Legalizing Marijuana

[devilof76]

as i said earlier, i would easily concede legalizing pot or any other recreational drug if it meant i would never have to pay for someone else's welfare or food stamps or education ever again. if people have the right to fu-- up their own lives then they shouldn't look to the sober ones to put it back together for them.

personal accountability. i can live with that. but the question is can the pot smokers live without the straight laced people kicking in tax dollars?

I can.

But you're conflating two separate issues. Whether or not we should be providing general assistance is a question that should be decided on it's own. Immigration always seems to get it's feet tangled in that one too. Neither would be a problem (drug use or immigration) if welfare did not exist.

And abolishing entitlements across the board is an idea that is long past due.

 

[jonny88]

Personally I have no problem with people smoking pit in moderation. If it gets to the point where people neglect their daily responsibilities (work,school,kids) then yeah, obviously that person has a problem and it's become an addiction.

If the government wants to legalize, tax, and regulate the sales then they need to set up some laws similar to those for alcohol.

I personally don't drink except for big occasions and have never smoked other than my time in Iraq when I was trying to fit in with the cool crowd.

pot is no different then booze.most of us drink and dont abuse it.but many do and many peoples lives are destroyed buy it.pot will be the same thing many people will use it responsably and many will abuse it.theres nothing we can do about that.

 

[Darth Cruel]

I disagree whole-heartedly with those who think money should be the driving force. That's ethical...not.

I also disagree whole-heartedly with those who use the ridiculous argument that "it is not as bad as alcohol, and alcohol is legal". That's brilliant...not.

The basics are simple. This is a mind-altering substance...even if it is to a minor degree.

We already have alcohol as a legal mind-altering substance and it is abused to a pathetic level. And now we, in all of our brilliance, want to add another mind-altering substance to the list of currently abused, legal mind-altering substances?

I hope some of you are not voters.

I would like marijuana to be legal. And I hate the government having as much power as they do. But there ARE certain aspects of society that need to be regulated. And I think that mind-altering substances is one of them...no matter how fun they are.

I think that most of my rights do not need to be sacrificed in the name of common sense. But something as pathetically unimportant as the fun I have when I get stoned on pot is one that I can let go for it.

I just wish that some of the energy that seems to be dedicated to this cause would be put to a more substantial purpose.

 

[devilof76]

What you're missing is that prohibition does not stop use. What it does is drive it underground, forcing it to be traded on a black market and the consequence for crime rates is (apparently, given the obliviousness to the effect) unfathomable.

This is not one of those aspects of society which abides regulation. (I'm not certain that there are any aspects; do we 'regulate' murder by making it illegal?) Unless what you mean by regulation is subjecting it to laws governing property, a respect which any commodity in a free market deserves. Then I would agree, and I would say that the sole option for achieving such regulation is wholesale decriminalization.

 

[monkeydad16]

Just a random question, but even if California passed this and made it legal, what about the Federal Law that prohibits it's use? Which law wins?

 

[devilof76]

Federal law wins. But, if the Feds take a lax attitude toward it, then it won't matter. I believe Obama has said that is his stance.

 

[Darth Cruel]

What you're missing is that prohibition does not stop use. What it does is drive it underground, forcing it to be traded on a black market and the consequence for crime rates is (apparently, given the obliviousness to the effect) unfathomable.

This is not one of those aspects of society which abides regulation. (I'm not certain that there are any aspects; do we 'regulate' murder by making it illegal?) Unless what you mean by regulation is subjecting it to laws governing property, a respect which any commodity in a free market deserves. Then I would agree, and I would say that the sole option for achieving such regulation is wholesale decriminalization.

I am missing that prohibition does not stop use? What? I apologize if I come off as being that stupid to you. I used illegally. I know prohibition does not stop use. A very simple and basic aplication of common sense will enlighten most people about that. I am not missing that fact. The word regulating by definition has nothing to do with completely stopping anything. But it is a moot point. The point that prohibition does not stop use is just another attempt at rationalizing the benefit of making marijuana legal.

And do you really doubt that legislating murder regulates it? Are you saying that making murder legal would not increase the number of murders?

Come on now. Yes. Murder is regulated by making it illegal. Not stopped...regulate does not mean stop completely. And I will tell you what...the legality issue is the only thing stopping me from offing a few people and from smoking dope. I stand all by myself as proof that legislation regulates those behaviors.

And I am still looking for a valid reason to add another mind-altering substance to the list of abused mind-altering substances. I have yet to hear or read a valid justification for the wanton abuse that is absolutely certain to transpire with the legalization of marijuana.

 

[devilof76]

Whether or not use of a substance is justifiable is irrelevant to the question of whether or not it should be illegal. In a society whose laws are bsed on the individual's absolute right to their own life, the purpose of law is to protect that right. Someone who partakes of a dangerous substance is taking risks with their own life, and that is their right. No human behavior becomes a question of law until it violates the rights of someone else. If it were then regulation would not be the appropriate course of action. A regulation permits an action to happen so long as it obeys certain rules. There is no justification for violations of rights when the purpose of law is to protect them, therefore regulating it would be unconscionable. The peripheral effect of making murder illegal is that it stops murder, but at root, the law does not exist as a preventative measure; it exists to punish. If a person violates another's right, then they will lose their own. It's justice. Regulation is closer to an extortion racket.

If you can explain to me how people using marijuana violates your rights, and I will concede that its use should be illegal.

I don't think you're stupid when I point out that prohibition does not stop use. You seemed to be saying that because there is no good reason for using a mind altering substance, then there was no good reason to decriminalize it. I'm saying that there is no good reason to criminalize it, whether it has negative effects on its users or not. No one's life is the responsibility of the state.

 

[dr_teng]

And I am still looking for a valid reason to add another mind-altering substance to the list of abused mind-altering substances. I have yet to hear or read a valid justification for the wanton abuse that is absolutely certain to transpire with the legalization of marijuana.

If it were absolutely certain to happen, why hasn't this wanton abuse occured within countries that have decriminalized marijuana? There are a few, you know.

There are currently millions of people within the US in jail for marijuana related offenses, the vast majority of which are just hit for possession. Many of those are hit with felonies and won't be able to land a decent job again. Many others are beaten in jail or get STDs from being raped. The financial cost is outrageous to keep millions of people for what amounts to a person wanting to chill for a few hours.

The question you asked was why shouldn't it be illegal? The question you should have been asking is why SHOULD it be illegal, and what justifies the costs, physical, mental, and financial, of jailing people?

In addition, keeping it illegal is a major source of profits for a large number of drug cartels. Similar thing happened with prohibition, except the drug cartels have been around a lot longer and they're a lot bigger. Making it legal brings in real businesses and cuts them out completely, so hello nice drop in the crime rates.

The fact of the matter is, in the US, considerably more harm is caused to society by keeping it illegal than if it were legal, or at the least, decriminalized.

 

[ProgMatinee]

If pot is "no big thing" why do people use it and put themselves at risk of going to jail?

People don't go to jail the first time they are caught in possession. It has to frequently recurring. Anyone that has been charged with possession multiple times must be psychotic to a great degree and its probably a good thing they are incarcerated. After all, pot isn't addicting, right? So someone that can't give up a trivial drug in order to save their own livelihood and freedom probably would be out there risking their freedom doing other things too if pot WAS legal.

 

[dr_teng]

Actually yes, many people caught for possession do go to jail for their first time, and feel free to try to prove otherwise. There's plenty of information about arrests online from official sources, so I'm all ears!

People do pot for the same reason they do jaywalking. It gives them an immediate benefit, it doesn't hurt anyone, and it's a ridiculous joke law that a significant portion of the country already breaks.

The real problem here with the slippery slope fallacy you're attempting to use is that it doesn't work when other countries have decriminalized pot and the people didn't go on to commit other crimes or raise the crime rate in any other noticeable way. The more likely candidate for being a psychotic is the one that encourages ruining millions of lives and wasting billions of dollars because he's ~uncomfortable~ about it and would rather villify people than use his brain.

 

[villainsfan42]

did it get legalized yet?

 

[ProgMatinee]

The more likely candidate for being a psychotic is the one that encourages ruining millions of lives and wasting billions of dollars because he's ~uncomfortable~ about it and would rather villify people than use his brain.

Nice pot shot. Pardon the pun.

I use my brain and thus don't need to be a druggy to enjoy my life. Try it sometime loser.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that legalizing a drug increases its use. It further doesn't take a genius to realize increase use leads to increased abuse. It doesn't take a genius to realize people who abuse drugs of any kind including alcohol are more likely to do things that an otherwise sober brain would prevent them from doing such as committ robberies, drive while intoxicated, neglect children, committ sexual assault, jaywalk , public annoyance and a lot of other stuff I'm too lazy to type right now.

Thats just criminal activity. Add to that the decreased productivity that it would cause, the lost GDP and value of that lost productivity, the increased costs in welfare, etc.

The idea that its solely a "you're uncomfortable with it so you villify it" is a shallow counter argument on your part. There are a miriad of reasons not do to it the least of all being my own personal opinion about it.

Regarding proving that people don't get arrested for first time offense, I can cite a couple of my buddies who got ticketed for it...

 

[Darth Cruel]

Actually yes, many people caught for possession do go to jail for their first time, and feel free to try to prove otherwise. There's plenty of information about arrests online from official sources, so I'm all ears!

People do pot for the same reason they do jaywalking. It gives them an immediate benefit, it doesn't hurt anyone, and it's a ridiculous joke law that a significant portion of the country already breaks.

The real problem here with the slippery slope fallacy you're attempting to use is that it doesn't work when other countries have decriminalized pot and the people didn't go on to commit other crimes or raise the crime rate in any other noticeable way. The more likely candidate for being a psychotic is the one that encourages ruining millions of lives and wasting billions of dollars because he's ~uncomfortable~ about it and would rather villify people than use his brain.

This message comes off as agreat deal less friendly than the previous one you posted. Am I mis-reading it?

 

[ProgMatinee]

people expect you to forgive and actually support their vices then get mad when you don't.

 

[Bodie The Cursed]

sounds like someone needs a bonger..

 

[IronFingaz]

 

[Eli26]

It's less harmful than tobacco and would cut down on crime. I say do it. In parts of BC, Canada it's legal.

 

[dr_teng]

Nice pot shot. Pardon the pun.

I use my brain and thus don't need to be a druggy to enjoy my life. Try it sometime loser.

I don't smoke pot and never have. I simply don't buy into propaganda about drugs like you have.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that legalizing a drug increases its use. It further doesn't take a genius to realize increase use leads to increased abuse. It doesn't take a genius to realize people who abuse drugs of any kind including alcohol are more likely to do things that an otherwise sober brain would prevent them from doing such as committ robberies, drive while intoxicated, neglect children, committ sexual assault, jaywalk , public annoyance and a lot of other stuff I'm too lazy to type right now.

Except this is completely incorrect and has been proven so in every country where pot is decriminalized.

Thats just criminal activity. Add to that the decreased productivity that it would cause, the lost GDP and value of that lost productivity, the increased costs in welfare, etc.

It increases GDP by eliminating an illegal trade that gives no money to the government. It increases jobs and productivity by allowing industry to grow it in farms. Given the increased employment and tax revenue, how exacty do you get "increased welfare costs"?

Let me repeat this part. Marijuana is decriminalized in a variety of countries. The things you complain about have not occured. They are imaginary issues.

Regarding proving that people don't get arrested for first time offense, I can cite a couple of my buddies who got ticketed for it...

Your personal subjective experience in your area is completely useless on a country-wide scale where millions of people have been arrested for first-time offences. If you don't understand why, take a statistics class.

 

[ProgMatinee]

it only cuts down on crime because it ceases to be a crime itself.

that argument makes as much sense as legalizing child porn.