assuming motives based on your own perspective is therefore most likely to be inaccurate, because you don’t understand what drives their opining.

Logically, I think it’s better to assume benefit of doubt that their perspective has a motivation that is not bad, at least until you understand enough of their perspective to prove to you otherwise. But then that means you have to listen to each other and really try to understand. And that’s hard.

You really don’t understand another person’s thinking/perspective, fully, until you’ve thought the same thoughts. And they don’t know you understand them until you can explain their perspective to them in a way that they would agree with you.

If you’re not willing to do that, this is just another typical internet argument where the conversation eventually dies out when people are tired of saying people are saying things they’re not really saying.

So Maybe you’re being intellectually honest about your perspective. Are you being intellectually honest about theirs?

 

[jamil]

Maybe there is a more real synthesis of truth about this topic that could be arrived at if everyone could admit that the things from either side that are objectively true are true and the things that are not objectively true aren’t. So maybe that doesn’t look like the perspective you have now. Maybe your perspective becomes something that looks like the Venn diagram of what you found true about their perspective included, and what you found false about that your perspective excluded.

You probably won’t change your mind, but your perspective, your model of reality, will be more accurate than it was.

 

[phylodog]

I try to be objectively reasonable as much as possible but I have no use for entertaining “what about’s” when the answer to the simple question at the root of the discussion is so obviously no.

Other than my children and maybe, maybe my wife, should I have a say in what someone else does with their body. There are probably a thousand ways of asking the same question but the only correct answer is no. I don’t know what benefit of the doubt is to be given.

 

[jamil]

I try to be objectively reasonable as much as possible but I have no use for entertaining “what about’s” when the answer to the simple question at the root of the discussion is so obviously no.

Other than my children and maybe, maybe my wife, should I have a say in what someone else does with their body. There are probably a thousand ways of asking the same question but the only correct answer is no. I don’t know what benefit of the doubt is to be given.

Okay. So here’s a what if that could be an important factor in understanding the other perspective. What if you haven’t considered that you’ve defined the problem so narrowly that you believe it is only about a plant, and what you put into your own body. We’re pretty good at dichotomizing perspectives so that we’re always on the right side that we’ve set up to always be the right side.

 

[Trigger Time]

I appreciate what you’re trying to do. That said, right or wrong this is where I stand.

I am being intellectually honest about my perspective and opinion. Like TT, it is a simple, black and white issue for me. Not because I feel so strongly about MJ but because tippy toeing into the grey area is how things get so screwed up.

Using MJ in any form, for any reason is not fundamentally wrong.

People in this country should have the freedom to pursue whatever they choose so long as it doesn’t interfere with others doing the same.

Whether I personally agree with what some choose to pursue should be completely irrelevant. To my mind there simply is no valid motive for disagreement other than a belief that some people are simply more important than others.

Thank you for putting that in very clear form.
Jamil, this is what I believe is the only real issue in this debate.
Its freedom vs oppression.
I do not use weed now. Will I if it becomes federally legal so that I do not lose my gun rights? Well I dont know if I will or not truthfully but I will at least try it to see if it helps with my pain. If it does then I will use it.
I should just use it now but I have kids and guns to lose. The rewards (pain management) dont outweigh the risks for breaking the law at this time for me because my issues are managed in other ways. Although not as effectively as id like.
Wouldn't it be so nice to grow a natural plant in your yard or home that you could farm for pain relief and get off prescription drugs?
Or if you are lucky and dont have any pain, just use for a nice relax like people use alcohol for. And not have to pay a tax on it because its just for you in your own home.
The government doesnt need their hands in your pocket for everything.
The power the constitution gives congress to levy taxes and enforce laws becomes tyranny when it interferes with peoples general well being and happiness.
This is my belief.

 

[phylodog]

Okay. So here’s a what if that could be an important factor in understanding the other perspective. What if you haven’t considered that you’ve defined the problem so narrowly that you believe it is only about a plant, and what you put into your own body. We’re pretty good at dichotomizing perspectives so that we’re always on the right side that we’ve set up to always be the right side.

I asked what I believe to be a very legitimate, objective question three separate times and no one attempted to answer. I’m not sure what I’m to take from that. I’ve made every effort to explain both my position and the reasoning behind it. I’ve yet to hear an objective, reasoned response.

It is about a plant and what someone puts into their body.

 

[jamil]

I asked what I believe to be a very legitimate, objective question three separate times and no one attempted to answer. I’m not sure what I’m to take from that. I’ve made every effort to explain both my position and the reasoning behind it. I’ve yet to hear an objective, reasoned response.

It is about a plant and what someone puts into their body.

It’s about that sure, but it’s not only about that, and that is likely the part you’re missing.

So what is the question you keep asking that no one will answer?

 

[phylodog]

So what is the question you keep asking that no one will answer?

Someone please tell me why it should be illegal for me to plant a seed on my property, from a plant native to the area, water and feed that plant until it matures, harvest a part of that plant and utilize it to make something which I feel is a benefit to me personally.

How is that wrong. Please?

This one. Until this root question is answered I see no further, legitimate conversation.

 

[Trigger Time]

There is no reasonable American pro-freedom answer to that question.
Thats why congress needs to end the oppression against Americans wishing to garden and partake immediately.
It truly is a black and white issue. The grey area was created by liars.

 

[bwframe]

I guess you could just make all drugs legal for personal use at will? No prescriptions, no liquor stores, no age limits, no cops?

We could all have a poppy patch in the back yard?

 

[jamil]

This one. Until this root question is answered I see no further, legitimate conversation.

I do think that Marijuana should be legalized. But your question isn’t an important one to me that I need the other side to answer because it is too narrow. There is a bit more to their objection to legalize it than that it’s simply about being a plant. Obviously, because they’re not wanting all plants banned. It’s that it’s a drug that has nonzero negative consequences. So, if you’re going to put up an argument, argue against what they’re actually saying.

I think the only point of potential common ground is making it about whether there are enough societal consequences to justify continuing prohibition. As more states adopt legalization, we’ll have more data points to see if there actually is justification for prohibiting it.

 

[jamil]

There is no reasonable American pro-freedom answer to that question.
Thats why congress needs to end the oppression against Americans wishing to garden and partake immediately.
It truly is a black and white issue. The grey area was created by liars.

Prove it.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

This one. Until this root question is answered I see no further, legitimate conversation.

I honestly don’t see an issue with it. It’s a plant that is unaltered in any way. If left to do its own thing will grow into something that has an effect on its user, rather that be a deer that eats it (which they do, as I’m sure you know) or a human that eats or smokes it. Cigarettes have additives to give them their effect. Beer has additives. Marijuana just grows how it is. I’m not a user, but plenty of friends are, and I’d rather be around them than half the drunk people I’ve been around. Just another form of control for the government

 

[phylodog]

I do think that Marijuana should be legalized. But your question isn’t an important one to me that I need the other side to answer because it is too narrow. There is a bit more to their objection to legalize it than that it’s simply about being a plant. Obviously, because they’re not wanting all plants banned. It’s that it’s a drug that has nonzero negative consequences. So, if you’re going to put up an argument, argue against what they’re actually saying.

I think the only point of potential common ground is making it about whether there are enough societal consequences to justify continuing prohibition. As more states adopt legalization, we’ll have more data points to see if there actually is justification for prohibiting it.

There is no valid justification for prohibiting it. If the answer to my question (which no one will answer) is that it isn’t wrong then how can there be any argument in favor of prohibition? If there is a belief that it is wrong, why will no one explain why?

As I mentioned upthread, I believe the world would be a better place if human beings would keep things simple, I really do. If I have no fundamental right to control another person and their activities have no negative consequences for me then there is nothing remaining to discuss as far as my input into their lives. Planting tomatoes in my garden, harvesting them, processing them into various products for my own consumption has no more consequence to anyone outside of my house as doing the same with marijuana. That is a fact. That is a narrow outlook, I get it, but there is no way to change that fact and therefore no valid discussion remaining about whether I need worry about my neighbors feelings concerning my tomato garden.

 

[jamil]

Will you at least acknowledge that it’s more than just a plant. No one is advocating a war against tomatoes. It’s about this plant’s affects on the mind. That it’s a drug. And you can argue that that’s no one’s business. That’s what I think about it. But it’s specious at best to argue that it’s only about a plant.

 

[phylodog]

I’m not following you on this. What else is it about? I see it as a personal freedom issue, it is a big/vs small government issue, it is the same in some ways to a variety of other topics but they can all be disassembled down to very simple, basic questions.

 

[jamil]

I’m not following you on this. What else is it about? I see it as a personal freedom issue, it is a big/vs small government issue, it is the same in some ways to a variety of other topics but they can all be disassembled down to very simple, basic questions.

You’re saying it’s about the plant. I’m saying no, they don’t have a problem with the fact that it’s a plant. They have a problem with what they perceive as a deleterious effects on behavior. There are plenty of valid arguments against that it impacts society as a net negative. That it’s a plant isn’t among those valid arguments.

I’m just asking you if you can admit that it has nothing to do with the fact that it’s a plant, that their problem with it is it’s effect as a drug.