Essay talk:AD's Beliefs/Archive1

Energy production
This section is different from the rest. The other ones are well supported by your data. This one, not exactly. For example, oil is not an important source of electricity anywhere in the U.S. or Europe.

You might be interested in this article. It is not a direct critique of the article you are mentioning, but of a very similar plan that was published in 2009, also in Scientific American. Other articles in the TCASE series on that site are also worth reading. Basically all those solar / wind grand plans ultimately rely on natural gas (burned either directly or to heat up air from compressed storage) to keep the lights on during the night and calm periods - they let in fossil fuels through the back door.

You are discounting nuclear energy on the basis of nuclear waste, but you should consider natural analogues that suggest its safe storage for centuries or even millions of years is in fact not a big problem. Nuclear reactors have occurred naturally in the past, and their waste products stayed where they were generated for 2 billion years, despite unrestricted access to groundwater. A vast quantity of uranium ore is present on Earth, in some places concentrated to over 50%, yet this rarely poses a problem - for example there are no signs of the Cigar Lake uranium deposit on the surface. --Tweenk (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These are some good points! I do disagree on some things, though.
 * According to WP, which is nearest on hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States#Electricity_production), more than a third (37%) of U.S. power was generated from petroleum in 2009. It is a fairly important source of electricity.
 * I am familiar with the site you quote, and with similar critiques. To my knowledge, the technology is still only nascent for appropriate storage techniques, so something like natural gas would have to step in at the moment if a solar grand plan were implemented.  But things like molten salt storage are apparently being deployed right now, so such a stopgap would only be temporary.  I see this is mentioned in the critique, and I will easily accept arguments that suggest that the price tag is more than double what proponents suggest - but that just doesn't much difference to me.  I'll pay double.  When you're careening towards a cliff, you don't quibble over the price of brake pads.
 * As to nuclear power, that's an interesting argument - that because uranium is abundantly present in nature, that means it can be safely stored. I think it's fallacious, though - tantamount to arguing that because cyanide occurs in apple seeds everywhere and we all eat apples, it must be safe to eat cyanide.  Consider, for example, the fact that oil is heavily concentrated in some areas.  But even though it's safely stored by nature, thanks to geothermal processes that bottle both uranium and oil up in thick layers of rock in a tight seal, like a bottle made of ore, it pretty much sucked as soon as we cracked that bottle open with the Deepwater Horizon.-- 02:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The 37% is the share of primary energy, which is different from the share of electricity. In the table "Electrical Production in the United States for 2006" there are three items for oil-fired sources: Diesel Generators, Oil Fired Boilers, Fuel Oil - with a combined production of less than 1%.
 * What was generated in that natural reactor is chemically very close to what we generate in ours. If anything, it's more soluble in water, which means our waste would be even less likely to escape. The oil comparison is not very good for uranium ores or nuclear wastes, because oil is a liquid and that is a fundamental difference. A better comparison would be an undeveloped deposit of a heavy metal contaminating the water supply.
 * The "cyanide in apples" argument is about the existence of a threshold dose for many toxins. I don't see how exactly it would relate to the performance of a waste repository, as both the chemical form and the concentration is similar to known natural systems. The only big differences are the amount of material (we want to store much more) and degree of isolation from the environment (ours should be far better isolated). One could argue that the amount of material makes the difference, but if you try to dissolve as much salt in a pot of water as possible, the resulting solution will have the same concentration regardless of whether there is 1 spoon or 1 glass of undissolved salt left. If water completely penetrates the repository, it will contain the same concentration of radionuclides regardless of whether there was 200 kilograms or 200 tons of waste inside. This concentration will be very small, because the waste as intended for storage is generally insoluble in water.
 * I do note that the apples argument represents a problem for the current understanding of radiation toxicity (linear no-threshold hypothesis), which says there is no threshold dose. It says that if 1 million apples contain a lethal dose of cyanide, and 1 million people were to eat 1 apple each, then someone would die. Why should this be so? There is no plausible biological mechanism behind this exact linear relationship, and considerable evidence that there are biological processes that could create a threshold for low level radiation (e.g. this research). If that's true, then safely getting rid of nuclear waste would be as simple as dissolving it in the ocean, where it would be diluted below harmful levels.
 * By the way, I do agree that it's worth paying even 2x more than the high estimate of the solar plan, but at the same time I think lower cost solutions have a better chance of being successfully implemented and leave more funds available for other areas of environmental protection, hence my preference for a nuclear-based solution. --Tweenk (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)--Tweenk (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I must have made that same mistake four years ago about the electricity - thanks!
 * You might have a good point about nuclear waste. Unfortunately, I lack the expertise to contest the matter further.  I guess I should revise that paragraph; the danger of a nuclear disaster is probably more significant than the problems of waste.
 * I would suggest that while it might be nice to think that nuclear deployment will free up funds for environmental protection, it is far more likely that the money would just be spent elsewhere. In fact, it's almost a certainty that any savings between the cost of solar and nuclear (assuming such a savings continues to be meaningfully large, in spite of the plunging cost of solar) would just be put towards the deficit, tax cuts, or social programs.-- 05:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

CO2
Just nitpicking from a chemical perspective here; methane is closer to 25 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2, BUT it does have a far shorter lifetime, being oxidised to CO2 quite readily in the atmosphere. Even considering this, it's still measured on the parts-per-billion level, while CO2 is about 3-4 orders of magnitude more concentrated. d hominem 01:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okeydokey! Thanks :)-- 02:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Gun control
Worth addressing there is the idea that the Second Amendment's purpose is to provide an armed population that can resist a tyranny - in which case, it's a third angle to the two purposes you've mentioned and so would legitimise almost any weapon. So, while your points work in general, the US has an armed civilian militia as a specific goal in that piece of legislation, and so is (almost) unique in that respect. Only Switzerland comes remotely close to that sort of thing that I'm aware of, and even still executes the idea in a vastly different way.

Now, the armed militia thing might have been worthwhile a couple of centuries ago, but in the modern age such an ideal seems primitive and inefficient. It would imply you would be within your rights to start an armed coup if an election didn't go your way, which is pretty scary. Anyway, it's certainly a point you'd need to address if discussing specifically US gun laws, as those other reasons fall a little flat if "armed militia" can be lumped in with that list of reasonable purposes.

I'm mostly in agreement with the people who say America's gun problem is nothing to do with the guns and more the glorification of them. Imagine, for instance, they were legal to own under license but there was no Second Amendment; would the problem still exist? pathetic 02:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting perspective, and one I'll have to consider. There is certainly a point at which armed revolution would be necessary, at least as far as I can tell from the principles involved, even if it would remain technically illegal.  I personally advocate nonviolent resistance, but it seems pretty clear that, given the context, the Founders intended to ensure that the people would always have at hand the tools of revolution, probably under local auspices of militia.  As you point out, though, this principle could be applied to make any weapon legal: in the modern era, a tank could easily be seen as necessary to resist a real oppressive government.  I have to consider the topic more closely.-- 02:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's always seemed a very odd thing to have enshrined in law: you have the right to arm yourselves against the government, but plotting to kill the president is still illegal and treasonable. But that puts it on the same footing as everywhere else in the world, namely that armed coups are perfectly legal if you win. If I remember rightly, the "well armed militia" clause can, apparently, be satisfied with the National Guard - although the legal point of contention in the second there is, as always, over the use of a fucking comma. Scarlet A.pngd hominem 13:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, the wording is such a legal clusterfuck... does it underscore the freedom of individual states, or endorse individual state militias, or is it about civilians having unlimited access to weapons? This is why you should be tearing this thing up every 19 years like whatsisname said. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 13:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

innocuous marijuana
Marijuana is not innocuous. Marijuana is dangerous due to its perception as being innocuous. Chronic abuse leads to some serious problems for youths beguiled by the "innocuous" labeling. AceModerator 08:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Chronic and heavy abuse leads to some serious problems, but so does chronic and heavy alcohol abuse, tobacco abuse, or abuse of things such as video games. There is a cloud of misinformation associated with pot, which may lead it to be considered even less harmful among some spheres than it actually may be, but this is a byproduct of its illegal nature and the authorities' demonization associated with that nature.  Legalization would be better for everyone, including those at risk.-- 08:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Legalization would be better for everyone No, it wouldn't. Decriminalisation yes, legalisation no. Yes alcohol causes masses of problems, as does tobacco but repeating the canard that Marijuana is "innocuous" just feeds the same misinformation you rail about. Because it isn't. I smoke, most people I know smoke. But I know plenty of people who shouldn't have and were lulled by arguments about how less dangerous is than alcohol....and who are now fucked. AceModerator 10:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Used in moderation, as far as I know it is innocuous: very very low toxicity means that it's essentially impossible to overdose, and it is not very prone to physical dependency (much less so than alcohol or tobacco, for example). I would describe alcohol and tobacco and video games as innocuous as well, though people can and do use them to excess.  Nonetheless they are harmless when used in moderation.-- 10:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The other problem is the world politics. The UK got a barrage of abuse from countries where illegal exports come from for potentially increasing demand and therefore organised crime in those countries. Also, through selective breeding we've managed to make cannabis 3 times stronger now than it was in 1995 meaning that potential chronic use health hazards are a lot more likely. Personally I wouldn't care if the system worked thus: Buying and selling illegal, importing / exporting illegal, personal use in home legal, growing of up to 2 plants per household legal. Make dealing / trafficking sentences harsher. Would shut up the tards who want to get high and bang on about supposed health benefits etc while kerbing profits to drug gangs. Would also avoid "cannabis tourism" Crundy Talk nerdy to me 10:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly tobacco has very low physical dependency, not comparable to alcohol at all. Cannabis used in moderation by adults has little to no side effects simply because we know when enough is enough. Just like with alcohol, as adults we know when we have had enough. But for youth, how many youth do you know that, when first experimenting with alcohol, know how to moderate? They don't and they vomit and fight and get fucked. Now, cannabis doesn't do that, you can smoke and smoke without feeling the need to stop because, hey, it's innocuous and I feel fine the next day. Therein lies the problem. With all the other shit teenagers fuck around with, without knowing how to moderate the substances they put in their bodies, you wanna make another one acceptable too? No man, the war on drugs has been a failure, there is no doubt but legalisation of grass isn't going to solve it. Spot fines, no criminal record and penalties for serious dealing should be the norm but to say it is "innocuous" is to seriously underestimate the negative effect it can have. And to make it comparable to alcohol makes matters worse. We already have a society that considers chronic alcohol abuse cool so to introduce society to cannabis being some sort of safer alternative opens a whole host of new issues. AceModerator 10:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The illegitimate nature of pot is part of what encourages the unhealthy culture around it - there's zero emphasis on responsible use and the possible (if small) dangers associated with smoking it. It's an "abstinence only" approach to pot, with the same level of efficacy.-- 11:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. The whole "not as bad as alcohol" argument pisses me off. There are lots of illegal drugs less dangerous than alcohol & tobacco. Doesn't mean they should all be legalised. Reminds me of this Cracked article. Crundy Talk nerdy to me 10:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Alcohol and tobacco are used as touchpoints in the debate for good reason: they are legal substances that nonetheless carry a risk of dependency and abuse. There aren't really any other comparable products with which people will be familiar.  So by drawing a comparison to another substance that is potentially dangerous, but legal, I am trying to point out that a potential for abuse is not the guiding principle involved in legalization.
 * I strongly agree that the drinking culture in many countries, NZ and USA at least, is not a healthy one and I am not pointing to alcohol as a model. But it's very clear to me that we're talking about a continuum of harm and legality.  As with all continuums, you have to draw a line somewhere, and my point is that the line we draw is irrational and serves mostly to help incarcerate and stigmatize a huge segment of an American minority population.-- 11:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot how pointless it is debating with you. OK fine. Cannabis is less dangerous than tobacco and alcohol so I'm off to spark up a bifter. Crundy Talk nerdy to me 12:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never actually tried pot, myself. Sorry you feel it's pointless to discuss things with me; I try to be reasonable and address things fairly.-- 12:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't partake either, it makes me throw up (paradoxically, considering it's meant to be an anti-emetic). My point is, calling the alcohol vs cannabis comparison a "model" doesn't change the fact that it's a crap argument. Do you seriously think that if tobacco or alcohol were discovered today they wouldn't be banned? Alcohol survived prohibition simply because it's so easy to make, therefore supplies weren't curbed, and organised crime went up drastically due to gangs creating social environments for people to consume it in. I don't really care if cannabis is made legal, I just fucking hate the stupid arguments people come out with to support it. If you (the greater "you", not you, AD) want it legal then just say "I want to get high and I don't care about the health implications". You'll get a lot more respect.
 * The initial argument from Ace was regarding your use of the term "innocuous", which is blatantly false. Ignoring comparisons to other drugs, smoking cannabis is very bad for you. Forget the psychosis links and think about lung cancer & emphysemia. Cannabis smokers, while not smoking as often as tobacco smokers, tend to take larger drags and hold it in for longer. The carcinogens in the smoke have longer to settle, as does the particulate matter, which causes emphysemia due to neutrophils cleaning the mess up. Obviously this risk is diminished in people who ingest cannabis, but be honest, how many cannabis users do you know who don't smoke it and only bake it into space cake? Crundy Talk nerdy to me 12:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have already agreed that long-term, prolific use of marijuana can have serious health risks. If you want to argue semantics over whether "innocuous" is the proper adjective to describe something that presents minimal risk when used in moderation for a period, that's your prerogative - maybe I should have said "minimally dangerous," instead.  I take your point, there.  But Ace's objection was over the substantive matter, I believe: he argues that the culture that's sprung up around it and the perception of its harmlessness has led to it being taken too lightly.  And while I think that's true, I also think (as I said) that this is because of its illegality: because it is irrationally treated as more dangerous than alcohol or tobacco, even the beginnings of a "responsible use" culture cannot be put into place.  I'm not saying we're doing well with "responsible use" even for the legal drugs, of course, but imprisoning hundreds of thousands is only causing more harm.
 * Yes, if alcohol were discovered today it would probably be banned. Alcohol sustained itself during Prohibition because it is fairly easy to produce privately, and only got easier as the ban continued.  Meanwhile, shipments rolled in from Canada and Mexico.  Furthermore, it remained culturally acceptable almost everywhere to drink, and because it was so popular it was very unpopular to enforce the relevant laws, even as what enforcement existed was circumvented and gave rise to violent gangs.  But realize: this also describes, almost exactly, the situation with marijuana.
 * The point, of course, is that it's logically inconsistent to say that alcohol should be legal but marijuana should not be. You can argue that alcohol should also be a scheduled drug, but political forces and societal impetus make this impossible (is this your position?) but it seems very difficult to say that marijuana, which is about as dangerous as alcohol (or perhaps less so, although this is a subjective assessment), should be illegal while alcohol should be legal.  There simply doesn't seem to be much logic behind it.  Your own argument is, "Well, if they discovered alcohol today they'd ban it!"... but should they?-- 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Innocuous" means "harmless or inoffensive". While I wouldn't describe cannabis as "offensive" it certainly isn't harmless. Perhaps just a wording issue and I'll give you that.
 * I don't believe I've ever heard anyone argue that cannabis is illegal because it's more harmful than alcohol, but if people do say that then they're also incorrect. In the UK alcohol is legal and cannabis isn't (well, I'd classify it as "decriminalised for personal use", as being caught with a joint or a small amount of weed on you would normally get it taken off you by the cop and being told to fuck off, at worst an on the spot fine) probably because it's easier to curtail it, as growing it here on a decent scale is difficult, whereas one can brew and even distill alcohol on a moderate scale without raising suspicions.
 * I agree that a lot of police time is wasted going after the small time people, but that doesn't mean they have nothing to gain from it. Following supply chains can (and does) lead to arrests of organised criminal gangs supplying worse things like class A drugs and firearms. Not always, and I'm certainly not using a slippery slope argument here, just saying that busting dealers isn't always a waste of time. As far as "should they ban alcohol if it was discovered today?" goes, yes, I think they should. They would have a very hard time enforcing that considering someone could just buy some grape juice from the supermarket, dump some yeast in it and wait, and so I doubt it would be possible, but we only allow alcohol to be legal because it's become ingrained in our society. Westerners have been using and abusing it for so long that we've actually evolved to produce more alcohol dehydrogenase to cope with our intake! Doesn't mean I consider alcohol to be "innocuous", far from it. I just think that having more recreational drugs made legal isn't a good thing. There's no reason at all for tobacco to be legal and frankly I wish it was banned, but I'm probably in some rich guy's sniper scope for simply thinking that aren't I? Crundy Talk nerdy to me 14:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, very few people ever make the argument that marijuana is illegal because it's more dangerous than alcohol. But that's because that position is irrational. Nor do I think your argument that alcohol is only legal because it's easy to brew, since that argument can be made about pot, too: it's easy to grow a few plants. That's why pot is so easy to get. Furthermore, I think you're one of very few people who'd make this latter argument about enforceability. I bet that almost everyone would say that they thought alcohol had some risk, but it was an acceptable level that a competent adult should be able to choose. And in my perspective, it's hard not to apply that same logic to marijuana: put a 21+ label on it and sell it in stores with cigarettes, since all three have the same level of danger to society. Drug enforcement may differ in the UK, but in the US it's a tool of oppression. They don't just go after dealers. Because of its ubiquity and social acceptance, like alcohol, marijuana remains very commonly used by people of all colors, but police discretion with racial profiling in stop-and-frisk has resulting in a hugely disproportionate number of black men being charged with possession. While most everyone commits some minor infraction like a traffic violation, marijuana possession is one of the only widely socially acceptable but very illegal actions that can be slapped on a minority. That is not the explicit purpose of the laws as explained, but "tough on drugs" legislation has had a huge practical effect of oppression, and marijuana is a big part of that. The numbers of incarcerated black men skyrocketed after Reagan's announced initiative. And I do not think anyone is safer because of it. Men were only murdered over rum when it was illegal, too. I very much respect you for taking the position that tobacco and alcohol should be banned (obviously this is an impractical goal for the reasons you mention). That is logically consistent, and makes perfect sense. You simply draw the line more strictly than I do; I think competent adults should be allowed in indulge in things that have a certain risk of abuse and physical danger. But we both agree that the current situation makes no sense.-- 21:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Quote:

But here's the thing about that entire debate: It doesn't fucking matter.

Throwing out death tolls from tobacco smoke, drunk driving and liver disease makes perfect sense as an argument for making those things illegal. It makes zero sense when trying to convince somebody to make pot legal. Don't you understand that "It will kill fewer people than cigarettes!" could apply to fucking anything? You could pass a law that lets 12 year olds carry concealed guns to school and it'd kill fewer people than drunk driving.
 * Crundy Talk nerdy to me 10:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, my take is a variant on the prohibition argument. I've smoked on and off all my life. Whenever I wanted some hash I had to contact a criminal - pretty small time but a criminal all the same. I am well aware that when my dealer wanted to purchase by the kilo he was now dealing with quite serious criminals and so on up the line. The end effect was that my desire for the occasional smoke was, de facto, funding bad guys. Nothing is going to reduce the number of people like me who take the occasional toke so there is, and always will be, the demand for a criminal organisation to meet that demand. By legalising, or at least decriminalising, the possession of, for example, a couple of plants I could satisfy my desire for the hashish equivalent of a couple of pints without funding the bad guys. What's so wrong with that? Bob Soles (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, which is why I think the best approach would be to allow households to grow a couple of plants for personal use while banning dealing. This is how it works in countries such as Belgium, Spain, the Czech Republic and Switzerland. This promotes occasional use over heavy use and stops (well, limits) money going into criminal's pockets. <font color="#777777">Crundy <font color="#00F0A20">Talk nerdy to me 15:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it does the opposite. It creates more dealers because not everyone is willing/able to grow good shit. (Ever bought pot in Switzerland? Who'd you buy it from? Exactly.) I can't begin to fathom the toll that legalizing pot would take on criminal enterprises because Phillip Morris would be on that train so fast it'd make your head spin. Occasionaluse (talk) 21:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

missed point
AD, my point has nothing to do with whether or not pot is as dangerous as alcohol or tobacco nor whether or not it should be legalised. The fact is I have seen pot ruin peoples lives. I have seen friends of mine go from vivacious, motivated and intelligent people to being useless, boring, unmotivated slobs. I have seen friends turn paranoid and attempt suicide after years of smoking weed. I myself have turned feral in the past until I realised what this "innocuous" pot was doing to me. All the education and changing attitude towards cannabis you mention is still never going to change the effect it can have on people and for someone who admits they have never even tried to claim it is innocuous in the face of plenty of studies to contrary is rather arrogant. AceModerator 20:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * More of my friends have had their lives by star craft than pot. If you vaporize that shit (which everyone should do for health, taste and efficiency), there are basically no negative health effects. Not much is innocuous to everyone. Maybe pot is not innocuous to you. It's fine for me and pretty much everyone I know. Occasionaluse (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thinking more about "innocuous", I'd have to say that vaporized marijuana meets the criteria. It's practically impossible for it to harm you. Or maybe we're using different understandings of "harm". Occasionaluse (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If your complaint is the word "innocuous," I've already removed it. "Minimal danger" probably better describes it.
 * Yes, marijuana can have deleterious physical effects when heavily or chronically abused. I'm not arguing that point.  But so can alcohol and tobacco.  My point is that if the potential for damage when heavily or chronically abused is your sole criteria for determining legality, don't you also have to advocate for the criminalization of alcohol and tobacco?  It seems inconsistent to say that, of the three, only marijuana should be illegal.  Why?-- 21:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mental gymnastics from Ace the alcoholic smoker in 3...2... Occasionaluse (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who was arguing about legality? I was talking about harm caused and that people wandering around saying "Pffft, marijuana isn't harmful" and the like have their blinkers on and its a dangerous position to take as it rubs off on youth who, with developing brains, are extremely susceptible to psychoactive chemicals. That said, I think decriminalization is the best option. On the spot fines for public usage (much like drinking in public is illegal in most places) increasing in amount in relation to the amount of which you are possessing. Criminal records only for the most egregious of offences (selling to school children for example). But I dont believe blanket legality is the right idea. AceModerator 21:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it should be treated like alcohol and legalized, with penalties only for those things you mention (public intoxication, selling to minors, etc.).
 * But it seems we then have no argument beyond semantics. I think marijuana is relatively harmless because it poses zero threat of overdose, its effects are not imminently dangerous, and it has a very low risk of physical dependency.  To me, that's "innocuous," even if there exists a risk of heavy abuse.-- 21:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not just semantics. Mental dependency is a real problem, it can seriously exacerbate underlying mental illnesses plus be a root cause of mental illnesses in itself, it has a major impact on mental development, you can overdose but the overdose (like LSD) shows itself in extreme paranoia, hallucinations, suicidal thoughts and extreme terror which can last months after the initial dose. It is not innocuous and comparing it to the problem caused by alcohol and tobacco doesn't make marijuana any safer so I don't know why you keep bringing that up. Coming from someone who admits having never tried pot your position seems weird to me. AceModerator 21:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, severe and chronic abuse can be bad. More education is needed for all legal drugs.-- 22:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah it can be bad, because in no way is it innocuous. AceModerator 22:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Marijuana is innocuous (Assertions, yay!). Hallucinations are extremely uncommon (if not impossible, I can't find anything on pubmed or elsewhere). There's no physical dependency. There is a psychological dependency, but there is for pretty much everything else, too (my psychological dependency for, say, Diet Coke, is probably stronger). As a daily indulger for almost a decade, I think my anecdotal evidence as valid as yours. Let's hear some scientific evidence, Ace. That is is if you think your case is strong enough to shoulder the burden of proof. Occasionaluse (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As a daily indulger for almost a decade Yes, that explains your lackadaisical posting, effortless apathy and why your a complete douche bag. And as daily user of alcohol I have suffered no ill effect, therefore alcohol is innocuous. AceModerator 00:08, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I also tie self-worth to wiki productivity. What you experienced was most likely the activation of preexisting (probably dormant) psychosis, which I'll concede is a potential danger. Occasionaluse (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Interestingly
If you base a substances legality solely on physical harm then you should be advocating the legalisation of heroin and/or morphine which, in its pure form if a consistent dose if administered, is %100 clean on the body and does many good things. Food for thought. AceModerator 00:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In a certain sense, agreed. On the other hand, if you favor the legality of certain ballistics, you would advocate the legalization of automatic weapons, RPGs, drones, nukes, etc... Your posit isn't nearly as much of an argument to absurdity, but it is one in a sense. But still, I'm not necessarily opposed to the legalization of said drugs. Even though their classification of opiods could reasonably differentiate them. Occasionaluse (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I wasn't talking to you. AceModerator 00:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LALALALALALA Occasionaluse (talk) 00:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, but opioids are also extremely physically addictive and are toxic in relatively low doses. Of course, I'm not an expert.-- 00:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

AD's essay is the last place I'd ever expect an argument with Ace to break out. 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? AceModerator 00:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Stereotypes. It's like seeing a political debate between a professor and a frat boy.   00:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who is the professor? AD? Jesus, you think highly of him. AceModerator 01:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I would call him that annoying guy at parties that waits until you have finished speaking merely so he can tell why you're wrong. Anyway, I am going for lunch. AceModerator 01:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not very nice. I'd always thought highly of you.  Ah, well.-- 01:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just messing round AD. No offence intended. AceModerator 02:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That would make you the guy who likes to shoot his mouth off, then get offended when he's called on his bullshit. You're the antithesis of RW. Occasionaluse (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You're both wrong. Everyone is turnip. That is all. <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR walls of text while-u-wait 01:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have proof and evidence that us being turnips is accurate and correct? Occasionaluse (talk) 01:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you are what you eat, then at least one person in this conversation is turnip. <font face="MS Sans Serif" size="3">±[[File:knightoftldrsig.png]]KnightOfTL;DR more at 11 01:15, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Checkmate, turnips." Occasionaluse (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's just play devil's advocate
I pretty much completely agree with you on drug legalization. However, I am curious how you would view the following argument: why not outlaw alchohol and tobacco as well? Looking at it this way, if marijuana is banned, and alchohol and tobacco are equally or more destructive, why not outlaw them as well? Mr. Anon (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the argument that "the drug marijuana (which is arguably less dangerous demonstrably more useful than the drugs tobacco or alcohol) is illegal, therefore tobacco and alcohol should be illegal" persuasive. Occasionaluse (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't believe something should be banned merely because it can be abused. As I have mentioned above, I think there's a scale at work:
 * HARMLESS=================================================DEADLY
 * This very rough, reductive view is necessarily simplistic, but since it's for rhetorical effect it will have to do. It's the basis for the Schedules of American drug policy, too.
 * The potential for harm of a substance seems as though it should be based on an assessment of its addictive potential, toxicity (chance of causing physical harm or death), propensity for addictiveness, as well as some other factors I'm probably forgetting. I don't think that everything should be banned or licensed: sugary soda is bad for people over the very long term and when drunk in heavy amounts, for example.  We must balance personal liberty with societal harm, which thankfully introduces some empirical elements.  We know that crack cocaine provides a short and intense high, is extremely addictive, and physically debilitating.  While I believe that law enforcement funds should be mostly redirected to treating this as a public health problem, which seems the most effective response from everything I've read, nonetheless I think we must conclude that crack cocaine is so harmful to society that its danger outweighs the personal freedom of individuals to be able to purchase it if they wish: crack is whack.
 * You can make the argument, as others have on this page, that the line should be drawn even further to the left - that things such as alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, as well. I disagree, because I think that their qualities (long-term harm for heavy users, few short-term effects, low to moderate level of addictiveness) do not outweigh the freedom of people to buy them.  But a reasonable case can be made, either way.-- 01:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The potential for harm of a substance seems as though it should be based on an assessment of its addictive potential, toxicity (chance of causing physical harm or death), propensity for addictiveness, as well as some other factors I'm probably forgetting. I don't think that everything should be banned or licensed: sugary soda is bad for people over the very long term and when drunk in heavy amounts, for example.  We must balance personal liberty with societal harm, which thankfully introduces some empirical elements.  We know that crack cocaine provides a short and intense high, is extremely addictive, and physically debilitating.  While I believe that law enforcement funds should be mostly redirected to treating this as a public health problem, which seems the most effective response from everything I've read, nonetheless I think we must conclude that crack cocaine is so harmful to society that its danger outweighs the personal freedom of individuals to be able to purchase it if they wish: crack is whack.
 * You can make the argument, as others have on this page, that the line should be drawn even further to the left - that things such as alcohol and tobacco should be illegal, as well. I disagree, because I think that their qualities (long-term harm for heavy users, few short-term effects, low to moderate level of addictiveness) do not outweigh the freedom of people to buy them.  But a reasonable case can be made, either way.-- 01:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I like...
...that you quoted Derek Jarman. Oh, and a lot of other well-written things. But that struck my eye as the easy way to compliment you on your essay. 02:21, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you! It's starting to become a little dated at this point, and needs improvement, but yeah I think it has a few good points.-- 02:42, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Making people's lives better
Did you ever watch Scott Clifton's "Treatise on Morality" video? Okay, so it's long and mostly talking about theological morality and how it doesn't work. But at the end, he basically says "if your moral judgements aren't at all based on maximising happiness and well-being, then what fucking good is it?" Basically, labels are arbitrary, but the goal isn't. <font color=#CC0033>sshole 13:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen that, but I'll check it out!-- 13:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was about 25 minutes about how Christian morality has no basis, and 5 minutes about the construction of an atheist's morality.-- 00:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I just said it reminded me of the end and how to "define" good. Sorry, I might not have been as clear on that (my bad, I shall prostrate myself for a beating). Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>theist  10:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm getting confused with another video, which is likely considering my brain is made of cheese at the moment. Scarlet A.png<font color=#CC0033>moral 10:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

So much to believe
How do you handle this? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure if you're being facetious! ;)
 * It's not really very much - in fact, it's sadly less than I'd like, since I know too little to have an intelligent opinion on the vast majority of issues.-- 22:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * In cases of uncertainty one should always look at my user name. Btw, doesn't anyone remember me? I thought I left my mark here.... --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:19, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I remember you!-- 00:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

But I must mention your beliefs aren't very original. A very classic modern-day liberal version, everything foreseeable once the first lines are read through. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that it is necessarily wrong because of that. Just a little boring. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh. That's odd.-- 00:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Now, do you want some poetry or not? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * pottery, I mean --Idiot number 59 (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, sure.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 23:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)