whoaa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. There was NO ecstacy in the 60's and drug use
> definitely wasn't as common as it is today...
> 2.We're taking steps to legalizing it, ie.
> medicinal marijuana, upcoming debates on the
> issue, cities have decriminalized/legalized it,
> and the legalization issue is all over the
> internet. Not to mention new discoveries on the
> ACTUAL effects of marijuana on health and cancer.
> It may take a while for the country as a whole to
> legalize, but on a state level, I think it will
> happen soon.
> 3. I didn't skip school to smoke weed... I skipped
> school to sleep in and not do shit all day. You
> guys have never done that before...? Weed was
> wayyyy easier to obtain after school anyway.
1. Ecstasy was available by 1970 though, and the drug indulgent culture of the 60s continued to flourish in the decade. Also, drug use was indeed higher in the 60s and 70s, I don't see how you can argue against that. Even in the military (which is essentially the complete opposite of the counterculture traditionally associated with drugs) drug use was prevalent.
"Soldiers in Vietnam smoked marijuana and took other drugs...Marine commander Major Ives W. Neely claimed "at least 70 to 80 percent" use within his company."
"in 1973, 34 percent of American soldiers in Vietnam had commonly used heroin."
http://www.gallup.com/poll/6331/decades-drug-use-data-from-60s-70s.aspx
2. They've had these debates on legalizing marijuana for years. The Netherlands for instance legalized marijuana in the 70s after an extensive debate. Although new information is being discovered, it probably won't sway enough people to even come close to the number of users during the 60s and 70s, and if they couldn't do it with their numbers it's unlikely anyone else can.
Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> by the way... george washington grew and smoked marijuana... just saying.
You probably shouldn't use this when arguing for marijuana legalization. Not only is it an argumentative fallacy (appeal to authority) but it's also very easy for someone to point out that he also owned slaves, Ben Franklin was an adulterer, etc.