Will we ever accept weed as a social norm?

[Orion]

I said we don't get to decide whether a behavior is deviant. It is what it is, objectively.

Not it isn't. Deviant behavior is based on moral values. I have an opinion of what is deviant and it is quite different than yours. Your opinions are based on conservative/liberal lines, just like you associate tattoos with rebelliousness and a tendency to do drugs. If you hung out in druggy circles like I used to, you would notice how normal everyone is, and how the providers of drugs tend to be bored kids of the upper class who appear "normal" and upstanding. Go to colleges, and you will see plenty of drug activity among America's finest.

It's always an arbitrary argument to define deviant behavior based on how people look.

I hope I've made the distinction clear. I made a claim about the nature of a behavior, not a person's ability to choose.

Human behavior is irrational. There are just generations that establish values that are later broken or redefined by subsequent generations. You are trying to apply rational rules to an irrational system and claim objectivity when there is none at the core. The only difference is in what convenient deniabilities you tell yourself.

 

[Caine]

It is about time it is accepted. If alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, junk food... are accepted, then why not weed.

You are thinking backwards.

We dont WANT alcohol abuse, cigarettes, marijuana, junk food, and prescription pill abuse to be 'accepted' as a social norm.

There is nothing worse than viewing a society in which everyone is drunk, high, fat, and emotionally/physically numb running around trying to conduct business.

 

[Captain America]

You are thinking backwards.

We dont WANT alcohol abuse, cigarettes, marijuana, junk food, and prescription pill abuse to be 'accepted' as a social norm.

There is nothing worse than viewing a society in which everyone is drunk, high, fat, and emotionally/physically numb running around trying to conduct business.

"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life son." *** Dean Wormer

 

[marduc]

I'm inclined to agree with the general sentiment, but I wonder if adopting a harm reduction model might not be more effective.

This is the whole ball of wax in a nutshell, even if you hate marijuana or other drugs, prohibition is more costly to soceity than the drugs themselves.

The policy that does the least harm is the best of two poor options.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

And hell, some people need only air to act like blithering morons. Maybe we should ban that too? :lol:

I am fully in favor of prohibiting blithering morons from breathing air.

The policy that does the least harm is the best of two poor options.

The problem is I am torn between two functions of the State: to maintain order and to uphold public morals. What I'm afraid will happen is that legalization will only remove another obstacle from people walking around stoned in public, and that this behavior will be legitimized by the State's tolerance and corporate ad campaigns. I would be more in favor of legalization if I had some guarantee that this would not happen, such as advertising bans and stricter laws concerning public intoxication and disorderly conduct. Ideally, I would like to see recreational drugs handled by State monopolies and sold in plain wrappers behind pharmacy counters.

 

[Jerry]

Not it isn't. Deviant behavior is based on moral values. I have an opinion of what is deviant and it is quite different than yours. Your opinions are based on conservative/liberal lines, just like you associate tattoos with rebelliousness and a tendency to do drugs. If you hung out in druggy circles like I used to, you would notice how normal everyone is, and how the providers of drugs tend to be bored kids of the upper class who appear "normal" and upstanding. Go to colleges, and you will see plenty of drug activity among America's finest.

It's always an arbitrary argument to define deviant behavior based on how people look.



Human behavior is irrational. There are just generations that establish values that are later broken or redefined by subsequent generations. You are trying to apply rational rules to an irrational system and claim objectivity when there is none at the core. The only difference is in what convenient deniabilities you tell yourself.

Someone tell Capt'n C he doesn't have a career anymore.

 

[Goshin]

Although I favor full legalization of marijuana (both use and supply), I certainly hope it never becomes fully socially acceptible.


I dislike the fact that booze is socially acceptible and widely indulged in to excess.... I'd prefer not to see the list of socially acceptible intoxicants added to.

That might seem contradictory. Maybe it is, I don't care. I don't like being around people who are drunk or high.

 

[marduc]

The problem is I am torn between two functions of the State: to maintain order and to uphold public morals.What I'm afraid will happen is that legalization will only remove another obstacle from people walking around stoned in public

I am of a similar mind actually, although I do not view drug use itself immoral. Morality is necessary to outline what is and is not unacceptable for us to coexist socially, but it should end there, ones private morality is theirs and theirs alone, they are free to do what they want with their bodies, or with other individuals of a like mind and tolerance.

It is when unacceptable behaviors leave the private setting and become public that morality comes into play, and this is where the issue lies. There is nothing immoral with sitting around home naked, however when you leave your home and impose your nakedness onto others then morality comes into play, same basic moral principles should apply to intoxication IMO.

and that this behavior will be legitimized by the State's tolerance and corporate ad campaigns. I would be more in favor of legalization if I had some guarantee that this would not happen, such as advertising bans and stricter laws concerning public intoxication and disorderly conduct.

The entire point to legalization is harm reduction, and the only way legalization would ever come to pass is if it were packaged and sold as such. (lose sight of that, and I will be jumping ship too.. but is it really a ship without a hull?). advertising and "legitimization" are anathema to the entire purpose, the only support such a policy would have would be from drug users, and a handful of idealistically trapped libertarians. In reality the chances of a federal post prohibition policy without a viable plan to discourage and reduce usage getting passed is incredibly close to zero (marijuana singled out and hodgepodge quasi legalization by state initiatives excluded)

We learned valuable lessons with tobacco, and have made great strides in drastically cutting its usage, this should be and will be a basic template for a post prohibition drug policy (prime example: delaying the age of first use, and the substantially decreased likelihood of one ever starting in the first place.. this alone is a HUGE reason supporting control via legalization IMO.)

Ideally, I would like to see recreational drugs handled by State monopolies and sold in plain wrappers behind pharmacy counters.

The other important word that goes hand in hand in a legalization discussion is control, legalization is a means of establishing and having control (drugs are uncontrolled substances currently, despite the terminology). Kinks in distribution methods would certainly need ironed out, and there are a wide array of opinions here. Different drugs warrant different controls, and I am torn here, especially with heroin/meth/coke distribution.

My personal thoughts on the matter clash with my opposition to a state that is too big brotherish. I see the necessity and practicality however. We are already doing something similar to what I would be ok seeing with sudafed, limited distribution with ID, with controlled drugs I think any attempts to go above this "recreational" threshhold, would then require the user to go to a clinical setting for counseling, and afterwards receive maintenance doses only.

 

[marduc]

I and Korimyr have kind of gone off into tangentville here so directly on topic and a direct answer to the question posed:

Although intoxication has been normal throughout human history (and we are not the only animal where this is the case), it is not, nor should it be considered a social norm. It is anti social behavior.

Intoxication is either individual, or with a small likeminded group, it is an activity that is generally disruptive to normal social function.

I have an analogous question "should we consider masturbation a social norm"? all that I wrote above apply in the same manner to it as well.

 

[Kali]

Of course it will: it is called progress.

 

[Kali]

Although I favor full legalization of marijuana (both use and supply), I certainly hope it never becomes fully socially acceptible.


I dislike the fact that booze is socially acceptible and widely indulged in to excess.... I'd prefer not to see the list of socially acceptible intoxicants added to.

That might seem contradictory. Maybe it is, I don't care. I don't like being around people who are drunk or high.

The thing is this: you are probably around people daily that are high on script meds., weed, etc. and you do not even know it.

 

[Goshin]

The thing is this: you are probably around people daily that are high on script meds., weed, etc. and you do not even know it.

In some cases you might be correct. I was trained to spot behaviors and "tells" associated with being on drugs or booze, but I won't say I always pick up on them. Some scrip meds are subtle in their effects, and some users are more adept than others at hiding their use.

I don't much care what someone does in the privacy of their own home, but out in public I think both drunkenness and "stoned-ness" should be strongly discouraged by law.

As one Brit commented in an article I read, he felt safer in an American city in part because of the low tolerance for public drunkenness: namely that we didn't have large gangs of drunken football hooligans wandering the streets at night getting in fights and committing vandalism, as is relatively common in many Brit cities.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

I don't think it will be socially acceptable unless it is legal, and it won't possibly go legal because of the kid factor.:shock:

 

[missypea]

I don't think it will be socially acceptable unless it is legal, and it won't possibly go legal because of the kid factor.:shock:

I think it will become legal, if not within my lifetime, then my son's lifetime. I don't know about it becoming a social norm though.

 

[marduc]

I don't think it will be socially acceptable unless it is legal, and it won't possibly go legal because of the kid factor.:shock:

The kid factor? clarify what this kid factor is please, because if I am interpreting this correctly, legality and controlled distribution would reduce availability to children, and is an argument FOR legalization.

 

[Your Star]

The kid factor? clarify what this kid factor is please, because if I am interpreting this correctly, legality and controlled distribution would reduce availability to children, and is an argument FOR legalization.

So true, I'm surprised the legalization movement doesn't use that angle. "Do you wanna keep weed away from your children, then legalize it!"

Seriously though, in high school it was sooooooo much easier to get weed than it was to get alcohol. And this is coming from a kid who didn't smoke in high school, it wasn't that hard to know where to go if you wanted some. Espicially when the parking lot smelled like the basement from That 70's Show.

 

[Caine]

Of course it will: it is called progress.

Progress?

You call being socially acceptable to be stoned all day progress?

Progress towards what exactly?

 

[Caine]

The thing is this: you are probably around people daily that are high on script meds., weed, etc. and you do not even know it.

So? Doesn't make it any more acceptable, or should I say, desirable.

 

[Marilyn Monroe]

The kid factor? clarify what this kid factor is please, because if I am interpreting this correctly, legality and controlled distribution w
ould reduce availability to children, and is an argument FOR legalization.

To a thinking person yes, but to politicians trying to get votes it will become too hard to control and keep away from the children.

If it were sold in stores that were strictly controlled, like state liquor stores, no kids would be getting any that way.

 

[Caine]

To a thinking person yes, but to politicians trying to get votes it will become too hard to control and keep away from the children.

If it were sold in stores that were strictly controlled, like state liquor stores, no kids would be getting any that way.

Correction.
No Kids SHOULD be getting any that way.

It still happens, often.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Correction.
No Kids SHOULD be getting any that way.

The question becomes then, "What policies will be most effective at reducing the rate of drug consumption, especially among children?".

 

[Caine]

The question becomes then, "What policies will be most effective at reducing the rate of drug consumption, especially among children?".

I think we are doing what we can, some **** is just going to happen.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

I'm in late.

There's a difference between 'allowing' something and then 'accepting it as a social norm'
Permitting someone to do something doesn't mean you accept it or encourage it.

So, I think a bit of tuke would be like drinking and cigarettes - plenty of people will do it but not everyone will approve.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I think we are doing what we can, some **** is just going to happen.

I agree with the second clause of your statement. Nothing we do is going to be 100% effective. However, I have a hard time looking at drug use in this country and saying that our drug control policies are anything other than near-complete failure. Even accepting the current prohibition model, I don't think we're doing everything we can; at the very least, we should be doing far more to secure our southern border. This would have measurable effects on the supplies of cannabis, methamphetamine, and especially cocaine.

 

[Awesome!]

It is about time it is accepted. If alcohol, cigarettes, coffee, junk food... are accepted, then why not weed.

Some have argued that it has been accepted as a social norm, but I beg to differ as we don't see weed at our business meetings, beer summit with Obama. Why couldn't it have been bong summit right? or one dollar joints at your favorite watering hole, like they do with one dollar beer or well shots etc. I don't think weed will be accepted like alcohol any time soon, but it is far less harmful than alcohol...