General Question

essieness's avatar

I'll agree that you have a valid argument for the prohibition of marijuana when you can present a valid argument for parking lots outside of bars. Thoughts from the collective?

Asked by essieness (7648 points ) February 22nd, 2009

I was listening to a NORML podcast and heard a guy make that statement (or a variation of it) and found it to be very true an quite poignant. I would like to hear thoughts from everyone on marijuana prohibition/legalization and so on.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

30 Answers

eponymoushipster's avatar

you need somewhere for designated drivers to park their cars.

also, where would the fights happen?

A_Beaverhausen's avatar

amen sister,

Allie's avatar

I’ve been the DD before (I know, shocker) and if the car is close it’s a hell of a lot easier to get your friends in it. One of my friends actually bitched about having to walk three blocks. It’s not like it’s the other side of town or anything.
Also, just because the parking spot is in front of a bar doesn’t automatically mean that bar patrons are the ones parking there. Sure, some of them might be, but sometimes people park there and walk across the street to the SubWay or the skate shop.

By the way, I’m all for the legalization of marijuana. If they take the parking spaces away in front of bars, Davis is screwed. (I realize this isn’t what you’re advocating. I’m just throwing in my 2¢.

jasongarrett's avatar

Bars and parking lots are unrelated to marijuana, but I understand that it’s tough to argue logically when you’re high.

ark_a_dong's avatar

@jasongarrett

You know, when you have a certain amount of passion for something, sometimes you act or speak without enough time to think.

I don’t know your motives, but I’m taking your comment as a cheap shot.

Zaku's avatar

What Jason said. I don’t see any connection between the two arguments.

Seems to me marijuana should be educated about, and perhaps regulated and taxed, but not illegalized.

Parking lots next to bars may seem ironic but isn’t even really ironic. I would tend to question the logical judgment (or sobriety) of people who can’t see that.

Maybe if I had a few drinks, these profound connections might appear before me…

essieness's avatar

@jasongarrett and @Zaku I guess if you’ve never smoked pot (I can only assume you haven’t or at least are against it’s use) and only listen to the propaganda spoonfed to you by your government and/or religious leaders, then I can’t expect you to understand.

I hate to take cheap shots as well, but geez.

fireside's avatar

Same answer for both: Big Corporations lobby for it.

Allie's avatar

Hmm, interesting @fireside. That makes me wonder if marijuana were legalized, would less people smoke tobacco? (Ponders….) I guess that discussion is for another thread though.

Zaku's avatar

@essieness – Geez what? I just don’t see the logic at all. That doesn’t make any sense to me either. I’m for pot being legal, so what government propaganda would I be listening to? Unrelated to that, I personally don’t want to smoke anything.

fireside's avatar

@Allie – I was thinking more along the lines of 3M who makes paper products.

arnbev959's avatar

@essieness: I agree that pot should be legalized, but the argument you posted doesn’t make sense. There are, however, plenty of valid arguments for the legalization of pot.

essieness's avatar

I didn’t come up with the comment, a member of NORML did and I simply passed it along for peer review. Everyone whose opinion I have asked for on the topic completely understood the meaning and relation of the two subjects. These people included my non-smoking parents as well as another non-smoking acquaintance, so the “have to be high to get it” argument is invalid. Finally, I simply responded to what appeared to myself and at least one other person to be a personal attack on smokers’ ability to think logically when high. I can assure you that is not the case, at least in my experience.

galileogirl's avatar

@ark_a_dong What are You passionate about, evidently not allowing others having their own opinions.

“Bars and parking lots are unrelated to marijuana, but I understand its tough to argue logically when you’re high” times 2

jasongarrett's avatar

I apologize for the personal attack. Sometimes I can’t resist the temptation to push buttons.

“People drink at bars, and bars have parking lots, so bar patrons are likely to drink and drive, which is dangerous and illegal, therefore marijuana should be legal” is not a compelling argument.

galileogirl's avatar

@essieness no matter where you got it. there is a whiff of troll in the air.

essieness's avatar

@galileogirl ???

@jasongarrett Thanks for the apology, and back at ya. I think we can all just agree to disagree on this one ;)

ark_a_dong's avatar

@galileogirl

and what I said was my opinion…

nice

DrBill's avatar

Bars are made for social drinking, not social drunks.

eponymoushipster's avatar

wait – you’re not supposed to drive after you’ve been drinking?! or only after you’re drunk?

arnbev959's avatar

OK guys: So, I smoked a little, and suddenly it all made sense. It’s a valid argument after all. The argument isn’t saying, as @jasongarrett put it:

“People drink at bars, and bars have parking lots, so bar patrons are likely to drink and drive, which is dangerous and illegal, therefore marijuana should be legal” is not a compelling argument.”

That’s how I originally interpreted it as well, and so, it seems, did most everyone else. However, I now think I see what it was saying.

What it’s saying is that yes, bars do have parking lots, and that makes it easy for someone to drive drunk. But what happens more often is people are responsible. It wouldn’t make sense to get rid of parking lots at bars because it could lead to someone driving drunk, because that would make life unnecessarily difficult for the majority of people who are responsible.
Similarly, it doesn’t make sense to ban all pot smoking because some people use it in an irresponsible manner. Most people who smoke do so responsibly.

I apologize for my first post. The argument does make sense. It just took a few tokes for me to see it properly.

essieness's avatar

@petethepothead AHA! Glad someone got it! (I should work on my communication skills as I clearly didn’t explain it well enough the first go round. Thanks for doing it for me)

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@essieness: I understood perfectly.

@original question: I think the best argument for the legalization of marijuana is who the fuck is it hurting if I toke up? I have never done something dangerous, to myself or to others, after smoking weed. I have never let the kid I’m babysitting drown, I have never caused a car accident, I have never let people draw on my face, I have never made my mother cry, or any of the other things that the anti-drug commercials say will happen, nor have I ever carefully avoided those things happening. I have actually been able to be a productive, engaged person after smoking weed. I worked at my job high, and none of my customers were any the wiser. What the fuck do you care if I smoke? If it’s legal, it can be regulated, just like alcohol and tobacco, and so many ridiculous and useless arrests could be avoided.

Zaku's avatar

@petethepothead – Thank you for lighting up and enlightening those of us who had no idea what the connection was.

So… the original wording was doubly-confusing because it equates two concepts but has them backwards, assuming there is a disagreement. Again, per my original answer but without the humor about needing a drink:

* Of course it’s reactionary and moronic to suggest removing parking lots from bars.
* I also agree it’s stupid and liberty-infringing to outlaw pot.

In both cases, it seems to me that what’s wanted is good honest effective education (and exploration in entertainment media) about the actual effects of drinking, driving intoxicated, and smoking pot, so that adults can make clear informed responsible choices without needing the police to be involved.

galileogirl's avatar

@TitsMcGhee Babysitting high is stupid and dangerous.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@galileogirl: Exactly my point, which is why I don’t do it. Those were all examples from anti-drug commercials. The idea was that those commercials make all users are completely reckless regarding their marijuana use, and I was making the point that those characterizations are judgmental stereotypes. The vast majority of us would never engage in those activities high.

galileogirl's avatar

What you did say that no child drowned while you were babysitting under the influence. Read it again.

TitsMcGhee's avatar

@galileogirl: Read your own sentence again. Add punctuation (for clairity) where necessary. Then think about whether you should be critiquing my sentence, especially after viewing this anti-drug commercial which I was referencing in the answer you’re referring to.

Allie's avatar

I lurve you, Petey.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther