Colorado, unlike a large number of US states, seems to take crazy things like simple economics and overwhelmingly positive scientific research into account when drafting laws. Here in the south we prefer to use 1950's mores, Jim Crow era law enforcement priorities and 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our laws. Bravo Colorado!
FWIW there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol (still baffled the US ever passed alcohol prohibition) or drugs. I'd argue against prohibition on Christian grounds as well as other grounds.
Your first mistake is in your assumption that Christianity-based legislation and social behavior in general have anything to do with what's in the Bible.
If you're going to try to invalidate what I wrote by "people disagree" then justify from the text where it says that drugs should be illegal and punishable by imprisonment.
The fact that there are many christians who do find religious reasons to oppose the consumption of alcohol invalidates what you wrote. You think there is nothing in the bible that is opposed to alcohol, but many people disagree. The existence of those people is the point.
This is your opinion: "FWIW there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol"
This is a fact: "Here in the south we [often] use [...] 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our [drug] laws."
I am not going to defend their beliefs to you; that is a religious discussion that I have absolutely no interest in. I am pointing out that those people do exist.
This is intellectually lazy reasoning. The existence of people who believe something does not make what they believe true.
Realize that the two statements:
"Here in the south we [often] use [...] 3000 year old Judean religious texts when writing our [drug] laws."
"...there's nothing in the Bible about throwing people in jail for alcohol"
are not necessarily contradictory. People can claim to justify what they believe based on something that doesn't in fact support their beliefs. My point that the Bible doesn't support drug prohibition/imprisonment stands.
Edit: I remain baffled how Christians supported alcohol prohibition when Jesus himself provided alcohol for a party.
You are not getting it. I am not saying they are right. I am saying that they exist.
To them, their religious text do condemn alcohol. Your personal interpretation of the religious texts cannot be taken as fact.
Whether or not they are right is something for you to argue about with other Christians. They think that they are correct just as much as you think that you are correct. Religious bickering, film at '11.
There are not. There are no people in the world, not one, who oppose alcohol because they have read the Bible and concluded that the Bible forbids alcohol consumption.
There are people who oppose alcohol for other reasons and who claim the Bible says something other than what it says, but it is nonsense to claim they got their position from the Bible.
There's plenty of evil stupid crazy shit in the Bible, but endorsement of prohibition just isn;t there.
My guess is that people in Colorado tend to be more libertarian. They don't want government interference, and at the same time they don't follow the religious culture in the deep south.
There's a little bit of libertarian undercurrent there, but I believe it's more of an emergent phenomenon from the mixing of independent-by-nature left- and right-wing voters. Colorado, with large swaths of rural areas as well as big cities, is rather purple.
Put together left- and right-wing voters, and you get either statism or libertarianism, and Colorado leans towards libertarianism. Or so my theory goes.
IMO both Colorado's right-leaning and left-leaning populations have had a libertarian bent for a long time -- from the "leave us alone" ranchers of Idalia to the "let us be" hippies of Nederland.
With our luck, the fed gov't will announce that states can choose to expand marijuana laws and they will pay for the infrastructure and it'll be just like Medicaid!
So? What does your straw man have to do with anything? He stated marijuana is scientifically proven to be beneficial. It hasn't. No successful clinical trials exist.
- There are no successful clinical trials on marijuana by the FDA.
For someone who praises science, your statements really show your ignorance.
So? What does your straw man have to do with anything? He stated marijuana is scientifically proven to be beneficial. It hasn't. No successful clinical trials exist.
and many more if you bother to look (also negative impact if you're interested in those!)
Generally you do not do a 'clinical trial' on something that is marked as a schedule 1 substance.
What straw man are you referring to? You implied it had no benefits because it doesn't have clinical trials... It doesn't have clinical trials because it is said to have no benefits (schedule 1)... Circular logic! Magic!
THC is already legal in pill form with a prescription. Again as I've stated, there are zero successful clinical trials (in the USA or anywhere else) that show smoking marijuana is beneficial. Standard scientific proof requires clinical trials.
THC is already legal in pill form with a prescription. Again as I've stated, there are zero successful clinical trials (in the USA or anywhere else) that show smoking marijuana is beneficial. Standard scientific proof requires clinical trials.
First you never mentioned "smoking" in your parent (I quoted it in my earlier reply for reference).
Second 'clinical trials' are a specific thing. In the words of Inigo Montoya, you keep using those words, I do not think it means what you think it means.
A clinical trial is only done at a specific stage of clinical research or commercial drug development. Clinical trials are an expensive process that must be paid for by the researcher/company looking to market the drug. You may want to read up on what a clinical trial entails before you insist on it being the only useful scientific metric. Clinical trials are also primarily concerned with safety (it is at least 2 of the phases of the trial).
You may want to reconsider your use of 'clinical trial' in your criticism here.
Edit: Last it seems that you did not even bother to read or comprehend my comment/links before you replied with a comment that attempts to change the subject (smoking vs THC in pill form). That seems like very 'trolly' behavior and I will stop responding if you would not like to actually discuss the subject.
I don't limit my scientific research to US Studies only since the political climate that controls funding is a very important factor. You might also want to research how the DEA and NIDA regularly hinder any applications for research showing the positive benefits of marijuana. I wouldn't equate lack of FDA studies as an indicator of marijuana's positive/negative effects.
