NationStates Jolt Archive

Please move all discussion to the thread Proposal: Legalise Marijauna. The yes/no poll is back again too.

1x YES

this should be an interesting proposal

If Marijuana is legalized it will be the downfall of society as we know it. The only reason why it should be legalized is for MEDICLE PURPOSES ONLY! It should not be sold like cigeretes for if it is I garentee you society will go right down the drain. I will not suport this unless it is for MEDICLE PURPOSES ONLY and not for a bunch of stoners who need a joint to spark thier life.

This post is completely silly. Alchohal if used in moderation is far less intoxicating than marijuana. . .
Marijuana Is 4X as likely to give you lung cancer than cigarets.
And even if both your claims were true, just because something isnt as harmful than something else, does that mean its ok to do it? NO!
Shooting someone in the arm is less dangerous than shooting someone in the head. . . so should we be allowed to shoot people in the arm? NO!
legalise it in your own nation, dont try and force the whole Un to Legalise this crap. ..

Whereas.
Marijuana has accredited medicinal uses in the fields of chemotherapy and pain relief;
Whereas,
Marijuana is less intoxicating than alchohol, and not as addictive as cigarettes;
Whereas,
Some states have realized the usefulness of the legalization of marijuana and have already legalized it,
Whereas,
The use of marijuana would be confined to a citizens home or licensed private property,
It has become necessary for the UN to make a resolution on marijuana.

And are you aware of the fact that one joint of Marijuana is equal up to something around seven cigeretes, if u ask me it will only kill us faster. (Im no positive if that fact is true but im throwing it out thare because if it is true you should all do a lil thinking and if its not true then just ignore it instead of flamming me)

Marijuana has accredited medicinal uses in the fields of chemotherapy and pain relief
That claim is silly, there are so many other herbs and drugs that do the job better with less harm done to your body. . . Rethink you proposal.

Marijuana has accredited medicinal uses in the fields of chemotherapy and pain relief
That claim is silly, there are so many other herbs and drugs that do the job better with less harm done to your body. . . Rethink you proposal.

Marijuana does, indeed, have accredited medicinal uses in such fields and is readily available to individuals in need of it via prescription. To use this as a basis for full-scale legalization is foolhardy.

The only reason you wish to legalize marijuana is so you can get high in your mom's basement without fear of someone like myself contacting the authorities.

I urge my fellow delegates to boycott this proposal.

If Marijuana is legalized it will be the downfall of society as we know it.

What about alcohol? The effects of alcohol are much more anti-social that cannabis, yet where are the rips in the fabric of society I ask you??

What about alcohol? The effects of alcohol are much more anti-social that cannabis, yet where are the rips in the fabric of society I ask you??

Then propose that alcohol be banned. Do not use it as a crutch for your cyclical argument.

The only reason you wish to legalize marijuana is so you can get high in your mom's basement without fear of someone like myself contacting the authorities.

And what if that's true? Do you have any moral reason to put people in jail for getting high? Is anyone hurt by marijuana? Is marijuana even a significant health risk?

It is important to note that in 2002, there were over 400,000 deaths from tobacco in the United States according to the CDC. Arrests? None. Marijuana, on the other hand, has yet to be listed as the direct cause of any death, and yet there were 600,000 marijuana-related arrests in that same period. In as many as half of those arrests, the drugs were the only crime -- so the United States has inprisoned 300,000 of its citizens at an average cost of almost $30,000 per inmate per year for crimes where there were no victims, no loss to society, and no grief except to the taxpayer's wallet. Mind you, that's only the cost of inprisonment; I have not found good numbers on the costs of investigation, enforcement, trials, and all of the other aspects of the war on drugs in the United States.

How much money are you willing to throw away just to violate the privacy of your own citizens with no other apparent goal? You may claim that you wish to stamp out drug abuse, but there is no indication that the war on drugs has or ever will do that. Just as with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's, the war on drugs is a fiscal failure that has done nothing except give a free monopoly to the operators of a black market, drain taxpayer funds, and erode the right of citizens to control their own bodies.

All that said, I cannot support this proposal as I believe that it infringes on national sovereignty. The legality of recreational drugs is clearly a domestic affair.

Duplicate post

"Prohibition in any form strikes at the very foundation that this country was founded upon" - Abraham Lincoln - USA

It truly startles me when people start throwing around "facts" that they were taught by mom, DARE or their teachers without researching the subject themselves.

The biggest contributors to the lobbiest that capaign against legalization of marijuana are Anheiser Bush, DuPont Industries and the company that makes Marlboro (name is escaping me at the moment) Why do you think that is?

On top of the PROVEN medicinal uses there are also plastics, clothes and tons of other products that can be made utilizing the plant. The fact that it will save the planet from deforestation cannot be rebutted.

"Gateway drug" "Kills brain cells" "criminal activity to support habit" these and tons of other arguments are easily refuted. The time for legalization is long past.

That being said I do believe that it is something that each nation should decide for itself and is not a matter for the UN to vote on. Should it come to a vote Erbas will be abstaining.

And just for the record no I do not smoke. I quit 6 years ago and have not indulged since.

This is clearly a matter of national sovereignty. The U.N. has no business voting on this issue.

That being said, in refutation of an earlier post, there have indeed been a considerable number of tobacco-related arrests, revolving around the sale of said products to minors. Both minors and the people who sold or provided the tobacco have been arrested and sometimes jailed. Just because you'd like there to be no arrests so you can prove your nebulous point does not make it so.

Personally, I feel American drug policy is completely screwed up. If I had my way (hmm... submit a proposal to moderators?) people found in possession without clear intent to sell should be given mandatory treatment and, with repeated offenses, a light jail sentence in minimum security. Licensed medical marijuana growers and users should, of course, be exempt from prosecution or arrest. I'd feel the same way with most drug offenses, actually. People who sell marijuana, however, should be subjected to more stringent measures. I figure first offense, ten years with possibility of parole or early release. Second offense, life imprisonment with no possibility of parole. People who profit off the spreading of human misery and the further degradation of society deserve only limited mercy.

I feel that no government has any right telling me what I can and can't put into my own body. However, I agree that this is a nation's debate, not a debate for the UN as a whole, though it would be interesting to see it done, the proposal itself should be done better.

Furthermore, things like "Marijuana is X times more likely to cause lung cancer" are almost always hearsay or propoganda, and I believe that marijuana itself could never cause "the downfall of society as we know it". That's a complete exaggeration of whatever negative effects legalization of cannibus could have.

Please check this out (http://marijuana.com/myths.php3) for some more info.

Most of these pro-legalisation arguments are valid, but the main point is this:

You have no right to tell me or anyone else what we can do with our bodies, until it begins to infringe on the rights of others - this is a fundamental right, and as such IS the business of the UN, at least in NS.

Perhaps with something very addictive, such as the harder drugs, there might be a valid point that addicts can be driven to theft. But with marijuana, which is NOT physically addictive, the only person who might suffer is the one who makes the decision to use it (assuming it's done in private).

EDIT: oops didn't see that this point had already kind of been made. Sorry.

This argument will obviously not be resolved with the hard nosed conventionalists we obviously have around us as they are blind to the real issue here.

There is no doubt that both sides of the argument have put forward correct and valid facts for and against legalisation, howeer this will not solve anything as it is unlikely to alter the other side's views on the issue.

The real issue at debate here is the freedom of choice that should not be taken away from any indiviual simply because, by concequence, they live in a country that decides to do this.

We cannot sway the vote in one direction by throwing facts around at each other but it should be put forward that everyone should be free to try what they want in life.

Those who say this is not an issue for the UN are wrong. This issue throws up the problem of human rights and those who say they would not support this bill are quite blatanly for infringing on thier citizen's rights and deciding what is best for them rather than allowing freedom of choice.

Those of you against this proposal I ask you to look upon it in a different light. Don't be the controlers of what your citizen's decide to do with their free time, use your resorces on more important and pressing issues. No one unless incredibly close minded would feel good if their real government started telling them what to eat so why should you interfere with what happens in times of recreation?

Happy free thinking citizen's with the freedom to choose what they want to do are what this world needs. Not drones comanded by their governments in every aspect of life.

Catholic Europe, probably suprisingly, supports this resolution. We feel that Cannabis is not a major drug and is less harmful than cigarettes. However, strict guidelines for the use of it need to be employed.

What about alcohol? The effects of alcohol are much more anti-social that cannabis, yet where are the rips in the fabric of society I ask you??

Then propose that alcohol be banned. Do not use it as a crutch for your cyclical argument.

We were merely arguing that the effects of the legalisation of cannabis will not destroy our society as someone tried to to argue earlier on the thread. Perhaps my point was badly put.
Maybe we should look at the argument in a cost benefit point of view. Effective policing on cannabis when it is illegal is inefficient, ie it has considerable costs in terms of cost per conviction. The costs of legalising cannabis, of which, I conceed, there are many, are lower than is commonly put. Put simply, it would cost more to society if cannabis was illegal.
The only sensible conclusion would be legalisation. This should not spread to harder drugs of course, because the costs to society of the widespread use of these are much more considerable.

Evenly split, 19 to 19.

not anymore :)

20 to 20...

the only people who want to legalize such drugs are brain-dead pot-heads or people who WANT to be. go to hell.

20 to 20...

the only people who want to legalize such drugs are brain-dead pot-heads or people who WANT to be. go to hell.

Look.
While I'll admit that there are brain dead pot heads out there, how about this. There is a woman who has bone cancer. She cannot speak, move, or talk because of the great pain she is in. She finds that using marijuana allows her to do these things, but the only way she can obtain said drug is through illicit sources. The cops learn of this, and tell her if she doesn't stop, she will be arrested. Shouldn't dying people live out their last days in dignity, even if they are harming themselves a bit? And please don't say go to hell, or make generalizing statements. It only makes you look stupid. (btw, the above is a true story.)

It is important to note that in 2002, there were over 400,000 deaths from tobacco in the United States according to the CDC. Arrests? None. Marijuana, on the other hand, has yet to be listed as the direct cause of any death, and yet there were 600,000 marijuana-related arrests in that same period.

Actually, there aren't any deaths directly attributed to cigarette smoking. there are 400,000 attributed to Lung Cancer from smokers or simila ailments. But Marijuana has far more harmful chemicals than the average cigarette including tar- perhaps the MOST harmful. the fact that it's not ATTRIBUTED to the death just means that when people developed lung cancer and such, they didn't tell their doctor they smoked marijuana instead of (or in addition to) tobacco.

Here's the point: if you legalize marijuana, you kinda have to get off the cases of cigarette smokers and manufacturers, as the products aren't wildly different.

21 to 22 :P

20 to 20...

the only people who want to legalize such drugs are brain-dead pot-heads or people who WANT to be. go to hell.

It is blanket statements like this that make me wonder how our society ever managed to advance out of the caves. You can make claims like this all you want but it makes them no more true then if I were to say "The only people that want to have a speed limit on our highways are Nazi's"

Both statements are perposterous. But I tell you what New Babel. I am a person. I want marijuana legalized. Ergo according to your "wisdom" I am a brain-dead pot-head or someone who wants to be. That being the case you should have no problem out debating me on this forum in front of our peers. I mean you have nothing to fear right? I am brain dead, it is a miracle I can even type a coherent sentence.

So I will give you the floor to begin. Why should marijuana be illegal?

I await your reply and will check in each night to respond.

(EDIT: Fixed a typo)

With regards to the harm of smoking. Yes, marijuana is probably _more_ harmful than normal cigarettes. However, one must keep in mind that there are ways to minimize, if not eliminate completely, the respiratory damage caused by smoking. For example, the use of a bong [water-pipe] or opting instead to ingest it in the form of foodstuffs, such as 'space cakes' or 'special brownies'.

Furthermore, one must not forget all of the social ills caused by alcohol (I know, I am sort of reiterating points made earlier...). Drunk driving accidents, alcoholism and alcohol poisoning are all direct outcomes of the intoxicant's current legal status in most nations. However, due to the immense wealth (and therefore, influence on the general public) of the breweries and distillaries, alcoholism is often overlooked by the mainstream media.

Anyways, I concur, marijuana should be legalized (using the Amsterdam model) by a United Nations resolution. It should be made legal for recreational (for the purpose of intoxication), medicinal and industrial (i.e. hemp) purposes.

ps: I toke, and I'm just fine.

I agree, marijuana should be leagal. Amsterdam has legalized most "soft" drugs for users over 18. Because of this they don't have to waste money on catching and housing users and Drug dealers which saves lots of money and police time and energy.

If you want you could impose heavy taxes on these "soft" drugs either for goverment gain or funding Drug awareness campaines.

20 to 20...

the only people who want to legalize such drugs are brain-dead pot-heads or people who WANT to be. go to hell.
even though I agree with you, that argument is a fallacy

And even if both your claims were true, just because something isnt as harmful than something else, does that mean its ok to do it? NO!
Shooting someone in the arm is less dangerous than shooting someone in the head. . . so should we be allowed to shoot people in the arm? NO!
legalise it in your own nation, dont try and force the whole Un to Legalise this crap. ..
Has anyone payed attention to my statement. the only "pro-marijuana" arguments I've seen so far is: "Its not as bad as". Who cares? present an actual argument that isnt a fallacy and Ill endorse you

WhiteRose: please see my argument in terms of costs to society on the previous page....i agree with you though, the 'not as bad as' argument is severly flawed.

Sniggety-Bop supports legalisation of Marijuana. :mrgreen:

There, updated the proposal. Still need that endorsement, whoever posted first.

Sniggety-Bop supports legalisation of Marijuana. :mrgreen:

With a name like Sniggety-Bop, the Chancellor finds himself unsurprised.

logistically your proposal has merit. It would remove the power of crime lords from what is a substance nearly as popular as alcohol (and natural, at that!). It also would provide a new tax base akin to tobacco for many nations.

well worth considering.

THERE IS NO HELL

we do not die, we are not gone
we are alive
we are alive...

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Why is the argument that marijuana isn't as physically addictive as tobacco or alcohol automatically a moot point? When a government says something is legal, it sets a precendant that should be followed. If one drug that causes millions of deaths like tobacco, or another drug that causes incredible social harm like alcohol, is legal, then why is a drug like cannabis, which doesn't have nearly as harmful effects as either of those two drugs, illegal? Why is the taxpayer's money spent on catching the supposed 'criminals' that produce, imbibe, or sell this drug? It simply doesn't make any sense in today's society. I'd like to ask those in favour of keeping marijuana illegal if they're also in favour of prohibition or making tobacco illegal, because you can't have your cake and eat it too in that respect.

And even if both your claims were true, just because something isnt as harmful than something else, does that mean its ok to do it? NO!
Shooting someone in the arm is less dangerous than shooting someone in the head. . . so should we be allowed to shoot people in the arm? NO!
legalise it in your own nation, dont try and force the whole Un to Legalise this crap. ..
Has anyone payed attention to my statement. the only "pro-marijuana" arguments I've seen so far is: "Its not as bad as". Who cares? present an actual argument that isnt a fallacy and Ill endorse you

What about the right to do what you want with your own body? What gives you, or any government, the right to tell me what I can and can't do to myself?

My nation already has leagalized drugs. So i support you proposal. and im the united states of alex, new un member

The Kingdom of LeeHarvey is a very prosperous island with a good economy. This can be attributed to the legalization of marajuanna; it is a wonderful source for tax revenue! Remeber Prohibition? Our Government regulates and profits from this, everyoneshould try it.

P.S. - We do have a low crime rate as well as a prospering private sector.

While I appreciate the debating that is going on, please. I need endorsements so I may turn this from an idea into a proposal. Also, thank you (mostly) everyone for not letting this turn into a useless flamewar. My faith in humanity is yet again restored.

I need endorsements so I may turn this from an idea into a proposal.
Uhh, we don't endorse you, TSS. You'll have to get your region to do that for you. Maybe they're reading this and deciding they don't like the idea.

Local politics, TSS. It always comes down to your neighborhood. Better get the vote out.

Thanks. I'll remember that. Stupid anti U.N. region... time to move.

On, a side note,
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
HAPPY CHANUKAH!
HAVE A GOOD KWANZAH!
HAPPY (BELATED) SOLSTICE!
HAPPY FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS
(insert your deity here) bless, and I wish each and everyone one of you a happy holidays. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

So I guess we should stop punishing for attempted suicide? Accept your right to life rather than throw it away on drugs.

There are punishments for attempted suicide? I don't think there are here in the UK, and if there are in any US states, then yes you should stop punishing attempted suicide.

Personally, I don't think I would destroy my life or waste it on drugs. But I should have the right to - it is, after all, my life. And I should also be able to experience what life has to offer in sensible moderation without fear of being imprisoned.

I cannot support this as people who smoke pot generaly (not all) get kinda lazy. You know they just wanta lay around and eat cheeto's while watching pink floyds the wall and such. This would be bad for the economy as production rates would fall. Also since I dont support welfare programs many of my citizens would starve to death as a result of this vice.

You're just another brick in the wall. And how would you know? have you ever met a lazy pot head who just lays around and watches/listens to the wall. Notice the dark sarcasm above.

Actually yes several. And I think the issue is one of national (not international) choice.

I know several lazy pot smoking jagoffs that do nothing but watch The Wall and get high.

It is not as uncommon as you'd have us think.

I really don't want the government controlling my body.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

I feel that no government has any right telling me what I can and can't put into my own body. However, I agree that this is a nation's debate, not a debate for the UN as a whole, though it would be interesting to see it done, the proposal itself should be done better.

What exactly is the remit of the UN then? I would appreciate it if anyone could direct me to where thats written down, although I suspect it is not written down anywhere. Generally international agencies, along with governments, decide the scope of their responsibilities by proposing legislation, so this is a bit unclear.

What almost definitely is the responsibility of the UN, however, is the safeguarding of human rights, and if we were to accept that we can do to our bodies what we choose (I can put a drill through my arm if I choose, it isn't a crime, so why are we arguing about health risks?) then it becomes an issue of liberty, as prohibition was.

Clearly it isn't decided yet, and for that reason the government of Citagazze endorses this proposal in the hope that we will get a broader debate on the subject, and that other nations will realise that the UN can legislate on what it pleases, if it recognises a clear social need.

The U.N. in real life as well as here is a debate society. Real legislation/power comes from individual nations. And the original real world UN charter was charged with giving nations a place to try and avoid war. Not a moral platform in which to push an individual nations narrow agenda.

Stop telling us what we can and can't smoke.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Letila, I'm going to ask you again, and I'd appreciate an answer this time: Why are you a member of the UN?

To tell nations what to do is the reason the UN is around. If you don't want to submit to the UN, then leave.

I ask again: Why are you a member nation of the UN?

To be honest, so I have a good reason to post in this forum. I probably should leave, but I've got too many endorsements to through them all away. I've got 39!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.
The state only exists to serve itself.
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and really big butts!
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic
of attractive women.

Okay, I've got enough endorsements. Please move all conversation to the thread Proposal: Legalise Marijuana. And don't forget to vote in the poll.

Legalization of marijuanna will "NOT" lead to the downfall of society. Abuse of that legeslation will.

this is a ridiculous proposel. why should we legalize mary jane, so you can smoke it in public instead of in the privacy of your own home? Or so all the old people dying of cancer can feel better? pain is a part of life so deal with it! :twisted:

We should deal with the necessary pain in life, but if we can lessen the pain, we should do so.

I support it, for those wishing to use marijuana for medicinal purposes, I hope it gets incorporated into my UN Resolution, which looks like is going to pass right now.

We of We are all Humanoids have carefully repealed all drugs laws, people are free to abuse their bodies as they see fit, however, the reasoning while not essential to the UN may give some insight and enlighten the debate.

Currently some 80% of the income to Organised Crime is derivied from the drugs trade, with most drugs being 'cut' by on average 500%, frequently by obnoxious or poisonous substances.
Utilising the figures form a recent UN survey if ALL drugs were to be legalised, and cut to a predetermined level so addicts would know exactly what they were getting with a tax threshold of 200% the price on the street would be such that organised crime would cease to exist as we currently know it! Further it is estimated that the increase in income to such states would more than cover the increase in cost to the nations health budgets especially if as in, say the USA, where private medical insurance is the norm!

I fully accept that this will never 'pass muster' in the UN as neither will amendments to 'gun law' however as each piece of the information puzzle is made clear peoples opinions may slowly be changed.

PS. I personally am totally against Drugs (my profession involves compulsory Drug testing) and the use of, however the fact that I do not and cannot use 'illegal' drugs does not lessen my enthusiasm for the debate as to their legalisation.