NationStates Jolt Archive

In some countries, marijuana (cannabis, weed, dope, whatever) is legal in certain circumstances, for example, the Netherlands. Even Britain has relaxed its laws on possession. So why isn't it legal at all in America? In some states, the death penalty is applicable for possession of an ounce or more. And the reasons that it was made illegal originally, in the 1930s are surely no longer relevant - the stationery companies, DuPont and Hirst Publications lobbied the government to ban it, in order to keep wood-pulp paper competitive. This is surely a pathetic reason to keep it banned. I realise that it won't be legalised anytime soon, with one of the most conservative governments in American history currently in power. Any views?

It should DEFINITELY be legal. WOOT!

Cigs are legal, why not pot? Plus hemp has all these uses that no one's even explored. It's a government conspiracy to gain money.

Watch Reffer Madness, then we'll talk.

Watch Reffer Madness, then we'll talk.

Are you kidding me? That was made in the ole days with ridiculous accusitions that aren't even true about marijuana...IT WILL KILL YOU! That movie was plain negative propoganda and shouldn't be used as any basis for an argument.

In some countries, marijuana (cannabis, weed, dope, whatever) is legal in certain circumstances, for example, the Netherlands. Even Britain has relaxed its laws on possession. So why isn't it legal at all in America? In some states, the death penalty is applicable for possession of an ounce or more. And the reasons that it was made illegal originally, in the 1930s are surely no longer relevant - the stationery companies, DuPont and Hirst Publications lobbied the government to ban it, in order to keep wood-pulp paper competitive. This is surely a pathetic reason to keep it banned. I realise that it won't be legalised anytime soon, with one of the most conservative governments in American history currently in power. Any views?

Cannabis and Alcohol have about the same likelihood of causing badness. So sure, if it were legalised you'd find a few potheads who couldn't last a day without a joint, but you already find far more people boozing up and knocking the crap out of other people with a quite legal narcotic.

Incidentally, if you pick and eat "magic" mushrooms raw, it's perfectly legal in the UK. It'll blow your bloody head off, but it's legal. Try cleaning the mushies up and brewing them to make a cleaner, less contaminated substance, and it's illegal because you are "refining" them.

It also doesn't help the case for legalisation when a judge gives a child sex offender a reprieve because he was stoned at the time. Stoned, drunk, whatever: no excuse.

Are you kidding me? That was made in the ole days with ridiculous accusitions that aren't even true about marijuana...IT WILL KILL YOU! That movie was plain negative propoganda and shouldn't be used as any basis for an argument.
I know. I just wanted to lighten the air.

Reefer Madness, and that movie is a classic propaganda film- it's a good one to watch when high, too. :p

Some billboard I saw said that if marijuana were legalized and taxed, the government said that it would gain $125 million in taxes. This was in Massachusetts... so what about the rest of the country?

All drugs should be legal. ALL drugs.

Why they are illegal I really have no idea. If people want to get high, let them get high. Not the government's place to stop them (until they hurt someone, hence DUI laws, which should include other impairing drugs).

This thread should be asking "Why are drugs illegal?"

Any reason given could be shot down with ease.

The reason the "war on drugs" continues is because of entrenched money. It's beaurocratic, it feeds off itself, and it's wasting money and putting non-violent people in jail.

Here's one old hippie who knows marijuana should not be legalized. A rise in taxation is a poor reason to make it legal. The US government gets enough money to perform it's function without telling every kid in America that smoking dope is ok. It should definately be decriminalized so that we stop clogging up our prisons with potheads and make room for more serious criminals. The last thing the fattest generation of Americans needs is to be less motivated and have the munchies.

Incidentally, if you pick and eat "magic" mushrooms raw, it's perfectly legal in the UK. It'll blow your bloody head off, but it's legal. Try cleaning the mushies up and brewing them to make a cleaner, less contaminated substance, and it's illegal because you are "refining" them.


Not only is it legal to pick and eat 'shrooms over here, it's also legal to buy them as long as they haven't been processed. In fact, I know of at least two places that sell unprocessed 'shrooms, within 2 miles of where I live. But you're right, it is illegal to process them. And I've just been told, that if you put them in tea, you have a Class 'A' drug on your hands (or to be more precise, in your mug). But the subject of this thread is the legalisation of marijuana, not the legality of 'shrooms.

My biggest issue is just that marijuana and cigarettes should be on the same level of legality. I lean toward legalization for the sake of, oh, I don't know, the thousands of people who or are in some way victims of drug crimes. Of course, the process of legalizing marijuana would be extremely difficult in large countries because of greedy pharmaceutical companies. This is a tough one.

But, with Bush's re-election, and likely Supreme Court appointments, don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

Kerry probably would have moved towards legalizing pot: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108529,00.html

Incidentally:

The decision of the U.S. Congress was based in part on testimony derived from articles in the newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who was heavily interested in DuPont Inc. Some analysts theorize DuPont wanted to boost declining post-war textile sales, and wished to eliminate hemp fiber as competition. Many argue that this seems unlikely given DuPont's lack of concern with the legal status of cotton, wool, and linen; although it should be noted that hemp's textile potential had not yet been largely exploited, while textile factories already had made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool, and linen. Others argue that Dupont wanted to eliminate cannabis because its high natural cellulose content made it a viable alternative to the company's developing innovation: modern plastic. Even more inflammatory and biased were the accusations by that period's US 'drug czar' Henry (Harry) Anslinger. Anslinger charged that the drug provoked murderous rampages in previously solid citizens. Anslinger testified that cannabis "makes darkies feel equal to white men," a complaint typical of much of the anti-drug rhetoric of the time, which for example emphasised opium's role in promoting Anglo-Chinese miscegenation. He told the married men in the audience: "Gentlemen, it will make your wives want to have sex with a Black man!" Anslinger also popularized the word marihuana for the plant, using a Mexican derived word (believed to be derived from a Brazilian Portuguese term for inebriation) in order to associate the plant with increasing numbers of Mexican immigrants, creating a negative stereotype which persists to this day.


Oh. Dear.

Not only is it legal to pick and eat 'shrooms over here, it's also legal to buy them as long as they haven't been processed. In fact, I know of at least two places that sell unprocessed 'shrooms, within 2 miles of where I live. But you're right, it is illegal to process them. And I've just been told, that if you put them in tea, you have a Class 'A' drug on your hands (or to be more precise, in your mug). But the subject of this thread is the legalisation of marijuana, not the legality of 'shrooms.

Aye, there's one near me in Widnes, and one on the other side of the Pennines, over in Yorkshire somewhere. Psylocibin mexicana - nice little shroom, if something of a heavy kick-in.

Aye, there's one near me in Widnes,
Wasn't that one asked to shut down? Or am I thinking of somewhere else?

Originally Posted by en.wikipedia.org
The decision of the U.S. Congress was based in part on testimony derived from articles in the newspapers owned by William Randolph Hearst, who was heavily interested in DuPont Inc. Some analysts theorize DuPont wanted to boost declining post-war textile sales, and wished to eliminate hemp fiber as competition. Many argue that this seems unlikely given DuPont's lack of concern with the legal status of cotton, wool, and linen; although it should be noted that hemp's textile potential had not yet been largely exploited, while textile factories already had made large investments in equipment to handle cotton, wool, and linen. Others argue that Dupont wanted to eliminate cannabis because its high natural cellulose content made it a viable alternative to the company's developing innovation: modern plastic. Even more inflammatory and biased were the accusations by that period's US 'drug czar' Henry (Harry) Anslinger. Anslinger charged that the drug provoked murderous rampages in previously solid citizens. Anslinger testified that cannabis "makes darkies feel equal to white men," a complaint typical of much of the anti-drug rhetoric of the time, which for example emphasised opium's role in promoting Anglo-Chinese miscegenation. He told the married men in the audience: "Gentlemen, it will make your wives want to have sex with a Black man!" Anslinger also popularized the word marihuana for the plant, using a Mexican derived word (believed to be derived from a Brazilian Portuguese term for inebriation) in order to associate the plant with increasing numbers of Mexican immigrants, creating a negative stereotype which persists to this day.
Sometimes you feel like you should be surprised, but you just aren't.

Howard Dean and John Edwards admitted in an MTV-sponsored debate that they had both experimented with pot.

Back in 2000 Al Gore admitted to using marijuana, whereas Bush dodged the question (and especially alegations of cocaine use) and finally says he would pass any drug test after his 28th birthday.

Clinton as we all know "Smoked but didn't inhale". :p

And John Kerry obviously used weed.

I wouldn't be surprised if Nader did too. :p

So, what does that say when all our major politicians have used marijuana, and then make no effort to legalize it, but rather tighten controls and increase penalties?

It's hypocrisy plain and simple.

Over 100 million Americans have at one time or another experimented with marijuana.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Marijuana should be legal to those above 21, and only in bars.

Should marijuana be legal?

HELL YEAH!!!!!! Might as well make it legal, everyone does it anyway, would save the cops alot of paperwork.

Wasn't that one asked to shut down? Or am I thinking of somewhere else?

Not sure if it was asked to shut down. I just know that when I mentioned psylocibin to a local bong-selling market-stall owner, she mentioned she has a friend who works in a shop in Widnes selling the stuff, and she'd sell it herself only it requires a refridgerator, which is a bit difficult/expensive to fit on a mobile stall. That was about two months ago.

Heres a little tidbit of information for you.

Last year, approximately 250 billion dollars was spent keeping people in prison, who were convicted of posessing small amounts of marijuana.

Thats nearly one dollar per star in the milky way.

Heres a little tidbit of information for you.

Last year, approximately 250 billion dollars was spent keeping people in prison, who were convicted of posessing small amounts of marijuana.

Thats nearly one dollar per star in the milky way.
Considering that 1 in 3 Americans has tried weed, I'm not surprised.

Reefer Madness, and that movie is a classic propaganda film- it's a good one to watch when high, too. :p

That's one of the most hilarious movies ever. It taught me that withen one puff, you will start clawing at your face and foaming at the mouth :p

"Why yes, I would like that mary joe wanna ciggarette"

"Look out, you might hit something!"

Actually, that's my favorite part of the movie. When the car kills a pedestrian while going 15 miles an hour xD

All drugs should be legal. ALL drugs.

I believe it's a matter of your own personal responsiblity in using such substances. As such, I disagree with you, citing PCP. This is the only drug which I believe ought to remain illegal, because it can make a person delusional and violent - inconsolably so. In this, it bridges one's ability to take responsibility for their actions, and they become a public danger.

So, all but that one are fine by me.

Cannabis and Alcohol have about the same likelihood of causing badness.

You're kidding, right? Do you really think that someone who is stoned is as likely to be as violent as someone who is drunk? Alcolholism and alcohol related disease cause far more misery and destruction worldwide than marijuana consumption. Just from my experiences of wasted people I can tell you that someone who is drunk is far more dangerous to themselves, other people and their surroundings than someone who is stoned. I will take an unmotivated stoner over a belligerent drunk any day...

It also doesn't help the case for legalisation when a judge gives a child sex offender a reprieve because he was stoned at the time. Stoned, drunk, whatever: no excuse.

You're right - there is no excuse for sexual abuse of children. I would be suspicious of any judge's opinion on child molestation if they let an offender off because they were stoned. 9 times out of 10, that type of excuse will get you a harsher penalty where I live. People here got tired of the "It's not my fault, it was the substance I willingly put in my body" excuse years ago.

Nope. We need to illegalize more drugs, not legalize.

All drugs should be legal. ALL drugs.

Why they are illegal I really have no idea. If people want to get high, let them get high. Not the government's place to stop them (until they hurt someone, hence DUI laws, which should include other impairing drugs).

This thread should be asking "Why are drugs illegal?"

Any reason given could be shot down with ease.

The reason the "war on drugs" continues is because of entrenched money. It's beaurocratic, it feeds off itself, and it's wasting money and putting non-violent people in jail.

That's pretty much my view. And on marijuana, I'd say it's LESS harmful than alcohol. You don't get the violent behaviour and mood swings. There isn't much tolerance or any physical dependence. Sure, there's psychological dependence but only among very heavy users.

The major reason pot will not be legalized has already been stated. MONEY! Way too many interested parties have a vested interest in keeping this plant a criminally prosecutable (persecutable) offense to possess. But here's something else to consider. Who are the majority of pot heads? Environmentalist whackos, the unwashed poor, and other left-leaning liberal nut jobs (sarcasm here, people). What happens when someone is convicted of a felony? Their right to vote is taken away. See another path of control by our elected officials yet?

Also, no one has mentioned the pharmaceutical industry yet. Think any of the drug company's want to have another legit form of competition on their hands, not to mention the tobacco and alcohol industry? It's like developing a car that runs or water or gets 200 miles to the gallon. Keep your fingers out of my pie, sez the lobbyists.

Still, it sure would be nice to be able to grow my own without having to worry about serving ten to twenty with rapists and murderers who'll rape my ass and get out in three to five at the most.

So, yeah. Money. It's not like you have to be straight to ask 'how many copies ya want' or 'would you like fries with that'. Hell, I'd like to see some of the people I go to get these things snorting speed so they'd get it done faster! Gotta love a culture based on instant gratification. :p

Heres a little tidbit of information for you.

Last year, approximately 250 billion dollars was spent keeping people in prison, who were convicted of posessing small amounts of marijuana.

Thats nearly one dollar per star in the milky way.
More than that, it's almost $1000 for every person in the US!
(In NZ, you could buy 1/2 a pound of high quality weed with that much cash.)
So ask yourself:
Which do you want more - overcrowded prisons clogged with ppl who have done nothing wrong except pick the wrong plant to smoke
or
$1000US.

If you want some very good information about how great Hemp is visit this site:
http://www.hempnation.com/
warning: You'll probably be shaking your head in disgust over the fact Hemp (a completely non-psychotropic plant) is illegal, considering what benefits can be derived from it.

In some states, the death penalty is applicable for possession of an ounce or more.

Ummm... What state do you live in? Just about the only crime you can be executed by a state is for murder and treason. There is a smattering of other crimes like hijacking and trainwrecking though, along with a few sexual offenses.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=144&scid=10

Supposidly you can get executed by the US government for trafficing large quanities of drugs, but I couldn't find how much "large" is. I'd imagine an ounce is not large enough to warrent being killed.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=29&did=192

I'd be remiss if I didn't join the chorus: yes, it really should be legal. Period.

don't be silly. Free the weed!!!!

I however am a non-smoker. I think it's just funny watching people get dumber....but hey, they're happy? Who am I to say they can't smoke? I don't!

I believe it's a matter of your own personal responsiblity in using such substances. As such, I disagree with you, citing PCP. This is the only drug which I believe ought to remain illegal, because it can make a person delusional and violent - inconsolably so. In this, it bridges one's ability to take responsibility for their actions, and they become a public danger.

So, all but that one are fine by me.
Alcohol can make you delusional and violent, bridging one's ability to take responsibility for their actions, and they becomes a public danger and all that.

I really see no difference.

If you cause damage or bodily harm, you get tried for that, no blaming the substance.

But the substance itself should always remain perfectly legal.

Nope. We need to illegalize more drugs, not legalize.
Um, how many more drugs are there to illegalize? Shit, all that's really left is booze, nocitine, and caffeine.

On second thought, DXM is still legal because it is a very effective cough suppressant (and disassociative ;)). In that case the companies actually lobby Congress AGAINST further restrictions. :p

If only Coca-Cola was still lobbying Congress to ease restrictions on cocaine...

Alcohol can make you delusional and violent, bridging one's ability to take responsibility for their actions, and they becomes a public danger and all that.

I really see no difference.

If you cause damage or bodily harm, you get tried for that, no blaming the substance.

But the substance itself should always remain perfectly legal.


Um, how many more drugs are there to illegalize? Shit, all that's really left is booze, nocitine, and caffeine.

On second thought, DXM is still legal because it is a very effective cough suppressant (and disassociative ;)). In that case the companies actually lobby Congress AGAINST further restrictions. :p

If only Coca-Cola was still lobbying Congress to ease restrictions on cocaine...

YOU ARE VERY RIGHT.

not to mention, if you don't smoke and your neighbour does, GOOD FOR YOU. Who cares? It's not you!

Which do you want more - overcrowded prisons clogged with ppl who have done nothing wrong except pick the wrong plant to smoke
or
$1000US.
Well, considering how ill I got from being around someone smoking it, I think that if it were legalized, my hospital bills would reach well over said $1000, so I say lock them up. Or enforce the death penalty in some states... that'll free up the prison space also! I've seen people's lives ruined by pot... and I laugh. And for the record, I'd love to make cigarettes illegal, but since that's not going to happen, we could start taxing them to death. An additional tax of $1 per cancer stick would be a good start...

I think it should be legalized and taxed with ALL the proceeds going to
pay off the deficit.... nothing else. At least then paying off the deficit
would be a good experience instead of the bummer that it is.

Well, considering how ill I got from being around someone smoking it, I think that if it were legalized, my hospital bills would reach well over said $1000, so I say lock them up. Or enforce the death penalty in some states... that'll free up the prison space also! I've seen people's lives ruined by pot... and I laugh. And for the record, I'd love to make cigarettes illegal, but since that's not going to happen, we could start taxing them to death. An additional tax of $1 per cancer stick would be a good start...


The Death Penalty for using pot? You must be high yourself, however,
I'll go along with that if cigarette smokers & alcohol drinkers are included
in the same legislation.

I think it should be legalized and taxed with ALL the proceeds going to
pay off the deficit.... nothing else. At least then paying off the deficit
would be a good experience instead of the bummer that it is.


I see and hear all these complaints about pot.... how come I never hear any about extosy, coke, etc....

my two cents is the whole thing is just another way the gov't can justify the money that is being spent on the war on drugs. they can't let the states legalize pot because they'd have to make up a new lie about some thing else, all the while keeping a closer watch on us the citizens, it's a vicious circle that the law enforcement agencies weave the dea and cia bring it in the country, and the fbi and sate with local agencies bust it all the while saying that they are not going to lose the war on drugs but this war never ends does it?

Nope. We need to illegalize more drugs, not legalize.

Why?

First off, I'd like to start off by saying that I have never used marijuana and under no circumstances will I ever use it. Pot doesn't expand your mind, it just leads to complacency, and I am virulently against complacency.

I do believe that a rational legalization of the stuff should occur, and by this I mean, have it be controlled by the government. If someone wants to smoke pot they can only do so in a government controlled area, they only get one joint, and they only get to do so once a week. In this government controlled area the "accidental" harms that are caused by people who are high can be minimized, and they can be maintained in a safe situation until they are back to full sobriety.

If this were implemented, I'd also support a SEVERE crackdown on all other drugs, as well as a highly illegal non-governmental pot trade should occur. The sentencing laws should be tightened, and outside of gov. controlled use locations, well, guess what, 3 years in a clean jail. A jail where pot cannot get in by any means.

Now people will clearly bring up alcohol and say shouldn't this be done with alcohol too. The answer is no. I have seen people who are high off of one joint, but rarely have I seen people drunk off of one beer. Hell, I wasn't even drunk after 6 heavy german beers, so, alchohol is a totally different thing than pot.

I don't like cigs, but they don't alter mental state and if you don't smoke in my prescence I don't mind.

My criteria are very complex, and I don't care to get into a discussion of them here, but this is my idea.

Well, considering how ill I got from being around someone smoking it, I think that if it were legalized, my hospital bills would reach well over said $1000, so I say lock them up. Or enforce the death penalty in some states... that'll free up the prison space also! I've seen people's lives ruined by pot... and I laugh. And for the record, I'd love to make cigarettes illegal, but since that's not going to happen, we could start taxing them to death. An additional tax of $1 per cancer stick would be a good start...

I've never heard of anyone requiring hospitalization for exposure to canibis smoke before. Apparently, you have a rare allergy. You're disregard for math astonishes me. :headbang:

As far as tobacco goes, who the hell do you think you are to tell people what they can or can't do? And it already is taxed to death. In New York, where you apparently live, the total tax per pack has got to be at least $3.

First off, I'd like to start off by saying that I have never used marijuana and under no circumstances will I ever use it. Pot doesn't expand your mind, it just leads to complacency, and I am virulently against complacency.

I do believe that a rational legalization of the stuff should occur, and by this I mean, have it be controlled by the government. If someone wants to smoke pot they can only do so in a government controlled area, they only get one joint, and they only get to do so once a week. In this government controlled area the "accidental" harms that are caused by people who are high can be minimized, and they can be maintained in a safe situation until they are back to full sobriety.
[emphasis added]

Legalization is inherently rational. It is the prohibition or your perverse safety-nazi fantasy that is irrational. Try showing the english language a little more respect.


If this were implemented, I'd also support a SEVERE crackdown on all other drugs, as well as a highly illegal non-governmental pot trade should occur. The sentencing laws should be tightened, and outside of gov. controlled use locations, well, guess what, 3 years in a clean jail. A jail where pot cannot get in by any means.


A crackdown? While almost all western nations have drug prohibitions, only the US wages a war against drugs. Already, you can serve more prison time for passing a joint to your friend than some people get for second degree murder. Enforcement of drug laws in the US is brutal and "pro-active", just watch "Cops".


Now people will clearly bring up alcohol and say shouldn't this be done with alcohol too. The answer is no. I have seen people who are high off of one joint, but rarely have I seen people drunk off of one beer. Hell, I wasn't even drunk after 6 heavy german beers, so, alchohol is a totally different thing than pot.

Not all cannibis has a high level of THC, but it's all illegal. And it's likely that none of it would be so potent if there was no prohibition. Also, alcohol is available in dosses that will kill you faster than you can drink your beer. Instead of 6 beers, try 6 long island iced teas or 6 ounces of moonshine (popularized by alcohol prohibition). It's physically impossible to fatally overdose on pot. You're right, they are totally different.

The more you regulate a drug the more the black market takes over. If you legalize it and tax it the government will go from spending money on jails and police to gaining money from taxes. Casual drug users would be able to get better quality control and probably better prices. the government could even spend some of the tax money on rehabilitation.

Everyone except for the mafia win if you legalize it, and no one likes the mafia. So screw them.

First off, I'd like to start off by saying that I have never used marijuana and under no circumstances will I ever use it. Pot doesn't expand your mind, it just leads to complacency, and I am virulently against complacency.


As evidenced by my posts on this forum, I'm a real complacent person. Mind the sarcasm, it's a little slippery.


I do believe that a rational legalization of the stuff should occur, and by this I mean, have it be controlled by the government. If someone wants to smoke pot they can only do so in a government controlled area, they only get one joint, and they only get to do so once a week. In this government controlled area the "accidental" harms that are caused by people who are high can be minimized, and they can be maintained in a safe situation until they are back to full sobriety.

If this were implemented, I'd also support a SEVERE crackdown on all other drugs, as well as a highly illegal non-governmental pot trade should occur. The sentencing laws should be tightened, and outside of gov. controlled use locations, well, guess what, 3 years in a clean jail. A jail where pot cannot get in by any means.


It won't work. Drugs aren't supposed to get into prisons anyway, but they do.

Besides which, that would still see people locked up for doing nothing other than ingesting their choice form of narcotic.


Now people will clearly bring up alcohol and say shouldn't this be done with alcohol too. The answer is no. I have seen people who are high off of one joint, but rarely have I seen people drunk off of one beer. Hell, I wasn't even drunk after 6 heavy german beers, so, alchohol is a totally different thing than pot.


As already mentioned, it is physically impossible to overdose on pot. You could blast yourself full of the most potent weed on the planet and still not overdose. The same cannot be said of alcohol, where it's quite easy to give yourself alcohol poisoning with a litre bottle of vodka, a few tequilas, maybe some absinthe and a dash of moonshine to wash it down..


I don't like cigs, but they don't alter mental state and if you don't smoke in my prescence I don't mind.


Cigarettes do alter your mind. Maybe not in a pronounced way, but they do.


My criteria are very complex, and I don't care to get into a discussion of them here, but this is my idea.

Hell Yeah It Should Be Legalized!!!!!!!!

Marijuana should be legalized for medical and industrial (hemp) purposes. However, it should not be legalized for recreational purposes. Recreational drug users should be put into rehab, which is a more effective and more humane way of dealing with drug abuse than jail is. This should be extended to include alcohol and nicotine. Caffeine, too, if it's that big a deal to people.
This way, we could deal with the public safety issue that is drug abuse, but without having to have the hypocrisy and waste that is "the Drug War".

However, it should not be legalized for recreational purposes. Recreational drug users should be put into rehab, which is a more effective and more humane way of dealing with drug abuse than jail is.

Most marijuana users do not fit the pattern of abusers. I.e. their pot use doesn't cause significant adverse health conseqences and they are not dependent on it, physiologically or psychologically.

Maybe a better way of looking at these things is to ask why it should be illegal. If there are not enought reasons to pass a law maing it illegal or those reasons are not compelling then why legislate against it.
It may be time to exime alot of laws and see if they are still relvant and ask why we can't do a particular thing.
Or you could follow Two faced Tony and the Canadians and many other countries and legislate to the Nth degree, the number of time you're allowed to fart etc. As I'm sure Tony will have a policy for that soon as we the British are in his opinion too stupid to make decisions for our selves.

Most marijuana users do not fit the pattern of abusers. I.e. their pot use doesn't cause significant adverse health conseqences and they are not dependent on it, physiologically or psychologically.

It's true. People can give up marijuana almost instantly, but it will take weeks, months, or even years to get rid of a nicotine or alcohol addiction.

I used to be a moderate user but i've since given up. Mostly. :)

Yes, it should be legalised, but out of respect for others who do not wish to be exposed to it, it should be confined to Hash cafe's and in your own home.

Other drugs i'm a bit more dubious of. I've seen what they can do...but then again, some people are fine with them. Under supervision perhaps...

The more you regulate a drug the more the black market takes over. If you legalize it and tax it the government will go from spending money on jails and police to gaining money from taxes. Casual drug users would be able to get better quality control and probably better prices. the government could even spend some of the tax money on rehabilitation.


Really? If you think that, maybe you should take a look at the Netherlands. It used to be that medicinal supplies were legal there, whoever sold them. Recently, the Dutch government decided it would make 'coffee shop' suppliers illegal, and would grow its own cannabis crop to be sold for medicinal purposes. However, the stuff that the government grew was extremely poor quality (ie. it had very low levels of THC)...so much so that some people who used cannabis to relieve symptoms of, for example, MS, reverted to buying from illegal dealers, as this was the only way that they could get relief from their symptoms. As for prices...the illegal stuff was generally around 40% cheaper - €30 per eighth, rather than €50 per eighth. Overall, the Dutch government actually lost money on their cannabis project.

Marijuana should be legalized for medical and industrial (hemp) purposes.

Actually, there is a legal clinical medicine that is made out of the marijuana plant (can't remember the name; try googling it or something) but without the hallucinogenic properties of smoked marijuana.

We live in a world that is trying to help people rid themselves of the
addictions to cigarettes & alcohol. Legalizing another substance to
that can harm people is a step backwards and benefits nothing. I do
believe in the legalization of hemp, as then there would be no need
to destroy trees for paper or animals for clothing. I would also consider
the pharmaceutical use of marijuana. But to allow people to abuse a
drug openly would be the same as ignoring drunk drivers.

But, with Bush's re-election, and likely Supreme Court appointments, don't expect that to happen anytime soon.

Kerry probably would have moved towards legalizing pot: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,108529,00.html


There's about the same likelyhood of either Bush or Kerry legalizing pot...which is about nil. Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold the medical marijuana referendums in verious states, making it easier for them to decriminalize. Like it or not, conservative justices would probably show more respect to the Amendment X than liberal justices.

Marijuana should be legalized for medical and industrial (hemp) purposes. However, it should not be legalized for recreational purposes. Recreational drug users should be put into rehab, which is a more effective and more humane way of dealing with drug abuse than jail is. This should be extended to include alcohol and nicotine. Caffeine, too, if it's that big a deal to people.
This way, we could deal with the public safety issue that is drug abuse, but without having to have the hypocrisy and waste that is "the Drug War".


That has all of the makings of a policy disaster.

Actually, there is a legal clinical medicine that is made out of the marijuana plant (can't remember the name; try googling it or something) but without the hallucinogenic properties of smoked marijuana.


It's called Marinol, manufactured by Eli Lilly, and it reportedly incapacitates those who use it.

But to allow people to abuse a drug openly would be the same as ignoring drunk drivers.


Ummm...no it wouldn't. Ignoring people who drive under the influence of marijuana IS the same as ignoring drunk drivers.

Well, I believe in personal responsibility and freedom, so I think pretty much all drugs should be legalized. If you want to pay money to do damage to your own body, that's your own damn business.

However, the US doesn't believe in personal responsibility anymore. It's always someone else's fault. A good comedian once said, "The black man loses his job and it's the white man's fault. The hispanic can't get a job, the white man took it. The short man can't get a job? It's the tall man's fault. The fat man can't get a job, the thin man took it. The white man can't get a job? It's because affirmative action gave his job to the black man, the hispanic, the midgit, and the fat man."

I mean, when you can sue McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on yourself, do you think we're ready to handle the personal responsibility of drug use in this country?

Not yet.

I have yet to hear of any good reason for marijuana to be criminalized.

Alcohol can make you delusional and violent, bridging one's ability to take responsibility for their actions, and they becomes a public danger and all that.

I really see no difference.

If you cause damage or bodily harm, you get tried for that, no blaming the substance.

But the substance itself should always remain perfectly legal.

Yes, there is a difference. One can moderate their intake of alcohol, and one can exert control over themselves when under the influence of it. The same cannot be said for users of PCP. Sudden, spontaeous violent outbursts are part-and-parcel with use. You also cannot talk down a PCP user when they're having a negative episode, whereas with something like LSD, you can. There is a very big difference.

Yes, there is a difference. One can moderate their intake of alcohol, and one can exert control over themselves when under the influence of it. The same cannot be said for users of PCP. Sudden, spontaeous violent outbursts are part-and-parcel with use. You also cannot talk down a PCP user when they're having a negative episode, whereas with something like LSD, you can. There is a very big difference.
What if someone wants to take PCP locked in a room where they cannot hurt anyone? Why should the government say they can't?

You do have a point, PCP is dangerous stuff, but criminalizing simple use isn't the solution. Think of it this way: A guy on PCP in public may be like a drunk behind the wheel of a car...both in a position to harm others around them. So we have penalties for that.

But a drunk in the privacy of his own home is harmless, as is a guy on PCP in his own home (locked in a room, if you must).

Criminalizing ANY drug is a seriously bad idea.

There's about the same likelyhood of either Bush or Kerry legalizing pot...which is about nil. Hopefully the Supreme Court will uphold the medical marijuana referendums in verious states, making it easier for them to decriminalize. Like it or not, conservative justices would probably show more respect to the Amendment X than liberal justices.
HAH! You're saying Scalia is more of an ally in getting drugs decriminalized than Ginsberg? :p

In any case, no mainstream politician will EVER try to legalize drugs (even though most of them have and probably still do abuse them!)

Only third parties like the Greens and Libertarians have the balls to openly support decriminalization.

What if someone wants to take PCP locked in a room where they cannot hurt anyone? Why should the government say they can't?

You do have a point, PCP is dangerous stuff, but criminalizing simple use isn't the solution. Think of it this way: A guy on PCP in public may be like a drunk behind the wheel of a car...both in a position to harm others around them. So we have penalties for that.

But a drunk in the privacy of his own home is harmless, as is a guy on PCP in his own home (locked in a room, if you must).

Criminalizing ANY drug is a seriously bad idea.

Except that PCP is not exactly a drug in high demand, so not too many will miss it. The drug war fails on other drugs because they are used far more. What you are talking about here is a drug that may, by the role of the dice, put someone into an unstoppable, violent rage. Yeah, they could exercise some form of extreme control beforehand, but the difference is that control cannot be exercised when in the state of intoxication, whereas it can with other drugs. As such, I would argue that taking[/t] the drug is a failure of personal responsiblity. Pretty hard to isolate/restrain yourself well enough that you couldn't [I]possibly get near others...I don;t like prohibition, but this drug doesn't click with the arguments of personal responsiblity.

That has all of the makings of a policy disaster.
How so?

Most marijuana users do not fit the pattern of abusers. I.e. their pot use doesn't cause significant adverse health conseqences and they are not dependent on it, physiologically or psychologically.
Then they wouldn't be in rehab for very long, now would they?
Incidentally, I would agree to a compromise that people could go to a place to use marijuana if they want to, as long as they had to stay in that place until they were no longer under its influence. I don't apply this to someone smoking it in their own home, because there could be people there in that home who don't wish to be around that person who is smoking marijuana(i.e. their infant children.)

Then they wouldn't be in rehab for very long, now would they?
Incidentally, I would agree to a compromise that people could go to a place to use marijuana if they want to, as long as they had to stay in that place until they were no longer under its influence. I don't apply this to someone smoking it in their own home, because there could be people there in that home who don't wish to be around that person who is smoking marijuana(i.e. their infant children.)

Could? Not good enough. If they're imbibing in substances to excess, that's putting a child in an unsafe environment, and we have other plans to protect against that. There is no need for special laws for such cases, nor to rule all private homes off limits because they could have children. Any other person can speak up or move out...that's for two private citizens to decide.

Except that PCP is not exactly a drug in high demand, so not too many will miss it. The drug war fails on other drugs because they are used far more.
In principle, it really shouldn't matter how much a drug is used for it to be illegal or not. The core of the pro-legalization argument is personal freedom, and responsibility.

What you are talking about here is a drug that may, by the role of the dice, put someone into an unstoppable, violent rage. Yeah, they could exercise some form of extreme control beforehand, but the difference is that control cannot be exercised when in the state of intoxication, whereas it can with other drugs. As such, I would argue that taking the drug is a failure of personal responsiblity. Pretty hard to isolate/restrain yourself well enough that you couldn't possibly get near others...I don;t like prohibition, but this drug doesn't click with the arguments of personal responsiblity.
I still see nothing wrong with taking PCP while locked in your garage. Taking PCP while in a public area can be argued as being tantamount to driving drunk (putting others at risk), but taking it while you are CERTAIN you cannot harm anyone else DOES fit in with the argument of personal responsibilty I believe. In any case, people do some crazy stuff while on coke, meth, and alcohol, so there is no objective difference between those and PCP.

Could? Not good enough. If they're imbibing in substances to excess, that's putting a child in an unsafe environment, and we have other plans to protect against that. There is no need for special laws for such cases, nor to rule all private homes off limits because they could have children. Any other person can speak up or move out...that's for two private citizens to decide.
What plans are there to protect a child from suffering the effects from the secondhand smoke of a legal drug?

Well, I believe in personal responsibility and freedom, so I think pretty much all drugs should be legalized. If you want to pay money to do damage to your own body, that's your own damn business.

However, the US doesn't believe in personal responsibility anymore. It's always someone else's fault. A good comedian once said, "The black man loses his job and it's the white man's fault. The hispanic can't get a job, the white man took it. The short man can't get a job? It's the tall man's fault. The fat man can't get a job, the thin man took it. The white man can't get a job? It's because affirmative action gave his job to the black man, the hispanic, the midgit, and the fat man."

I mean, when you can sue McDonalds for spilling hot coffee on yourself, do you think we're ready to handle the personal responsibility of drug use in this country?

Not yet.

What do you mean ready yet? Are you suggesting that Americans always blamed racial issues and sued beverage/food suppliers? I'm fairly certain that laws about drug use pre-date a lot of the lack of responsibility you are complaining of when citing these anecedotes. One wonders how such a bunch of 'not my faulters' founded such a great country in the first place, especially with no one telling them what drugs they could or couldnt take...or maybe it's not a matter of yet, maybe it's more like 'any more'...perhaps the less responsibility you give people, the less they know how to and expect to be responsible.

Frankly once you get past child-hood and are legally an adult, whether or not you look after your health is more your problem than mine. I dont mind helping those who want help, but why should my tax dollars be spent chasing people up and imprisoning them on the pre-text of protecting their health? What next, my tax dollars being spent to investigate and lock people up for saturated fats abuse?
Now apparently our police where I live cant afford to send a police car to every incident, and so have taken to sending taxies instead. One caller to the national emergency service had a taxie sent to the wrong address when she rang up stating she was at a party with a man she barely knew, who had been drinking all day, and who had been pressuring her for sex; the taxie went to the wrong location. The lady concerned is still missing to this day. These same police have the resources to send helicopters with the latest surveilence equipment up over forests to find marijauna, and to spend the man force hours removing it, to investigate and prosecute people who grow, sell or posses it, all to stop people endangering their own health, but they dont have the resources to send a police car to tax paying citizens who call the national emergency number expecting help. If I have to choose between idiots been stopped from hurting themselves, and having the police resources to help people who actually want the help of the police, it's not a hard choice, and obviously there are not enough resources to do both, at least not where I live.

I dont mind helping those who want help, but why should my tax dollars be spent chasing people up and imprisoning them on the pre-text of protecting their health?
That's the funny thing, Republicans always say they don't want their tax dollars going to rehab cause it encourages drug use, but they have no problem with their tax dollars being used to pursue and lock away marijuana users. :p

Dutchmen and ex-pot smoker in the house...

Let's get some facts straight, here...

First of all: one of the main arguments of the anti-reefer lobbyists to keep weed illegal is that it's supposed to be a "gateway" drug. (Meaning that someone who smokes pot is bound to move to the heavier stuff, like coke, horse, or LSD).
This is reverse correlation. While it is true that most heavy-substance users started by smoking pot, that's only because it's the easiest (and cheapest) to obtain. Most pot smokers steer clear of anything heavier, unless they are already susceptible to the temptations of heavier drugs.

Second: marijuana (or the active compunds of it) is a mood enhancer. If you're an aggresive person, smoking pot will make you more aggresive. It is known for breaking psychological barriers by enhancing the mood a person's in. Most pot smokers, however, seem to have a more contemplative lifestyle, and realize what the drug does to them. For that reason, most (and I use that word for a reason) pot smokers will stay indoors when enjoying a j, or go to places with friends where they can stay until the effect wears off.

Third: while it is true that using ANY kind of drug will alter your state of mind, pot is the one drug that influences your nervous system LEAST - the biggest influence it has is that it slows down your motoric reaction system; pot smokers know that, and will, for that reason, never climb behind the wheel unless they have no other choice. The number of pot-related accidents caused by reefer as compared to traffic accidents caused by alcohol (a legal drug) is zero to several thousands a year.

In Holland, marijuana isn't as much legal as it is condoned, meaning that having it in your possession for personal use isn't punishable by law. Trafficking is and will remain illegal, unless in government-"approved" places like coffee shops. They're under vigorous control by the state, and too large a quantity of pot will be punished by high fines and forced close-down.

I'm a smoker, myself (of the plain, buy-in-a-shop tobacco stuff, that is). I waste away about a pack of cigarettes a day, and have a hard time quittiung without gaining weight, becoming depressed or easily aggrevated. Take away my cigarettes, take away my good mood. Tobacco is known for its addictiveness, and yet (even while heavily taxed), it's still legal to buy even in supermarkets. The last time I smoked a j was years ago, and even after smoking that one my first thought wasn't "ooh, gotta have me another one!", but more like "hmmm, that was nice". I never had the crave for reefer as much as I had and have the crave for plain ole nicotine.

Reefer addicts are usually (in Holland anyway) the ones that live at the very bottom of society, and they are, without exception, the ones who are bound to end up doing the heavy stuff - not because of the fact that they smoke pot continuously... but because they're susceptible to the influences that rule their lives. Again, pot is the easiest to obtain, so that's what they use because of the lack of means of something else within their reach. They're not addicted to POT, they're addicted to their addiction.

Unfortunately, within the pro-legalisation movement, there's two distinct groups of pot smokers: the lifestylers and the wannabees.
The lifestylers are those who smoke pot because they enjoy it, on occasion, don't make a big fuss out of it, and are able to move on without much hassle.
The wannabees are the people who buy the reefer t-shirts, logos, stickers... you name it, and scream FOUL whenever the subject is mentioned. They're not doing the "cause" (if there even is one) any good, because they're the one who, at least partially, prove the anti-movement right with their behavior. To them, using pot is an issue, and they use the same arguments as the anti-lobby does, only reversed.

At the very least, personal use of pot should be decriminalized (which is not the same as legalized. Throwing people in the slammer because they use a substance which is scientifically proven to be less harmful than alcohol is wrong, and, as a lot of you have noticed, does nothing but fill up the prison cells that could have been used for murderers, rapists and child abusers, to name but a happy few.

Thanks for your attention.

*lights up another Camel*

Originally Posted by Jello Biafra
Then they wouldn't be in rehab for very long, now would they?

Um, mate, the don't need rehab since they're not addicted.
Well most pot smokers arent. Read Connivency's post for a better description. :p

In principle, it really shouldn't matter how much a drug is used for it to be illegal or not. The core of the pro-legalization argument is personal freedom, and responsibility.

As I se it, you have two arguments here.

1) It's a matter of personal freedom, and use is contingent upon the person's ability to take responsiblity for their actions. I coutner that PCP puts a person into a state in which personal responsibility doesn;t enter. As such, they should not be taking it. There is no meeasure of personal responsiblity involved in its use. What happens when that guy kicks the window out of the garage and goes out in a paranoid rage? There is no measure of personal responsibility here.

2) Prohibition is a very bad idea, and never works. I counter that PCP is not alcohol, marihuana, or any number of other popular recreational substances. It is not in high demand, hence, no massive black market can pop up for it. Of course, that is pure speculation, no better than anyone else's.

I still see nothing wrong with taking PCP while locked in your garage. Taking PCP while in a public area can be argued as being tantamount to driving drunk (putting others at risk), but taking it while you are CERTAIN you cannot harm anyone else DOES fit in with the argument of personal responsibilty I believe. In any case, people do some crazy stuff while on coke, meth, and alcohol, so there is no objective difference between those and PCP.

Certain...do you have a steel-lined bunker on your property? Do you know some of the feats people on PCP are known to have accomplished while on such trips? They have been known to escape from some pretty tight situations.

The objective difference is that the state PCP puts you into is far worse than any other drug. You can talk a person tripping on LSD down - not so with a person on PCP, possibly due to the highly dissociated state. Also, the reaction to such a trip is characterized by violence, not confusion, and they are unresponsive to pain. The effects, including outburts, are highly unpredictable. "The intoxicated state may lead to severe anxiety, aggression, panic, paranoia, and rage." (Julien, A Primer of Drug Action) That is a very, very dangerous combination, unlike any other drug. This is not like some drunk getting into a fight...these randomly manifest, and the effect is often literally likened to schizophrenia. You'll not find anyone trained in psychopharmacology seeing "no objective difference" between PCP and the drugs you've mentioned.

My stance on drug legalization runs parallel to my stance on gun legality. Allow most things, but there are some extreme examples in which people just ought not to have access the item in question. People don't need automatic weapons, and people don't need PCP. It's simply a matter of the good of the whole vastly outweighing the pleasure of the few.

What do you mean ready yet? Are you suggesting that Americans always blamed racial issues and sued beverage/food suppliers? I'm fairly certain that laws about drug use pre-date a lot of the lack of responsibility you are complaining of when citing these anecedotes. One wonders how such a bunch of 'not my faulters' founded such a great country in the first place, especially with no one telling them what drugs they could or couldnt take...or maybe it's not a matter of yet, maybe it's more like 'any more'...perhaps the less responsibility you give people, the less they know how to and expect to be responsible.

Maybe I should have said not ready again? That doesn't sound right, though. People in the past used drugs and if they hurt themselves, they didn't have a social net to fall back on.

Right now, if someone hurts themselves doing something stupid (like a huge OD on crack), they fall back on welfare, medicare, and any program we can find them. If we legalize drugs fully, we're going to see a /huge/ increase in paying taxes to support people that stupidly do something like this.

You're dead on. We have less responsibility for ourselves now, so we don't know how to handle it if we're given it.

Frankly once you get past child-hood and are legally an adult, whether or not you look after your health is more your problem than mine. I dont mind helping those who want help, but why should my tax dollars be spent chasing people up and imprisoning them on the pre-text of protecting their health? What next, my tax dollars being spent to investigate and lock people up for saturated fats abuse?

It /would/ be more my problem than yours except we legislated in this country to make it your problem as well. I've said before, societies that lean socialistic protect your rights, and societies that lean liberterian protect your freedoms. You can't have all of both at the same time (of course, you probably wouldn't /want/ all of both either, it'd be a mess).

And yes, there is currently legislation under way to make fatty foods taxable just like cigarettes. Our government is becoming our nanny and that's what some people want. It's rediculous.

Um, mate, the don't need rehab since they're not addicted.

Again, if they're not addicted, they wouldn't be in rehab very long. :D

Marijuana should be legalized for medical and industrial (hemp) purposes. However, it should not be legalized for recreational purposes. Recreational drug users should be put into rehab, which is a more effective and more humane way of dealing with drug abuse than jail is. This should be extended to include alcohol and nicotine. Caffeine, too, if it's that big a deal to people.
This way, we could deal with the public safety issue that is drug abuse, but without having to have the hypocrisy and waste that is "the Drug War".

How so? Lets see...spending money on people for rehab who aren't addicts (equating use and abuse), spending money on rehab for people who are commited to quiting, then on top of that, adding to the list of "addicts" in need of reformation. Addiction treatment isn't very effective; the relapse rate is astronomical.

How so? Lets see...spending money on people for rehab who aren't addicts (equating use and abuse), spending money on rehab for people who are commited to quiting, then on top of that, adding to the list of "addicts" in need of reformation. Addiction treatment isn't very effective; the relapse rate is astronomical.
But it is more effective in getting people to stop using drugs than simply putting them into jail.

HAH! You're saying Scalia is more of an ally in getting drugs decriminalized than Ginsberg? :p

In any case, no mainstream politician will EVER try to legalize drugs (even though most of them have and probably still do abuse them!)

Only third parties like the Greens and Libertarians have the balls to openly support decriminalization.

Nobody is saying Scalia would outright rule to legalize them (and he should't, since that isn't his job). What he can rule is that the matter of illicit drug use is not under the Federal government's jurisdiction and is not authorized under the commerce clause. Basically, a ruling that is for states rights. This ruling may not explicitely pertain to drug interdiction, but may apply there. An interesting case will be the one involving the Medical Marijuana Buyers Co-Op

But it is more effective in getting people to stop using drugs than simply putting them into jail.


It may be more effective, but minimally so...and not worth the extra resources.

Legalize merijuana? I dont think the government will be able to tax it. Its a plant that almost anyone can grow, and without much trouble. Who would by a taxed version of THC, which the potency would be regulated like the percentage of alcohol in beer?

I say decriminalize it. Id just like to walk down the street with a joint, and not be considered some sort of junkie addict.

[QUOTE=Chodolo]In principle, it really shouldn't matter how much a drug is used for it to be illegal or not. The core of the pro-legalization argument is personal freedom, and responsibility.[QUOTE]

I believe that an argument must be made on utilitarian grounds (ie drug prohibition does not work) before the electorate will force politicians to reverse this policy.

Legalise it. :cool:

Why they are illegal I really have no idea.
It's because, unlike tobacco and alcohol, most drugs don't have huge industrial lobbies.

Marijuana should be legalized for medical and industrial (hemp) purposes. However, it should not be legalized for recreational purposes. Recreational drug users should be put into rehab, which is a more effective and more humane way of dealing with drug abuse than jail is. This should be extended to include alcohol and nicotine. Caffeine, too, if it's that big a deal to people.
This way, we could deal with the public safety issue that is drug abuse, but without having to have the hypocrisy and waste that is "the Drug War".

Dude, are you serious?

So if I'm a little tired and stop at a Starbuck's for a venti and a dopio, am I self medicating? Or does that count as 'recreational' because it's not done under a doctor's supervision? Since when is a cigarette and a cup of coffee a public safety issue? What about a glass of wine or a snifter of brandy to relax or warm up? Are those acceptable?

If you said yes to any of those, or have done any of those previously mentioned, you have used drugs. Period.

If you ingest anything to wake up, relieve pain, relieve stress, feel better, whatever, you are using drugs. AND if you are doing it without a prescription from a doctor or other medical supervision, it could be called 'recreational'. Period. It's that simple.

The ban on hemp/marijauna, like many other ill conceived laws in the USA, was put into place by a handfull of special interest groups who made it a moral issue to get a ban passed in the middle of the night.

So, you're going to sit there and try and convince us that any use of a substance should, outside of medical treatment, be dealt with through mandatory rehab? Do you realize the sheer number of people you just signed up for therapy? Where are you going to hold these massive therapy sessions? How many therapists is it going to take? Who is going to pay for all of that rehab?

Try this one on for size: if the choice is between a safe country, and a free country, I'd rather be free, and take my chances.

I reckon you'd be able to tax it pretty well, growing it at home is a bugger at times and it would be a lot easier to go to the offy and buy a pack of Js.

Marijuana was proven safe by tests in the 70s. Bush's tests are deliberately skewed and unreliable, designed to produce the results they got.

If it couls be taxed and controlled, and did not just grow like a weed, it would already be legal.

Oh and the cops like all those forfeitures and seizures they get, and the privatized jails like their full capacity thanks to mandatory sentencing for nonviolent offenders (I.E.: one joint and you're out).

These prison franchises are also big campaign contributors.

Try this one on for size: if the choice is between a safe country, and a free country, I'd rather be free, and take my chances.

My sentiments exactly.

My sentiments exactly.

Ditto that.

Anyone who is against the legalisation of any drug is a control freak who has no respect for the liberty of others.

[QUOTE=Onion Pirates]Marijuana was proven safe by tests in the 70s. [QUOTE]


LeGuardia Comission

Maybe I should have said not ready again? That doesn't sound right, though. People in the past used drugs and if they hurt themselves, they didn't have a social net to fall back on.

It doesnt sound right, because you are suddenly in the position of asking why did people stop being responsible. I dont agree re the safety net, in fact I think that kin based saftey nets prove very efficient in many communities and so do many other types of safety nets that operate indepently of any centralised governmental type scheme. For a variety of reasons this is not practical in many modern societies so we have other contingencies.

Right now, if someone hurts themselves doing something stupid (like a huge OD on crack), they fall back on welfare, medicare, and any program we can find them. If we legalize drugs fully, we're going to see a /huge/ increase in paying taxes to support people that stupidly do something like this.
Right now where I live, if I decide to stab myself in the chest, for whatever reason, even though this is as stupid as stupid gets, all my medical costs would be paid for through tax dollars. Despite this, the incidence of people stabbling themselves in the chest is so far as I can ascertain, no higher where I live than elsewhere.
As for taxes going up, have you factored in the cost of investigating, arresting, charge/convicting, and punishing 'offenders', including in the case of employed offenders the productivity lost through their time in court and incarceration? Added to this is the current cost of people injuring themselves because despite the law they take drugs anyway, plus the number of people who are only hurt as a result of enforcing drug laws and the black market that arises from such enforcement, and the costs are very high. There is no evidence to suggest if/how many people would increase/instigate consumption, nor if this would lead to increased injury (it may be that better educated consumers are safer consumers), and if it did what the cost of that would be compared to the enormous costs of prohibition.
Evidently in a free society 'not restricting freedom X would be more expensive than restricting freedom X' is not sufficient cause to restrict freedom X. That's why free societies are not called 'free unless it's cheaper to be repressive societies'.

You're dead on. We have less responsibility for ourselves now, so we don't know how to handle it if we're given it.
Which really suggests that the more we make governments choose for people, the worse people will be at making good choices for themselves.

It /would/ be more my problem than yours except we legislated in this country to make it your problem as well. I've said before, societies that lean socialistic protect your rights, and societies that lean liberterian protect your freedoms. You can't have all of both at the same time (of course, you probably wouldn't /want/ all of both either, it'd be a mess).
Yes you can have both at the same time.

And yes, there is currently legislation under way to make fatty foods taxable just like cigarettes. Our government is becoming our nanny and that's what some people want. It's rediculous.
Exactly, taxes, not putting limits on how much people can consume, backed up with threats of legal sanctions for failure to comply. Taxes on consumable goods that have long term costs that the community picks up the tab on, are making people responsible for their actions, you consume goods that cost society, you pay at the time of consumption. I agree with taxes on goods that have a cost to the community, goods that pollute when made or when operated for instance should have some form of tax that recognises the cost this presents to others. In a free society if we deem that certain goods imply certain costs to society we sensibly charge those responsible for the costs as efficiently as we know how (for instance through taxes), we dont restrict their freedom unless their is no other viable recourse. Otherwise it's not a free society.

It doesnt sound right, because you are suddenly in the position of asking why did people stop being responsible. I dont agree re the safety net, in fact I think that kin based saftey nets prove very efficient in many communities and so do many other types of safety nets that operate indepently of any centralised governmental type scheme. For a variety of reasons this is not practical in many modern societies so we have other contingencies.

Right now where I live, if I decide to stab myself in the chest, for whatever reason, even though this is as stupid as stupid gets, all my medical costs would be paid for through tax dollars. Despite this, the incidence of people stabbling themselves in the chest is so far as I can ascertain, no higher where I live than elsewhere.

But what benefit do you gain from stabbing yourself in the chest? Smoking crack has been shown time and time again to be extremely bad for you in many, many ways, and yet it's on the rise. Do you think that if it were legalized the number of people smoking crack would go /down/? People would suddenly say, "aww, it's not as fun now that it's legal." Not likely. Drug use, if legalized, would increase, not remain the same or decrease.

You're correct that kin-based (or community based) social services are much more effective, but in a society that's losing touch with both their community and kin, it's not working, which is why we have federalized social services. They don't work as well, but they're a safety net for people to fall on.

As to asking why people suddenly stopped being responsible, it's pretty simple: because they'll be taken care of even if they aren't responsible. In older times, national health care wasn't even a dream people had. If they did something stupid to themselves (like stabbed themselves in the chest) and couldn't pay a doctor, they'd probably die.

As for taxes going up, have you factored in the cost of investigating, arresting, charge/convicting, and punishing 'offenders', including in the case of employed offenders the productivity lost through their time in court and incarceration? Added to this is the current cost of people injuring themselves because despite the law they take drugs anyway, plus the number of people who are only hurt as a result of enforcing drug laws and the black market that arises from such enforcement, and the costs are very high. There is no evidence to suggest if/how many people would increase/instigate consumption, nor if this would lead to increased injury (it may be that better educated consumers are safer consumers), and if it did what the cost of that would be compared to the enormous costs of prohibition.

No I haven't. Why? Because I'm not sure you could get a legitimate study or legitimate set of numbers to prove either case. There's dozens of studies out there about drug use and they all have wildly different numbers. Secondly, we have /no/ idea how this country would react to suddenly legalizing drugs. Personally, I think people would go wild and we'd see a huge rise in use for at least 5 years and then watch it slowly decline, but settle somewhere in between current use and the high use ... no pun intended.

Just like you said, there's simply no evidence, so it's not really worth arguing this point.

Evidently in a free society 'not restricting freedom X would be more expensive than restricting freedom X' is not sufficient cause to restrict freedom X. That's why free societies are not called 'free unless it's cheaper to be repressive societies'.

And do you really think the US lives in a free society? There's laws where I live that say you can be fined or go to jail if you leave your car running with the keys in it. Why would you do that? To warm up your car in the winter. Why the law? Because cars can be stolen that way, so it makes the jobs of the police harder. No, we live in a conditionally free society. You're free to do X as long as you're willing to suffer consequences Y, where Y is usually fines, jail time, or increased taxes on product X.

Which really suggests that the more we make governments choose for people, the worse people will be at making good choices for themselves.

Agreed. 100%.

Yes you can have both at the same time.

Let's take the argument to the extreme (the easiest way to test an argument anyway). I have the freedom to run around naked. I also have the right not to see anyone running around naked. I have the freedom to shoot my neighbor who's being a jerk. He has the right not to be shot.

You can't protect all personal freedoms without infringing on other people's rights. You can't protect all rights without infringing on other people's personal freedoms. Neither is desirable anyway.

Exactly, taxes, not putting limits on how much people can consume, backed up with threats of legal sanctions for failure to comply. Taxes on consumable goods that have long term costs that the community picks up the tab on, are making people responsible for their actions, you consume goods that cost society, you pay at the time of consumption. I agree with taxes on goods that have a cost to the community, goods that pollute when made or when operated for instance should have some form of tax that recognises the cost this presents to others. In a free society if we deem that certain goods imply certain costs to society we sensibly charge those responsible for the costs as efficiently as we know how (for instance through taxes), we dont restrict their freedom unless their is no other viable recourse. Otherwise it's not a free society.

"Unless there is no other viable recourse." Did you just say that it's not a free society if we restrict freedoms based on economic costs? What if the cost is more than the country can bear? For example, what if everyone suddenly started smoking pot all the time and everyone quit their jobs. Suddenly, everyone is on welfare. Obviously, we can't allow that to happen because the country would collapse and all those people would starve in the worst possible way ... with the munchies.

As to taxing freedoms away, that's not very equitable either. If you do that, only the rich can afford things that tax the economy. Let's take an example of a poor farmer. He uses a lot of industrial equipment (trucks and tractors) that pollute the air. We decide to increase taxes on polluting equipmet. The farmer is now out of business because he can't afford those taxes. Meanwhile, the rich schmuck is driving around in his V10 sportster and polluting up the environment and paying his speeding tickets.

Or another example. Foods rich in sugars or fats. Good one. Let's tax them so the burden of health care for the obese is included into the tax on the food. Ooops, now only rich people can have cake for their birthdays. Can anyone say Marie Antoinette?

But what benefit do you gain from stabbing yourself in the chest?
Well if I have a good job, for the entire time I was incapacitated, I would be supported through taxes to the extent of 80% of my yearly income. If I was 'unfit for work' for 6 months, I'd get a 6 month holiday while still being paid 80% of my usual earning capacity.

Smoking crack has been shown time and time again to be extremely bad for you in many, many ways, and yet it's on the rise. Do you think that if it were legalized the number of people smoking crack would go /down/?
That would depend on a variety of other factors.

People would suddenly say, "aww, it's not as fun now that it's legal." Not likely. Drug use, if legalized, would increase, not remain the same or decrease.
Not necessarily. And even if it did, this doesnt necessarily mean that a rise in health costs will follow. If a rise in use occured, but use was safer because no one was injured as a primary result, and only long term health uses arose, whether or not this would be a saving or a cost would depend on the current cost of treating injuries, and the cost of long term health care combined with the actual increase in use. Evidently this doesnt factor in for possible reduction in long term health effects due to higher quality/regulated production practises.

You're correct that kin-based (or community based) social services are much more effective, but in a society that's losing touch with both their community and kin, it's not working, which is why we have federalized social services. They don't work as well, but they're a safety net for people to fall on.
As to asking why people suddenly stopped being responsible, it's pretty simple: because they'll be taken care of even if they aren't responsible. In older times, national health care wasn't even a dream people had. If they did something stupid to themselves (like stabbed themselves in the chest) and couldn't pay a doctor, they'd probably die.
People for the most part still are not stabbing themselves now either. There are many cases in which self-destructive behaviour is avoided by the many and practised by the few even where those few do so knowing they will have the support of their community to fall back on. Instead of looking at those that are abberrant or a-typical shouldnt we take the typical case? In a society most people conform to the conventions, because that is how we know they are conventions, this ocurrs even in many cases where there is no consequence for not following the conventions. With or without drug laws, people take drugs. Prohibition (in the 20th century US) was not found to effect anyone except those who were not alcohol addicts. In other words those that needed monitoring and were harmed by the availability of alcohol derived no benefit, but those that needed no monitoring and could be responsible for themselves, had their freedom restricted for no good reason. Meanwhile everyone in the country paid the taxes of the law enforcement, the cost of the organised crime that was made so profitable by prohibition etc...

No I haven't. Why? Because I'm not sure you could get a legitimate study or legitimate set of numbers to prove either case.
No but you could produce viable projection models showing the outcome under various combinations of the variables. Obviously no deductive answer can be arrived at, by you could arrive at useful inductions regarding likely scenarios. Admittedly it would require more expertise than I personally have, and is much more effort than I would expect someone to go to prove a point on the internet, but I wondered if you or other posters might have some of the cost statistics I referred to.

There's dozens of studies out there about drug use and they all have wildly different numbers.
Well there are a lot of 'misleading studies' once you discount them, so far as I am aware you discount all the wildly different numbers. You have to be very careful because a lot of studies that have been proven to be discredited, and yet are still constantly referred to as supporting evidence in modern dialogue.

Secondly, we have /no/ idea how this country would react to suddenly legalizing drugs.
Well I wasnt really in all honesty referring to your country, so much as free societies, out of politeness I include as 'free society' any society that self proclaims itself as such, so generally I guess I am referring to the US, for instance, but not anymore specifically than I am referencing say Australia.
Evidently I'm not convinced that deciding what the scenario should be necessitates implementing immediate drastic change, in fact in many cases of legislative directional change or innovation, a phase-in period is designed to conteract possible negative effects associated with indiscriminate implentation.

Personally, I think people would go wild and we'd see a huge rise in use for at least 5 years and then watch it slowly decline, but settle somewhere in between current use and the high use ... no pun intended.
I'm really not concerned about levels of use, I'm much more concerned about the effects.

Just like you said, there's simply no evidence, so it's not really worth arguing this point
And do you really think the US lives in a free society? There's laws where I live that say you can be fined or go to jail if you leave your car running with the keys in it. Why would you do that? To warm up your car in the winter. Why the law? Because cars can be stolen that way, so it makes the jobs of the police harder. No, we live in a conditionally free society. You're free to do X as long as you're willing to suffer consequences Y, where Y is usually fines, jail time, or increased taxes on product X.
Personally I would oppose the law you refer to. I'm not in a position to resolve the discrepency between the stated premises of the US, and the reality, but I suggest drug laws are part of the problem, so the problem isnt a legitimate justification for them.

Agreed. 100%.
Let's take the argument to the extreme (the easiest way to test an argument anyway). I have the freedom to run around naked. I also have the right not to see anyone running around naked. I have the freedom to shoot my neighbor who's being a jerk. He has the right not to be shot.
This isnt any argument of mine taken to an extreme, the premises of my argument include advice for confliction of freedom. I have not included all the premises because I dont want to distract too much from the original theme of the thread. Basically a free society exists to promote and facilitate freedom. As you have pointed out different things that can be construed as freedom of one person are a restriction of another person's freedoms. The framework for solving such a conflict is that the starting premise is individual freedom, that is freedom to do anything without harming anyone else's interests. All other freedoms are contingent, that is they depend on the variables. However until there is a proven negative effect on someone other than consenting parties, individual freedom cannot be negated or surmounted. It is the threshold you must cross before you can start negotiating the restriction of someone's freedom if you intend to call your society free.

You can't protect all personal freedoms without infringing on other people's rights. You can't protect all rights without infringing on other people's personal freedoms. Neither is desirable anyway.
You can if you have a reasonale defination of personal freedom.

"Unless there is no other viable recourse." Did you just say that it's not a free society if we restrict freedoms based on economic costs? What if the cost is more than the country can bear? For example, what if everyone suddenly started smoking pot all the time and everyone quit their jobs. Suddenly, everyone is on welfare. Obviously, we can't allow that to happen because the country would collapse and all those people would starve in the worst possible way ... with the munchies.
You are saying that if there were an unvaible recourse, and restricting freedom was the only viable recourse...I think that's where I started, if there is any other viable recourse then you cannot restrict freedom. In the scenario you suggest if the effect is the country collapsing and everyone starving, is the recourse that led to it 'viable'...it doesnt fit my criteria for viable, ergo unless there is some other viable alternative that doesnt require the restriction of freedom, the scenario would be one in which 'no other viable recourse existing' you could consider restricting freedom in some way or another. However as a matter of empiracal fact, I dont see such a scenario ever happening. Cannabis became illegal where I live well after social welfare benefits (for unemployed) and free medical care for chronic illness/injury were in effect. At the time the law came into effect (ie when there was welfare, medical care and legally available cannabis) there was in fact virtual 'ull employment'. If people didnt all stop working and get stoned all day when it was legal and benefits enabled them to do so if they chose, I see no reason to assume people would do so now.

As to taxing freedoms away, that's not very equitable either. If you do that, only the rich can afford things that tax the economy. Let's take an example of a poor farmer. He uses a lot of industrial equipment (trucks and tractors) that pollute the air. We decide to increase taxes on polluting equipmet. The farmer is now out of business because he can't afford those taxes. Meanwhile, the rich schmuck is driving around in his V10 sportster and polluting up the environment and paying his speeding tickets.
Your example is a poor one because it is suggesting a materially unfair tax. A fair tax would be to tax the fuel used, something that is already done where I live, less polluting fuels attract lesser taxes.

[/quote]another example. Foods rich in sugars or fats. Good one. Let's tax them so the burden of health care for the obese is included into the tax on the food. Ooops, now only rich people can have cake for their birthdays. Can anyone say Marie Antoinette?[/QUOTE]
And again a very poor example, just how much tax are you charging these people? And anyway, everyone is already paying, it's just transfering the costs from people's wages (pay regardless whether you use) to people's consumption (pay as you use). So a family that eats cake every day pays more than a family that eats it on birthdays. Probably the amount more every day family pays is more than the tax reduction, but for family birthdays only, they actually save money and still get to eat their cake... ;)

Evidently the manner of implentation that your scenario implies doesnt sound to me to be the best framework. Just because there are bad ways in which an idea could be implemented, doesnt mean you should discredit out of hand all the effective ways in which it could equally be successfully implemented.

Well if I have a good job, for the entire time I was incapacitated, I would be supported through taxes to the extent of 80% of my yearly income. If I was 'unfit for work' for 6 months, I'd get a 6 month holiday while still being paid 80% of my usual earning capacity.

And yet strangely, there's not as many people stabbing themselves as there are destructively using drugs. I was just pointing out that I don't think it's a very good analogy.

Not necessarily. And even if it did, this doesnt necessarily mean that a rise in health costs will follow. If a rise in use occured, but use was safer because no one was injured as a primary result, and only long term health uses arose, whether or not this would be a saving or a cost would depend on the current cost of treating injuries, and the cost of long term health care combined with the actual increase in use.
*cut*
Well there are a lot of 'misleading studies' once you discount them, so far as I am aware you discount all the wildly different numbers. You have to be very careful because a lot of studies that have been proven to be discredited, and yet are still constantly referred to as supporting evidence in modern dialogue.

What I was leading to was that there's not a way of validly determining what the projected health costs would be. There are certainly misleading studies, and some of them are easy to refute and discount. Who's to say, however, that some of the outlying number (low or high) aren't right just because they're on the outside of the spectrum? The real answer is we just don't know. I don't think economics (saving money from prosecuting drug crimes) is a very valid point as it's pretty much conjecture based on conjecture.

Well I wasnt really in all honesty referring to your country, so much as free societies, out of politeness I include as 'free society' any society that self proclaims itself as such, so generally I guess I am referring to the US, for instance, but not anymore specifically than I am referencing say Australia.

Fine. I was under the impression you and I were discussing the US, but we'll go broader. My mistake.

Personally I would oppose the law you refer to. I'm not in a position to resolve the discrepency between the stated premises of the US, and the reality, but I suggest drug laws are part of the problem, so the problem isnt a legitimate justification for them.

I agree with you. Personally, I'm for quite expanded personal freedoms at the cost of socialized security blankets, but I don't see that happening.

This isnt any argument of mine taken to an extreme, the premises of my argument include advice for confliction of freedom. I have not included all the premises because I dont want to distract too much from the original theme of the thread. Basically a free society exists to promote and facilitate freedom. As you have pointed out different things that can be construed as freedom of one person are a restriction of another person's freedoms. The framework for solving such a conflict is that the starting premise is individual freedom, that is freedom to do anything without harming anyone else's interests. All other freedoms are contingent, that is they depend on the variables. However until there is a proven negative effect on someone other than consenting parties, individual freedom cannot be negated or surmounted. It is the threshold you must cross before you can start negotiating the restriction of someone's freedom if you intend to call your society free.

And yet, all over the world, individual freedom /is/ being negated and replaced by protecting others' rights. The problem with your definition of personal freedom ("freedom to do anything without harming anyone else's interests") is that people's interests are continually expanding into other's freedoms. It's much easier to take away a freedom (as in France with the new law forbidding religious symbols in public places) than it is to preserve them against perceived infringement on others' rights.

You are saying that if there were an unvaible recourse, and restricting freedom was the only viable recourse...I think that's where I started, if there is any other viable recourse then you cannot restrict freedom. In the scenario you suggest if the effect is the country collapsing and everyone starving, is the recourse that led to it 'viable'...it doesnt fit my criteria for viable, ergo unless there is some other viable alternative that doesnt require the restriction of freedom, the scenario would be one in which 'no other viable recourse existing' you could consider restricting freedom in some way or another. However as a matter of empiracal fact, I dont see such a scenario ever happening. Cannabis became illegal where I live well after social welfare benefits (for unemployed) and free medical care for chronic illness/injury were in effect. At the time the law came into effect (ie when there was welfare, medical care and legally available cannabis) there was in fact virtual 'ull employment'. If people didnt all stop working and get stoned all day when it was legal and benefits enabled them to do so if they chose, I see no reason to assume people would do so now.

I was making another extreme argument trying to lead (unsuccessfully) to the point that we can't have personal freedom without personal responsibility. Currently we don't have personal responsibility in most of the "free" world. People are very willing to blame any one else for their problems and let the government help them out. I don't think any country is ready to legalize all drugs until their citizens can accept the personal consequences of taking those drugs. For some, true, there might be no consequences (responsible users). For others, however, there most certainly will be and we have no structure in place to transfer any responsibility back to the irresponsible users.

Your example is a poor one because it is suggesting a materially unfair tax. A fair tax would be to tax the fuel used, something that is already done where I live, less polluting fuels attract lesser taxes.

Regardless what is taxed, you still have the poor bearing the brunt of it. In the same example, many of the trucks and tractors use nearly unrefined deisel, a high-polluting fuel. That farmer is still going out of business while the corporation that's using massive amounts of these, can still afford to do business, simply passing the cost along to its customers.

And again a very poor example, just how much tax are you charging these people? And anyway, everyone is already paying, it's just transfering the costs from people's wages (pay regardless whether you use) to people's consumption (pay as you use). So a family that eats cake every day pays more than a family that eats it on birthdays. Probably the amount more every day family pays is more than the tax reduction, but for family birthdays only, they actually save money and still get to eat their cake... ;)

My point is that luxury items are generally going to be more taxed than non-luxury items. Speedboats would use more fuel, hence be taxed against the environment, sweet and rich foods would be taxed as health care prevention costs, equipment used for risky activities (extreme sports maybe) would be taxed under the same idea. I was trying to lead to the same place ... that we need to implement more personal responsibility, not give more authority to the government to try and regulate our lives so it can take care of us better.

Evidently the manner of implentation that your scenario implies doesnt sound to me to be the best framework. Just because there are bad ways in which an idea could be implemented, doesnt mean you should discredit out of hand all the effective ways in which it could equally be successfully implemented.

Stricter government regulations or higher taxes on products that are items of personal choice (rich foods, drugs, what have you) sound like a bad idea to me regardless. I'd much rather see a society without nationalized health care than see one that coddles its population. It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. It's the government's job to protect our freedoms. Something every government appears to fail more and more at as time goes on.

It may be more effective, but minimally so...and not worth the extra resources.
Actually, rehab is about twice as effective at getting people to quit using drugs than jail is.

No. And neither should alcohol.

Dude, are you serious?

So if I'm a little tired and stop at a Starbuck's for a venti and a dopio, am I self medicating? Or does that count as 'recreational' because it's not done under a doctor's supervision? Since when is a cigarette and a cup of coffee a public safety issue? What about a glass of wine or a snifter of brandy to relax or warm up? Are those acceptable?

If you said yes to any of those, or have done any of those previously mentioned, you have used drugs. Period.

If you ingest anything to wake up, relieve pain, relieve stress, feel better, whatever, you are using drugs. AND if you are doing it without a prescription from a doctor or other medical supervision, it could be called 'recreational'. Period. It's that simple.

The ban on hemp/marijauna, like many other ill conceived laws in the USA, was put into place by a handfull of special interest groups who made it a moral issue to get a ban passed in the middle of the night.

So, you're going to sit there and try and convince us that any use of a substance should, outside of medical treatment, be dealt with through mandatory rehab? Do you realize the sheer number of people you just signed up for therapy? Where are you going to hold these massive therapy sessions? How many therapists is it going to take? Who is going to pay for all of that rehab?

Try this one on for size: if the choice is between a safe country, and a free country, I'd rather be free, and take my chances.
You have heard of over the counter drugs, haven't you? If marijuana is felt by the medical community to be harmless enough to be sold as an over the counter drug, then that's fine with me.
Smoking cigarettes became a public safety issue since it was found that secondhand smoke causes cancer. Drinking alcohol was found to be a public safety issue since it was found that people both sometimes drive drunk and/or get violent while under the influence of alcohol.
I never said that any use of a substance should mean mandatory rehab. I also never said that anyone who uses those "bad" substances would be placed into rehab first. They have to be caught doing so first. If they are considerate enough to use those substances only when alone, or around people who don't mind being around someone using those substances, then it's likely that they wouldn't get caught using them.
I choose freedom over safety as well, and the freedom to not be around someone using drugs is more important than the freedom to use drugs.

And yet strangely, there's not as many people stabbing themselves as there are destructively using drugs. I was just pointing out that I don't think it's a very good analogy.
It may not appear a good analogy, but it is. I actually know a person who poured battery acid on his arm every day in an attempt to get payments under the scheme I referred to, yet despite the fact that people could do it, and the fact that some people even convince themselves that doing it is ok, and go ahead and do it, most people know better. Are you really suggesting that the only thing stopping you from taking particular drugs is their legal status? I dont take alcohol, and that's legal where I live.

What I was leading to was that there's not a way of validly determining what the projected health costs would be.
I agree there is no way to determine it.

There are certainly misleading studies, and some of them are easy to refute and discount. Who's to say, however, that some of the outlying number (low or high) aren't right just because they're on the outside of the spectrum?
That's actually not what I meant. What I meant is that contemporary studies about the effects of drugs/drug consumption kept coming up with very different results to many earlier prominent studies; things were not 'adding up'...like the Piltdown fossil, a whole lot of 'research' came crashing down when tests were re-visited and severe flaws (ie fatal to making any useful conclusion type flaws) were found in most of the primary source studies, (in one infamous case, the study was about drug X, the 'test subjects' had been given an entirely different drug, the results from this study, still show up in reports about drug X, even though drug X wasnt it turns out, ever administered to a single test subject). In other cases the research was fine, except it was premised on these earlier results that were false; if something's premise is untrue, you dont get a sound conclusion. As new studies have been done, often with no intention to disprove earlier studies, some of these 'founding' older studies have been found to not be reliable. Numbers from those studies who's methodology and therefore conclusions 'stand-up' and who's results can be reliably tested independently, dont (in so far as those I have been made aware of) end with 'wildy different numbers', but rather show the consistency whose lack led to earlier 'studies' being discredited.

The real answer is we just don't know. I don't think economics (saving money from prosecuting drug crimes) is a very valid point as it's pretty much conjecture based on conjecture.
I know that if the police have to choose between sending a car to someone ringing the national emergency line, and chasing after some long-hair in the bush, I'd rather that people who rang the emergency line, got the assistance they expected. That's not primarily about economics, that's about life and death priorities. As a matter of fact, the police where I live dont have enough resources to send an emergency car out when a distressed young lady calls the emergency assistance national telephone line (911 in the US I believe), they think sending a taxi is sufficient, but I note this is after sending helicopters out over forests, looking for and exterminating dope plants. It's obvious that sending one car uses less resources than sending helicopters out for days/weeks on end, so since it is a choice, either resources for rescue idiots who dont want to be rescued from themselves, or rescuing people who dial the national emergency line and genuinely want and need help, but not both, the choice is clear.

Fine. I was under the impression you and I were discussing the US, but we'll go broader. My mistake.
I agree with you. Personally, I'm for quite expanded personal freedoms at the cost of socialized security blankets, but I don't see that happening.
And yet, all over the world, individual freedom /is/ being negated and replaced by protecting others' rights.
The fact that something is happening implies nothing about it's rightness or wrongness in terms of ideal or good practise.

The problem with your definition of personal freedom ("freedom to do anything without harming anyone else's interests") is that people's interests are continually expanding into other's freedoms.
Well how much of that is expansion of interests into actual 'personal freedoms' as I premised them, how much of that is the usual dynamism that occurs as innovations in technology, social practise, business practises, etc create new areas of 'interests', and how much of it is due to non-conformance with the principal (and so are not good counter-examples for the applicability of the principal)?

It's much easier to take away a freedom (as in France with the new law forbidding religious symbols in public places) than it is to preserve them against perceived infringement on others' rights.
It's much easier to drop out of school than it is to go to college, that doesnt make it better.

I was making another extreme argument trying to lead (unsuccessfully) to the point that we can't have personal freedom without personal responsibility.
Actually that is my point.

Currently we don't have personal responsibility in most of the "free" world.
I personally think that is the result of not being free enough.

People are very willing to blame any one else for their problems and let the government help them out.
That's because they are getting to the point where they think anything that could harm them should come with a goverment warning label...

I don't think any country is ready to legalize all drugs until their citizens can accept the personal consequences of taking those drugs.
Well here is the difference in our reasoning. I reason from the premise that the more laws and rules we have that make people's personal choices for them, the more irresponsible they become, so drug laws render people less responsible in regards to decisions about drugs.
It's like an addiction to rules. We have become 'reliant' on rules to operate 'normally', and without them we might go 'haywire', so we keep taking rules, we even raise the dosage as the current level becomes ineffective in the face of our rising dependence....

Ok enough dramatics from me. What I'm saying is that drug laws are one of the types of laws that I think contribute to people being less self-responsible. Irresponsibility, caused by a certain type of law, can never be a good justification for that type of law. So as long as I continue to consider drug laws as being a cause of the problem, I cant see the problem as justifying their continuance.

For some, true, there might be no consequences (responsible users). For others, however, there most certainly will be and we have no structure in place to transfer any responsibility back to the irresponsible users.
I didnt intend to make an argument for implementation in any particular scenario, but rather for a general principal. I'd expect there to be many logistical problems to be solved in implementing any principal whatsoever.

Regardless what is taxed, you still have the poor bearing the brunt of it.
Not necessarily.

In the same example, many of the trucks and tractors use nearly unrefined deisel, a high-polluting fuel. That farmer is still going out of business while the corporation that's using massive amounts of these, can still afford to do business, simply passing the cost along to its customers.
So who is paying for it if not the current users, the farmer's grandson, whose farm cant produce edible food because it's too polluted? The costs exist regardless, I'm not sure why 'user-pays' appears to you to be unfair. If not the person deriving the benefit of the cost, then who exactly should pay the cost?

My point is that luxury items are generally going to be more taxed than non-luxury items.
Aha, and this might be fine, provided taxes are not prohibitive, and again we are talking implentation. The implementation of principals usually calls for provisos and contingencies to be factored into the logistics. I'm not disputing that it will ever be otherwise. Although your examples are entirely sound and reasonable, they can be defeated simply by stating that the tax law would include provision 'X, Y, Z'. I doubt you'd get a perfect tax, if that's what you mean, but I also believe that it is humanly possible to invent a tax system (for the purpose referred to) that taxed people for creating costs where those costs are not already part of the good/product/service, without causing undue hardship. What I mean is do you disagree inherently with user-pays, or are you more trying to point out difficulties in implementation, because I am premising the first, and yet dont dispute the existence of the latter.

Speedboats would use more fuel, hence be taxed against the environment,
Perhaps, or perhaps speed boat manufacturers would switch to engines that burn cheaper fuels, they may come up with cheaper and cheaper ways to do so, necessity is the mother of invention...

sweet and rich foods would be taxed as health care prevention costs,
Not necessarily. This is about implementation. I think we can quickly draw the line between fatty/sugary processed foods, and any food that is sweet or rich.

equipment used for risky activities (extreme sports maybe) would be taxed under the same idea.
Not necessarily, again this is about implementation, not the principal, I happen to agree that there are many inefficient ways of implementing that principal, but the same can be said of just about any principal.

I was trying to lead to the same place ... that we need to implement more personal responsibility, not give more authority to the government to try and regulate our lives so it can take care of us better.
Aha, but we disagree on the role drug laws play in this. Since I believe people become less responsible whenever the government/society undermine their ability to be responsible, I see 'we have to keep drugs laws because people are not responsible' as being equavilent to 'we cant get rid of the cause because the effect makes the cause necessary'.

Stricter government regulations or higher taxes on products that are items of personal choice (rich foods, drugs, what have you) sound like a bad idea to me regardless.
The tax is about paying for the cost associated with your consumption, can you clarify where exactly this principal conflicts with your view, because I suspect that perhaps how I have phrased my comments has led you to believe I mean something other than what I mean, if you know what I mean... ;)
Just to clarify, I'm simply saying, if you cause a cost, you pay for it is a general principal I support.

I'd much rather see a society without nationalized health care than see one that coddles its population.
To me this is a whole seperate issue. I can see that it's relevent, to implementation, but it's not relevent to whether or not drug laws should exist.

It is not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. It's the government's job to protect our freedoms. Something every government appears to fail more and more at as time goes on.
I mostly agree with that... ;)

No it shouldn't be legalized. The last thing we need is more high idiots on the road. People do it,but I promise that if it's legalized things will get worse. We already have drunks everywhere. What sense would it make to legalize yet another drug? :mad: It's illeagal because it is yet ANOTHER tool for death. It can impair your judgement and that's dangerous.

You have heard of over the counter drugs, haven't you? If marijuana is felt by the medical community to be harmless enough to be sold as an over the counter drug, then that's fine with me.

The American Medical Association, Federation of American Scientists, Kaiser Permanente, MS Society, and the New England Journal of Medicine have all endoresed medical pot. Is that enough medical community? Or do you need more? How about studies done about outright legalization?

Here are a few that advocated the legalization of pot for adults: Connecticut Law Review Commission, 1997; Swiss Federal Commission for Drug Issues, 1999; British House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2002; Australian Department of Health and Aged Care, 1994; California Research Advisory Panel, 1989.

the US Government has even called marijuana one of the least pharmacologically active substances in nature. Several studies have tried to prove the toxicity of weed only to find you cannot die from it. No amount of pot given to laboratory animals could cause any irreversable damage.

Now try this one on: the danger caused by prohibition is greater than the danger caused by the plant. The loss of civil liberties and the immense tax burden placed on the population to support an unwinable 'war' on a plant is much more of a damage and a danger to us all than the plant itself.

I choose freedom over safety as well, and the freedom to not be around someone using drugs is more important than the freedom to use drugs.

If you don't like bars don't go to one. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel, if you don't like pot, don't go where people might smoke it. You already have the freedom to not be around drugs or alcohol or poor quality programming, you can leave. But to ban, put punitive restrictions on and persecute those who choose to use a substance takes away freedoms from everyone whether you care to admit it or not.

Argue with this: If you feel recreational drug use is a morality issue, and that people shouldn't be allowed to use drugs recreationally because you feel it is immoral, keep in mind not everyone shares your moral values, and your moral values are no better or worse than mine, just different. I, for one, would rather live in a country where I am free to express my moral or religious values and beliefs, rather than a country where some one else's morals are imposed on me.

I choose freedom over safety as well, and the freedom to not be around someone using drugs is more important than the freedom to use drugs.

You have never, in your entire adult life, been required to be around someone using drugs.

And RE: the SHS issue...the WTO found no evidence that it causes cancer. It smells like shit, yes, but nothing else has been conclusively proven.

No it shouldn't be legalized. The last thing we need is more high idiots on the road. People do it,but I promise that if it's legalized things will get worse. We already have drunks everywhere. What sense would it make to legalize yet another drug? :mad: It's illeagal because it is yet ANOTHER tool for death. It can impair your judgement and that's dangerous.

Do you think its illegal nature keeps the multitudes from using it? I don't buy this argument in the slightest. The Michigan Household Survey, year after year, has shown that it is much easier for high schoolers to get pot than to get booze.

How is marijuana a tool for death? That is extreme emotional hyperbole.

No it shouldn't be legalized. The last thing we need is more high idiots on the road. People do it,but I promise that if it's legalized things will get worse. We already have drunks everywhere. What sense would it make to legalize yet another drug? :mad: It's illeagal because it is yet ANOTHER tool for death. It can impair your judgement and that's dangerous.

1. An average of 1400 college students a year die from alcohol poisoning.

2. Prescription drugs can do the same thing, and people are routinely arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of prescription medications. Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of any substance is already illegal and wouldn't change if marijuana was legalized.

As for 'tool of death' (that's a little over dramatic, don't you think?) in 10,000 years of recorded history, not one single person has died or overdosed on pot.

Actually, rehab is about twice as effective at getting people to quit using drugs than jail is.

Yeah, twice of 1% is 2%...not a very convincing figure.

http://freeradicalsounds.com/howmarks/howard.htm

Enjoy.

http://freeradicalsounds.com/howmarks/howard.htm

Enjoy.


No offense, but I'd rather not have that guy as the posterchild for any form of legalization. If sex were banned, and he was the PR guy for the legalization movement...the human race would be in trouble

wow, page seven of this thread took a long time to scroll through...or is it that my sense of time is kinda dialated?

I must and will have chocolate! Aieeeee!

2. Prescription drugs can do the same thing, and people are routinely arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of prescription medications. Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of any substance is already illegal and wouldn't change if marijuana was legalized.

As for 'tool of death' (that's a little over dramatic, don't you think?) in 10,000 years of recorded history, not one single person has died or overdosed on pot.

Hell, it's not even just presciption drugs which can be a danger...just look aty Benadryl. A lot of prescription drugs make you too drowsy or what have you to operate a motor vehicle, and they carry a warning for it.

No. Don't let the junkies win!

No. Don't let the junkies win!


Sorry to bust out with an informal fallacy, but Neo, you're clueless as usual.

:headbang:

Sorry to bust out with an informal fallacy, but Neo, you're clueless as usual.

:headbang:

Why I thought you were a conservative? Oh did the repbulicans become pro-drugs ever since their fat idol was caught with barbituates?

In some states, the death penalty is applicable for possession of an ounce.


Are you serious? where

Why I thought you were a conservative? Oh did the repbulicans become pro-drugs ever since their fat idol was caught with barbituates?

Umm...yeah. That's it. Oxy all the way!

Friedmanville....as in Milton Friedman? An economist? A libertarian (or classical liberal)?

Why I thought you were a conservative? Oh did the repbulicans become pro-drugs ever since their fat idol was caught with barbituates?


And I know you're Neo Whatever, posting under a different name. I'm sorry...expecting a 13 year old to know who Milton Friedman was is asking a little much. I guess I'll have to postpone my lecture on Hayek.

And RE: the SHS issue...the WTO found no evidence that it causes cancer. It smells like shit, yes, but nothing else has been conclusively proven.


Do you mean the WHO (World Health Organization) instead of WTO (World Trade Organization)?

Oh and btw I totally support legalizing it, there are no reasons against and as far as I see only benefits from legalizing.

Do you mean the WHO (World Health Organization) instead of WTO (World Trade Organization)?

Oh and btw I totally support legalizing it, there are no reasons against and as far as I see only benefits from legalizing.


Yes! Sorry...WHO....so many acronyms, so little time.

Umm...yeah. That's it. Oxy all the way!

Friedmanville....as in Milton Friedman? An economist? A libertarian (or classical liberal)?


Yes I read a book on economics and he was mentioned a few times. He stressed the quantity of money.

Marijuana should be legal.

Well, you're probably going to get the last word, since I'm headed out of town for a week, but I'll be interested to check back up on this and a few other threads.

It may not appear a good analogy, but it is. I actually know a person who poured battery acid on his arm every day in an attempt to get payments under the scheme I referred to, yet despite the fact that people could do it, and the fact that some people even convince themselves that doing it is ok, and go ahead and do it, most people know better. Are you really suggesting that the only thing stopping you from taking particular drugs is their legal status? I dont take alcohol, and that's legal where I live.

Yes, the only thing stopping /many/ people from taking particular drugs (most notably pot) is their legal status. Many people I work with don't think it's that bad of a drug (and many people here agree), equating it mostly to alcohol. However, if I or anyone I work with were to smoke it, we could lose our job. That's a pretty effective discouragement.

And it still is a bad analogy. People may be taking advantage of the system like your friend who poured battery acid on himself, but how much easier would it be to take advantage of the system if not only did you not have to work, but you weren't unemployed because of painful circumstances?

Well here is the difference in our reasoning. I reason from the premise that the more laws and rules we have that make people's personal choices for them, the more irresponsible they become, so drug laws render people less responsible in regards to decisions about drugs.
It's like an addiction to rules. We have become 'reliant' on rules to operate 'normally', and without them we might go 'haywire', so we keep taking rules, we even raise the dosage as the current level becomes ineffective in the face of our rising dependence....

Ok enough dramatics from me. What I'm saying is that drug laws are one of the types of laws that I think contribute to people being less self-responsible. Irresponsibility, caused by a certain type of law, can never be a good justification for that type of law. So as long as I continue to consider drug laws as being a cause of the problem, I cant see the problem as justifying their continuance.

And that's part of the problem. Just like you can't take a heroin addict down cold turkey, you can't just eliminate the drug laws. The problem exists and must be slowly removed.

I didnt intend to make an argument for implementation in any particular scenario, but rather for a general principal. I'd expect there to be many logistical problems to be solved in implementing any principal whatsoever.

Well, as a general principle, we agree. People should have more freedoms. As a general principle, everyone should be millionaires, never have to work unless they want to, and have free social care as well. The implementation is where things get tricky, not the ideals.

Aha, and this might be fine, provided taxes are not prohibitive, and again we are talking implentation. The implementation of principals usually calls for provisos and contingencies to be factored into the logistics. I'm not disputing that it will ever be otherwise. Although your examples are entirely sound and reasonable, they can be defeated simply by stating that the tax law would include provision 'X, Y, Z'. I doubt you'd get a perfect tax, if that's what you mean, but I also believe that it is humanly possible to invent a tax system (for the purpose referred to) that taxed people for creating costs where those costs are not already part of the good/product/service, without causing undue hardship. What I mean is do you disagree inherently with user-pays, or are you more trying to point out difficulties in implementation, because I am premising the first, and yet dont dispute the existence of the latter.

I'm talking fully about implementation. I have yet to see a good user-pay system that doesn't hurt people unintentionally more than it helps the environment/government/social scene/insert cause here. It's a great concept, but it doesn't work in practice. Like pure communism or capitalism.

Not necessarily, again this is about implementation, not the principal, I happen to agree that there are many inefficient ways of implementing that principal, but the same can be said of just about any principal.

However, there's also some principles that it can be said there has been /no/ efficient way of (legislatively) implementing that principle invented yet; user-pay, total equality, social safety nets.

Aha, but we disagree on the role drug laws play in this. Since I believe people become less responsible whenever the government/society undermine their ability to be responsible, I see 'we have to keep drugs laws because people are not responsible' as being equavilent to 'we cant get rid of the cause because the effect makes the cause necessary'.

We both see them that way ... read my posts. However, you can't ignore the facts just because the facts depict an absurd reality. Reality /is/ absurd. We made it that way. It'll take a while to fix it.

The tax is about paying for the cost associated with your consumption, can you clarify where exactly this principal conflicts with your view, because I suspect that perhaps how I have phrased my comments has led you to believe I mean something other than what I mean, if you know what I mean... ;)
Just to clarify, I'm simply saying, if you cause a cost, you pay for it is a general principal I support.

As a principle, again, that's fine. However, implementation becomes virtually impossible if you want to respect individual rights and freedoms.

To me this is a whole seperate issue. I can see that it's relevent, to implementation, but it's not relevent to whether or not drug laws should exist.

And obviously we've been talking in circles. I could care less about the principles. I don't think drug laws should exist. However, they /do/ exist and simply eliminating them would do more harm than good (at least in the short term), so it becomes a moot point to talk about whether they should or shouldn't exist. A more pertinant discussion (the one I mistakingly thought we were having) is how to remove them.

And obviously we've been talking in circles. I could care less about the principles. I don't think drug laws should exist. However, they /do/ exist and simply eliminating them would do more harm than good (at least in the short term), so it becomes a moot point to talk about whether they should or shouldn't exist. A more pertinant discussion (the one I mistakingly thought we were having) is how to remove them.

Just remove them. Completely.

When the first few idiots who dose themselves up and hijack a train are caught and thrown in prison regardless of how high they were or what they'd taken, people will think twice. With the amount of resources freed up by there being no drug war any more, I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem.

Just remove them. Completely.

When the first few idiots who dose themselves up and hijack a train are caught and thrown in prison regardless of how high they were or what they'd taken, people will think twice. With the amount of resources freed up by there being no drug war any more, I'm sure that wouldn't be a problem.

If, at the same time, we made violent crimes have even more severe punishments, then I'd agree. We'd probably make it through the initial idiocy if punishments were stricter. Let's say, instead of just throwing violent junkies in prison, we also rename them legally to fun names that would point them out in public.

"Welcome to Wells Fargo, what name would you like your account under?"
"Uh ... Flamboyant Slippers, please. Middle name Pink."
"Ah, so you're an idiot. Well, we can dispense with these forms, we have a simplified format for you to follow."

It's make things much easier.

Well, you're probably going to get the last word, since I'm headed out of town for a week, but I'll be interested to check back up on this and a few other threads.
Miss you already...

Yes, the only thing stopping /many/ people from taking particular drugs (most notably pot) is their legal status. Many people I work with don't think it's that bad of a drug (and many people here agree), equating it mostly to alcohol. However, if I or anyone I work with were to smoke it, we could lose our job. That's a pretty effective discouragement.
Aha, but look at it like this, cannabis isnt in effect a terrible drug, the disorientation it creates is no worse than that of alcohol, for instance, the damage to lunges can be eliminated depending on consumption methods, and studies about long term effects indicate that a casual user has little fear. Overdosing is impossible. So just how much danger does the described drug present to people who are sensible enough to not take it soley due to considerations about the law and keeping their jobs? I can understand why a drug may be dangerous in the hands of someone self-destructive (who wouldnt care sufficiently about keeping their job or remaining out of legal troubles), but anyone sensible enough to abide by the laws against cannabis, is probably someone who doesnt benefit from the laws because either they would not anyway (as in the case of myself and alcohol) or their use would be as sensible and pragmatic as their 'non-use'.
Back to my analogy, I have known people (please Mac, just because I know them doesnt make them my friends, a guy who intentionally covers himself in battery acid just to bludge of his fellow citizens....ok I admit that I know the guy, but he's no friend.... ;) ) and known of people who have claimed difficult to substantiate injuries (ie back injuries, soft tissue damage injuries), in order to bludge, however everyone I know who is an adult could do the same, yet overwhelmingly the vast majority do not. It's the same with drugs, some people will not use them regardless, some will use them rather than abuse them if given the option, some will abuse them, most of the latter will do so whether they are illegal or not. When it comes to drugs its the worst abusers that cause damages and costs to the community, unfortunately it is also this same group who are not inclined to obey the laws anyway.

And it still is a bad analogy. People may be taking advantage of the system like your friend who poured battery acid on himself, but how much easier would it be to take advantage of the system if not only did you not have to work, but you weren't unemployed because of painful circumstances?
But people can, they can claim soft tissue damage (for all intents and purposes undaignosable), or back injuries. In fact as it became clear that some people were being dishonest, regulations were put in place to prevent. Although it would take some explaining, so far as I can see the regulations have made it difficult for legitimate claiments without preventing dishonest claimants from abusing the system.

And that's part of the problem. Just like you can't take a heroin addict down cold turkey, you can't just eliminate the drug laws. The problem exists and must be slowly removed.
Actually you can remove heroine cold turkey, and for some people this is effective although painful. You can also go cold turkey with the help of technology, or as you pointed out the transfere from junkie to non-junkie can occur through weening. However the primary point is not how to go from junkie to non-junkie, but rather that one does make the transition.

Well, as a general principle, we agree. People should have more freedoms. As a general principle, everyone should be millionaires, never have to work unless they want to, and have free social care as well. The implementation is where things get tricky, not the ideals.
I agree about the freedoms, but I dont agree about millionaires, and not having to work. The discussion on my end has not been about implementation, because that is only relevent at a later stage in the process. The first and primary order is decide where we want to go, then we work out where we are, then implementation options come into play as we decide how to get there. You appear to have skipped ahead of me, I'm still back here at the 'where exactly should we be going to' stage, where as you are pointing out difficulties with regards to various travelling routes that might get us there.
I reason the issues seperatly because some things that must be done are so hard to do, that if you worry about implementation before you decide what has to be done, you might never have the guts to get on with doing it. Once you have decided that it must be done, I think it is more likely that a way of doing it will be found. Should it prove absolutely impossible, whatever is implemented will still be closer to what you should have done, than if you never decide at all, just because it sounds hard. Take going to the moon, I believe the decision to go followed by implementation was decades quicker than an alternative route of working out implementation, then deciding since it would work, we can do it. So to me, implementation is what you worry about after you have decided general principals. That way if compromise is required, it is noticed, acknowledged, premised as less than ideal, and very open to change should it become apparent that more ideal implementation has become possible.

I'm talking fully about implementation.
Which is why we have been talking past each other. I kind of guessed after reading your last post, your writing appears clear, and shows no sign of logical befuddlement, yet some of you claims were inconsistent with some of my views that also according to your post appeared to be your views. I considered where our premises might be differing (as this would explain how we could both logically arrive at different points of view), and noticed that a lot of your comments dealt with implementational logistics. Of course all this was speculation on my part, and I could have been way off base, so I didnt want to reply in a way that wrote my speculations over your comments. I'd have looked a right twit if my speculation was wrong, and I started discussing comments you never made, nor intended to imply..... :rolleyes: ;)

I have yet to see a good user-pay system that doesn't hurt people unintentionally more than it helps the environment/government/social scene/insert cause here. It's a great concept, but it doesn't work in practice. Like pure communism or capitalism.
Aha, but that doesnt mean there is not one. Equally it obviously doesnt mean there is, but I believe that there can be a system that distributes more of the cost of current consumption onto the person consuming. With regards to absolute, I'm not an absolutist. If you want to discuss implementation generally, make a thread when you get back....it's whole subject on it's own, and probably I suspect even more interesting than this one. ;)

However, there's also some principles that it can be said there has been /no/ efficient way of (legislatively) implementing that principle invented yet; user-pay, total equality, social safety nets.
Well 100 years ago, no way of going to the moon had been found, ;) .
I understand what you are driving at, but I wonder how much your premises for considering implementation might differ from my own. I have certain premises which take precedence due to how I percieve their importance in relation to the overall picture, for instance I believe that if an important accepted principal that is a premise for much of the organising system of a society must be compromised in some way when it is implemented, that the intended purpose of the principal, and the deviation from it, be overtly obvious, so that it is not possible to mistake the actual implementation for the intention.

We both see them that way ... read my posts. However, you can't ignore the facts just because the facts depict an absurd reality. Reality /is/ absurd. We made it that way. It'll take a while to fix it.
I agree that we do see a lot the same way. However, I'm not ignoring the facts, I just premise the best way to approach differently to yourself. For me I premise from the destination. I first decide where we want to go. It really doesnt matter where we are right now, if we dont have a destination in mind. Once you know where you need to be, then you assess where you are relative to where you want to go. It may well be that 'as the crow flies' is not a viable route, however taking an alterative route is ok as long as you know it is a detour and know where the destination is relative to where you are. So to me, I figure out how things should be, where things are relative to how they should be, then what ways are there of getting from where things are to where they should be. It's not that I ignore the how things currently are, but rather where in the reasoning trail I consider them.

As a principle, again, that's fine. However, implementation becomes virtually impossible if you want to respect individual rights and freedoms.
I dont think that it does. I think that the large number of difficulties arise from poor/wrong implementation of good principals, and in many cases total ignorance of good principals.

And obviously we've been talking in circles. I could care less about the principles.
Well we have figured out the difference in our premises it appears. As you can probably see by now, to me the principal is everything, in that it provides a framework that acts as a map to keep us on course to our intended destination. Like all good travellers, you have to be prepared to go around obstacals that arise, if you try to travel as 'the crow flies' the whole way, I dont doubt you'll run into trouble. So to me implementation of principal, isnt about absolute principals in application, but about ensuring that implementation is as consistent with the principals as is viable, (and that compromise is clearly signalled as such), until or unless such principals are 'over-turned' by the society that invested in them. I believe in this way implementation is made practical without risking pragmatic compromise as justification for later un-needed undesirable compromises that ignore the intended principals, and also ensures that people know the principals and so can contest them rationally should they prove unsound, and also ensuring that should some new innovation make certain implementational compromises unnecessary, that such compromises can be readily discerned and dispensed with.

I don't think drug laws should exist. However, they /do/ exist and simply eliminating them would do more harm than good (at least in the short term), so it becomes a moot point to talk about whether they should or shouldn't exist. A more pertinant discussion (the one I mistakingly thought we were having) is how to remove them.
Well the whole point is whether they should exist, and then implementation (of either conclusion). I've gone as far as deciding they should not exist, and have considered some of the problems with implementation. To give a specific scenario of what that might look like in the US, is beyond the scope of my knowledge about the US. But to me that isnt the point until should/shouldnt has been decided. To talk implementation I think goes beyond the scope of the discussion, because it is inter-related with general implementation throughout a system. To talk implementation in even the most limited aspects has already led to off-branches of discussions regarding current laws about cars, social spending, tax methodologies.....
To me that discussion in embedded in a much wider one. We certainly seem to agree on the principal of drug laws not existing, so the first step in discussing implementation would be to consider why (very important for application), then we would need to know where we are currently. I cant comment usefully on implentation in the US particularly outside of limited generalities without more information about the US, than I currently possess.

Hope you enjoy your trip out of town whether it's for business :rolleyes: or pleasure/leisure ;)!

The American Medical Association, Federation of American Scientists, Kaiser Permanente, MS Society, and the New England Journal of Medicine have all endoresed medical pot. Is that enough medical community?

Now try this one on: the danger caused by prohibition is greater than the danger caused by the plant. The loss of civil liberties and the immense tax burden placed on the population to support an unwinable 'war' on a plant is much more of a damage and a danger to us all than the plant itself.

If you don't like bars don't go to one. If you don't like what's on TV, change the channel, if you don't like pot, don't go where people might smoke it. You already have the freedom to not be around drugs or alcohol or poor quality programming, you can leave. But to ban, put punitive restrictions on and persecute those who choose to use a substance takes away freedoms from everyone whether you care to admit it or not.

Argue with this: If you feel recreational drug use is a morality issue, and that people shouldn't be allowed to use drugs recreationally because you feel it is immoral, keep in mind not everyone shares your moral values, and your moral values are no better or worse than mine, just different. I, for one, would rather live in a country where I am free to express my moral or religious values and beliefs, rather than a country where some one else's morals are imposed on me.
1) I've said already that I supported the use of marijuana for medical purposes. My argument was that if the medical community felt that it was safe enough, that it could be available over the counter instead of via prescription.

2) Again, I said that I supported rehab for drug users, not the "war on drugs".

3) Expecting people to either not use a drug or only use it in a certain area where they can use it around people who don't mind and stay there until the effect of the drug has completely worn off is hardly a punitive restriction.

4) As would I. I never once mentioned moral values, as they're relative.

You have never, in your entire adult life, been required to be around someone using drugs.
I admit that I was never required to be around someone using drugs as an adult, but I was a child once.

Yeah, twice of 1% is 2%...not a very convincing figure.
It's more like 10% for jail and 18% for rehab.

Funny, I'm listening to a "If God smoked Cannabis" MP3. :p

2. Prescription drugs can do the same thing, and people are routinely arrested for operating a motor vehicle under the influence of prescription medications. Operating a motor vehicle under the influence of any substance is already illegal and wouldn't change if marijuana was legalized.
But many more people would be driving under the influence of marijuana.

I think some mild drugs should be allowed. I wouldn't want use them but still I Choose my side to be the allowing side... As far as I know they aren't that dangerous... I think there should be reconsidering of the term "drug". Tobacco should be also deleted from the shops if marijuana isn't allowed.

Well that's just my opinion...

1) I've said already that I supported the use of marijuana for medical purposes. My argument was that if the medical community felt that it was safe enough, that it could be available over the counter instead of via prescription.

Then why not at the liquor store? If you can get it over the counter at the drug store, then it's just semantics on where it's sold. Drug store, liquor store; doesn't matter. It's still legal, and that's good.

2) Again, I said that I supported rehab for drug users, not the "war on drugs".

Again, you implied mandatory rehabilitation. What if the person using pot doesn't feel they need to be rehabilitated? What if they just like to get high every now and then? If they hold down a job, pay taxes, and are generally a positive part of the community, and like to get high, why would they need rehabilitation if they are a functioning member of society? Mandatory rehabilitation is still part of the war on drugs. If you a proposing forcing a person into rehab, you're sending them to jail. Just the jail in this case doesn't have bars on the windows.

3) Expecting people to either not use a drug or only use it in a certain area where they can use it around people who don't mind and stay there until the effect of the drug has completely worn off is hardly a punitive restriction.

You're kidding, right? What could be more punitive than forcing people into a specific area where they can be watched because they are engaging in an activity you don't like? Why not just have all the stoners out there sew a big green pot leaf to thier clothes so we can identify them? I am categorically against the singling out and detainment of any minority group. You have just stepped into a major constitutional violation.

4) As would I. I never once mentioned moral values, as they're relative.[/QUOTE]

This is clearly about a difference of moral values, even if you didn't use the phrase moral values. You keep raising the banner of public safety, but if you really wanted a 'safe' society, you'd want to ban the cars and SUV's that kill almost 100,000 Americans every year. You'd also ban all firearms that intentionally or accidentally kill or main another 25,000 people per year, including from the police, because they accidentally shoot themselves and each other much more than the general population. Fried food is dangerous as is alcoholic beverages, both ought to be banned to make the country 'safe'.

Here's why this is about moral values: My personal convictions go like this: I am a responsible adult, and I am willing to take personal responsibility for my own actions and decisions. I probably do things that you find dangerous or unsafe or immoral. You probably do things that I find dangerous or unsafe or immoral. And that my friend is the difference between us: I won't try to ban anything you do that I don't like, I'll tolerate it. Why? Because that's the price of living in a FREE country, sometimes people are going to do or say things you don't like. They're going to worships gods you find distasteful and vote for candidates you hate. And you can either tolerate it, or leave, but like the old Navy flag said --"Don't tread on me!", and I won't tread on you either.

But many more people would be driving under the influence of marijuana.

We already have laws against driving under the influence of alcohol, prescription drugs, and illegal drugs.

This may be redundant based on the previous post, but here goes: in the choice between personal freedom, individual responsibility and accountablilty OR the usurping of liberties in the name of 'safety'. I choose freedom. Or in the words of Ben Franklin:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security"

ok my problem is that it's like prohabition in the 20's, the govt spending money on something that people are going to do anyway... who got rich? the mob did and the all the people involed with trafficking(pretty interesting list of people the father of a pres. for one) decriminalizing pot is not the way to do it either, you still end up with the same situation as prohibition, only by legalization can it be regulated, taxed and so forth. ofcourse you'd have to get the drug companies out of the loop like dupont and his cronies because they are the one's who started all this in the first place.

ofcourse you'd have to get the drug companies out of the loop like dupont and his cronies because they are the one's who started all this in the first place.

You're close, but the people really with the money interest in keeping weed illegal are law enforcement unions (loss of jobs), private prison contractors (loss of revenue due to fewer inmates) and tree growers (because hemp plants grow faster and would cost less than trees meaning less tree growing profits).

Ironically, some of the companies starting to seriously look at legalization are tobacco companies (they'll need a replacement product for cigarettes, even though they deny they are looking at it, they are), oil companies (hemp plants can be used to make a natural oil that can be used for fuel), and, believe it or not, is wood companies. As we run out of trees, we've found we can use hemp or pot plants to make a very durable wood replacement product.

But, sadly, there is appearently more money for jails than there is for clean fuel or renewable wood.

good point and thanks

yes legalise

Then why not at the liquor store? If you can get it over the counter at the drug store, then it's just semantics on where it's sold. Drug store, liquor store; doesn't matter. It's still legal, and that's good.



Again, you implied mandatory rehabilitation. What if the person using pot doesn't feel they need to be rehabilitated? What if they just like to get high every now and then? If they hold down a job, pay taxes, and are generally a positive part of the community, and like to get high, why would they need rehabilitation if they are a functioning member of society? Mandatory rehabilitation is still part of the war on drugs. If you a proposing forcing a person into rehab, you're sending them to jail. Just the jail in this case doesn't have bars on the windows.



You're kidding, right? What could be more punitive than forcing people into a specific area where they can be watched because they are engaging in an activity you don't like? Why not just have all the stoners out there sew a big green pot leaf to thier clothes so we can identify them? I am categorically against the singling out and detainment of any minority group. You have just stepped into a major constitutional violation.

4) As would I. I never once mentioned moral values, as they're relative.

This is clearly about a difference of moral values, even if you didn't use the phrase moral values. You keep raising the banner of public safety, but if you really wanted a 'safe' society, you'd want to ban the cars and SUV's that kill almost 100,000 Americans every year. You'd also ban all firearms that intentionally or accidentally kill or main another 25,000 people per year, including from the police, because they accidentally shoot themselves and each other much more than the general population. Fried food is dangerous as is alcoholic beverages, both ought to be banned to make the country 'safe'.

Here's why this is about moral values: My personal convictions go like this: I am a responsible adult, and I am willing to take personal responsibility for my own actions and decisions. I probably do things that you find dangerous or unsafe or immoral. You probably do things that I find dangerous or unsafe or immoral. And that my friend is the difference between us: I won't try to ban anything you do that I don't like, I'll tolerate it. Why? Because that's the price of living in a FREE country, sometimes people are going to do or say things you don't like. They're going to worships gods you find distasteful and vote for candidates you hate. And you can either tolerate it, or leave, but like the old Navy flag said --"Don't tread on me!", and I won't tread on you either.[/QUOTE]
1) Because liquor would also be banned, and alcoholics sent to rehab. Of course, I am aware of the potential health benefits of a glass of wine a day, and so if the medical community felt that alcohol was beneficial enough to be sold, then it could be sold either via prescription or over the counter as well.

2) Most drug addicts don't feel they need to be rehabilitated. Yes, I realize that most marijuana users aren't addicted, but it's difficult to determine who is addicted and who isn't. If they just like to get high every now and then, then they wouldn't be in rehab for very long. It's highly possible for any type of drug addict to be a functioning member of society. And generally, sending a person to jail is about punishing them, which isn't what I'm proposing.

3) It's not simply because they're engaging in a certain activity that I don't like. It's because of the air pollution that smoking marijuana causes. And people aren't exactly minority groups based upon their hobbies.

4) If someone was willing to take responsibility for their decisions, then they would be willing to go to a place where they can make those decisions without affecting the health of anyone else. If they aren't willing to do so, or can't, then they clearly aren't being responsible.

We already have laws against driving under the influence of alcohol, prescription drugs, and illegal drugs.
Yes, and a full legalization of marijuana would increase the rate of people driving under its influence. Yes, that in and of itself isn't reason enough to not legalize, but it is one reason not to.

It's more like 10% for jail and 18% for rehab.


They are clean after how long?

Yes, and a full legalization of marijuana would increase the rate of people driving under its influence. Yes, that in and of itself isn't reason enough to not legalize, but it is one reason not to.


First of all, I fail to see how the legalizing of marijuana would lead to a dramatic increase in use. Second of all, these people who were not using marijuana out of fear or respect for the law, will now disregard the law and drive under its influence. It is not a logical or persuasive argument.

1) Because liquor would also be banned, and alcoholics sent to rehab. Of course, I am aware of the potential health benefits of a glass of wine a day, and so if the medical community felt that alcohol was beneficial enough to be sold, then it could be sold either via prescription or over the counter as well.

...because the prohibition on alcoholic beverages worked so well the last time around. Are you a communist or something? Are you seriously suggesting that a bottle of Sam Adams or a bottle of Bordeaux, or a nice woody Chardonnay require a prescription? Or sold at a drug store? What are you proposing about bars and restaurants that serve beer and wine? Are they going to be required to have a pharmacist on staff?

2) Most drug addicts don't feel they need to be rehabilitated. Yes, I realize that most marijuana users aren't addicted, but it's difficult to determine who is addicted and who isn't. If they just like to get high every now and then, then they wouldn't be in rehab for very long. It's highly possible for any type of drug addict to be a functioning member of society. And generally, sending a person to jail is about punishing them, which isn't what I'm proposing.

If you are separating people from their families and homes and work, you ARE punishing them, whether there are bars on the doors or not. Period. If a person is a functioning member of society, then why would they need rehabilitation?

3) It's not simply because they're engaging in a certain activity that I don't like. It's because of the air pollution that smoking marijuana causes. And people aren't exactly minority groups based upon their hobbies.

Air pollution? Are you serious? Air pollution? Drive an electric car. Ride a bicycle. Install solar panels. Are you willing to do any of those? This discussion is about the legalization of marijauna so that adults of legal age can do so without the threat of violence or arrest. If one of the best 'public safety threats' you can muster is 'air pollution', then I will consider it a victory for the legalization movement. Air pollution? :confused:

4) If someone was willing to take responsibility for their decisions, then they would be willing to go to a place where they can make those decisions without affecting the health of anyone else. If they aren't willing to do so, or can't, then they clearly aren't being responsible.

You missed the point. You're suggesting that people, who are clearly in the minority, go to a place where they can be singled out and monitored. Those places are called internment camps. That's not freedom. That's the opposite of freedom. That's not what the America I live in is supposed to be about. Personal reponsibility and accountability doesn't mean no rights and no privacy. Freedom also means not having do-gooders or the government trying to babysit me or save me from myself.

Two side notes: the real Jello Biafra, former lead singer of the Dead Kennedy's, is an ardent Green Party supporter, and one of the Green Party's platforms is the legalization of marijauna for personal use and cultivation, and the commutation of all persons currently serving sentences for marijuana possession.

2nd note: of all of the countries that have either decriminalized or legalized marijuana for adults, not a single one has seen a rise in usage or in a rise in substance related accidents. Most however, have seen crime rates drop, and expenses for enforcement of a ban on a harmless and helpful plant freed up for more constructive uses. Some have even seen the usage rates of marijauna decline after decriminalization has been enacted.

You got nothin', my friend. Nothin.

First of all, I fail to see how the legalizing of marijuana would lead to a dramatic increase in use. Second of all, these people who were not using marijuana out of fear or respect for the law, will now disregard the law and drive under its influence. It is not a logical or persuasive argument.

Thank you!! I could not have said it better!! :cool:

Thanks Roach :D


Jello,

All this talk about sending people to rehab, most of whom aren't addicts, makes my spine tingle. It sounds like a reeducation camp to impose some sort of 'right' way of thinking.

Most drug addicts don't feel they need to be rehabilitated. Yes, I realize that most marijuana users aren't addicted, but it's difficult to determine who is addicted and who isn't.
Actually no one is addicted to marijuana, it's not an addictive substance.

Yes, as long as every other natural plant that is currently banned from being grown by citizens is made legal.

I've never smoked marijuana, but I've been around a lot of people who do, and from all indications that I have seen a pothead is much less of a danger to society than a drunk.

I'm all for legalisation of all drugs for the use of responsible adults, regardless of their intensity or effect, with appropriate, mandatory education about the drug's immediate and long-term effects (and no, I'm not talking about propoganda like Reefer Madness ;) ).

Actually no one is addicted to marijuana, it's not an addictive substance.False. I personally know someone who is.

First of all, I fail to see how the legalizing of marijuana would lead to a dramatic increase in use. Second of all, these people who were not using marijuana out of fear or respect for the law, will now disregard the law and drive under its influence. It is not a logical or persuasive argument.
There are plenty of people who don't use marijuana simply for the reason that it isn't legal. And are you going to tell me that it has never led someone to make a bad decision?

Jello,

All this talk about sending people to rehab, most of whom aren't addicts, makes my spine tingle. It sounds like a reeducation camp to impose some sort of 'right' way of thinking.
Ah, yes, the "slippery slope" argument.

False. I personally know someone who is.

Clarification: It is not a PHYSICALLY addictive substance, it is however psychologically addictive.

...because the prohibition on alcoholic beverages worked so well the last time around. Are you a communist or something?

If you are separating people from their families and homes and work, you ARE punishing them, whether there are bars on the doors or not. Period. If a person is a functioning member of society, then why would they need rehabilitation?

Air pollution? Are you serious? Air pollution? Drive an electric car. Ride a bicycle. Install solar panels. Are you willing to do any of those? This discussion is about the legalization of marijauna so that adults of legal age can do so without the threat of violence or arrest. If one of the best 'public safety threats' you can muster is 'air pollution', then I will consider it a victory for the legalization movement. Air pollution? :confused:

You missed the point. You're suggesting that people, who are clearly in the minority, go to a place where they can be singled out and monitored. Those places are called internment camps. That's not freedom. That's the opposite of freedom. That's not what the America I live in is supposed to be about. Personal reponsibility and accountability doesn't mean no rights and no privacy. Freedom also means not having do-gooders or the government trying to babysit me or save me from myself.

2nd note: of all of the countries that have either decriminalized or legalized marijuana for adults, not a single one has seen a rise in usage or in a rise in substance related accidents. Most however, have seen crime rates drop, and expenses for enforcement of a ban on a harmless and helpful plant freed up for more constructive uses. Some have even seen the usage rates of marijauna decline after decriminalization has been enacted.

Obviously the prohibition of alcoholic beverages didn't work very well the last time around, because they did it too quickly, and because they had everyone quit cold turkey. It should be similar to the way they're banning cigarettes now. First, they have non-smoking sections of restaurants. Then they ban it in all workplaces. Etc.
Actually, I'm an anarcho-socialist. (If you want to know how I reconcile those beliefs with my anti-drug beliefs, I'll tell you, but it's a whole side issue.)

There are plenty of reasons that a person would need rehab other than they're not functioning members of society. They could be violently abusive under the influence of a drug. (I'm not talking about marijuana here, I realize that that's not a side effect of it.)

Yes, I'm willing to drive an electric car and install solar panels. I haven't done so simply because I can't afford to. As far as the air pollution goes, you've heard of a "contact buzz" haven't you?

Do you feel that having a non-smoking section of a restaurant is somehow violating the personal freedom of people who wish to smoke cigarettes?

Of course those countries haven't seen a rise in use, their cultures are different.

Clarification: It is not a PHYSICALLY addictive substance, it is however psychologically addictive.Fair enough, agreed.

So why isn't it legal at all in America? In some states, the death penalty is applicable for possession of an ounce or more.

Ok dude, inquiring minds want to know. Which states in America kill you if you have an ounce of weed? If you have an ounce of cocaine, do they sentence you to life, then kill you? Even worse... PCP! They sentence you to life, make you perform community service, and then kill you!

Sometimes you feel like you should be surprised, but you just aren't.

Over 100 million Americans have at one time or another experimented with marijuana.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

i would say the figure is more like 300 million but too many of us were stoned and paranoid at the time of the poll to answer truthfully

Marijuana should be legalized for medical and industrial (hemp) purposes. However, it should not be legalized for recreational purposes. Recreational drug users should be put into rehab, which is a more effective and more humane way of dealing with drug abuse than jail is. This should be extended to include alcohol and nicotine. Caffeine, too, if it's that big a deal to people.
This way, we could deal with the public safety issue that is drug abuse, but without having to have the hypocrisy and waste that is "the Drug War".

firstly u should really change your name if this is your opinion.

secondly, take that mormon sounding crap elsewhere...decriminalization and/or legalization is the only viable solution to the wasting of untold millions of tax payers dollars

Cannabis and Alcohol have about the same likelihood of causing badness.....I dont agree.

We live in a world that is trying to help people rid themselves of the addictions to cigarettes & alcohol. Legalizing another substance to
that can harm people is a step backwards and benefits nothing. I do
believe in the legalization of hemp, as then there would be no need
to destroy trees for paper or animals for clothing. I would also consider
the pharmaceutical use of marijuana. But to allow people to abuse a
drug openly would be the same as ignoring drunk drivers.


have u not been reading the thread?
marijauna is NOT addictive like alcohol and nicotine in the physical sense. PERIOD. hence no abuse

curiously what animals are u killing for clothes, nauga's? not many people wear fur anymore(it's not PC) and leather, well americans eat plenty of beef so there is no shortage of that hide. i personally wear cotton and wool, one of which is a plant and the other is sheared off the animal, hence no killing.

at least u are aware that hemp can be turned into a variety of textiles including paper and cloth, incidentally, at a cost much cheaper than either cotton or wood pulp. so kudos to u for that point!

concerning the deforestation of the world see related article
http://forestry.about.com/cs/treeplanting/a/pot_hemp_pulp.htm

Are you kidding me? That was made in the ole days with ridiculous accusitions that aren't even true about marijuana...IT WILL KILL YOU! That movie was plain negative propoganda and shouldn't be used as any basis for an argument.

And, if you will notice, a LOT of movies from that time havve a lot of people smoking cigarettes... Are you telling us that cigarettes are harmless and a ittle weedi s gonna make people go psychotic?? I mean, frig, people will stand out in -20C (I'm Canadan, BTW) weather to puff a fag, but I don't see anyone freezing their asses off outside with a bong!

I also have a physical disabilty and marijuana actually stops my tremors. Let's see a cigarette do THAT.

Forget legal. Pot should be mandatory. Especially for Republicans.

Marijuania is less dangerous then coffee, it's shear insanity that it is illegal.

Coffee contains the addictive stimulent caffeine and over 800 other chemicals, including 16 known to cause cancer yet it remains legal.

Alcohol has an intoxication to overdose ratio of between 4 and 10, meaning it takes 400% to 1000% of an intoxicating dose to cause a possibly fatal overdose. THC has an intoxication to overdose ratio of 40 000, meaning it takes 40 000 times as much to overdose then to get high, this is why no one has ever died of a marijuania overdose.

Coffee contains the addictive stimulent caffeine and over 800 other chemicals, including 16 known to cause cancer yet it remains legal.

Whoa...

*puts down coffee cup*

Ugh, i'll just stick to the no-doz.

Oh, wait...contains caffeine.

Goddamnit. :mad: How am I supposed to stay awake towards my now-standard 5 AM bedtime now?!?! Guess i'll just get stoned and go to sleep :p

Whoa...

*puts down coffee cup*

Ugh, i'll just stick to the no-doz.

Oh, wait...contains caffeine.

Goddamnit. :mad: How am I supposed to stay awake towards my now-standard 5 AM bedtime now?!?! Guess i'll just get stoned and go to sleep :p

*steals your coffee*

Bleh, I don't even like coffee...

*snort* There, now I'm awake. o.o

False. I personally know someone who is.
I assure you, that you cannot know someone who is addicted to a non-addictive substance.

Clarification: It is not a PHYSICALLY addictive substance, it is however psychologically addictive.

There is technically no such thing as 'psychologically, but not physically addictive', simply because addictive refers to a type of physical dependence. It doesnt make sense to say 'psychologically but not physically, physical dependence.

Basically a person can be 'psychologically addicted' to hand washing, but most of us understand that soap and water and not addictive. The same goes for cannibas. It has no addictive properties in the medical sense, and is no more 'addictive' than soap.

They are clean after how long?For life.

Ok dude, inquiring minds want to know. Which states in America kill you if you have an ounce of weed? If you have an ounce of cocaine, do they sentence you to life, then kill you? Even worse... PCP! They sentence you to life, make you perform community service, and then kill you!

I assume that he's talking about Newt Gingrich attempt (in 1996,as speaker of the house) to apply the death penalty to anyone who brought more than 2 ounces of pot into the states. The bill was defeated.

Intresting enough, 15 years earlier Gingrich introduced a bill to legalise the medical use of marijuna

Obviously the prohibition of alcoholic beverages didn't work very well the last time around, because they did it too quickly, and because they had everyone quit cold turkey. It should be similar to the way they're banning cigarettes now. First, they have non-smoking sections of restaurants. Then they ban it in all workplaces.

They've banned cigarettes, but there are many upscale restaurants that have added humidors and smoking rooms for cigars. That's not a good example of a ban. Smoking is alive and well in restaurants, it's just moved up in price.

There are plenty of reasons that a person would need rehab other than they're not functioning members of society. They could be violently abusive under the influence of a drug. (I'm not talking about marijuana here, I realize that that's not a side effect of it.)

But, it they're a functioning member of society, not abusive or having other problems that are already against the law (i.e. being abusive or violent, or unproductive/unemployed) why would they need rehabilitation? If a person goes to work everyday, does a good job, and is a positive influence or benefit to thier community, again, why would they need rehabilitation? Aren't they already able? This is clearly a moral concern of yours, when you feel, and you clearly feel and not reason this issue, in that you don't seem to think that a person could be able to enjoy the altering effects of a given substance, and still be a functioning and responsible member of society at large.

Yes, I'm willing to drive an electric car and install solar panels. I haven't done so simply because I can't afford to. As far as the air pollution goes, you've heard of a "contact buzz" haven't you?

I've heard of a contact buzz. But that's an urban legend at best. I've been to Grateful Dead concerts and have not been able to get a 'contact high'. It doesn't happen. Try again. The concentration needed of second hand smoke needed to get a person high would require a room with less ventilation than health codes for restaurants would allow.

Do you feel that having a non-smoking section of a restaurant is somehow violating the personal freedom of people who wish to smoke cigarettes?

You can't confuse courtesy to customers and a civil right, it doesn't work that way. Restaurants provide smoking and non-smoking sections in order to attract and keep customers. If customers who do not smoke stopping going to a restaurant because of the atmosphere, the restaurant would start losing business, and possibly go under. Conversely, restaurants that did not accomodate their tobacco using guests, that might cause the establishment to go out of business as well. So, no having a non-smoking section does NOT violate anyone's personal freedom, it actually guaruntees the freedom of people who smoke to smoke and the people who don't a place not to.

Of course those countries haven't seen a rise in use, their cultures are different.

What? Western democracies that have a prominently Anglo-Saxon Judeo-Christian population base? That doesn't wash, dude. You're trying to state that we're dramatically different than our European, Canadian or Australian allies?

You keep speaking as if you have some moral authority in keeping the population safe, or as if you have more wisdom or experience in wide ranging sociological issues. You don't. What you are trying to do is impose a moral code and lifestyle on people who don't want it. The people who are happy smoking weed or the people who have religious beliefs stemming from the use of marijuana don't need rehabilitation. When you accept the fact there are people who don't believe as you do, and when you garner the tolerance to let them live as they want to live, then you will understand what we call freedom.

They've banned cigarettes, but there are many upscale restaurants that have added humidors and smoking rooms for cigars. That's not a good example of a ban. Smoking is alive and well in restaurants, it's just moved up in price.

I've heard of a contact buzz. But that's an urban legend at best. I've been to Grateful Dead concerts and have not been able to get a 'contact high'. It doesn't happen. Try again. The concentration needed of second hand smoke needed to get a person high would require a room with less ventilation than health codes for restaurants would allow.

What? Western democracies that have a prominently Anglo-Saxon Judeo-Christian population base? That doesn't wash, dude. You're trying to state that we're dramatically different than our European, Canadian or Australian allies?

You keep speaking as if you have some moral authority in keeping the population safe, or as if you have more wisdom or experience in wide ranging sociological issues. You don't.
All right, how about the ban on cigarette advertising on television?

Well, I can't say I've ever gotten a "buzz" as it seems to imply a pleasant feeling, but I've been in the same room with someone who was smoking marijuana and it certainly had an effect on me.

Granted, this was the opinion of someone of an earlier generation, so it's conceivable that things have changed now, but about ten years ago, people were asking my German teacher (she was from Germany) what it was like to have underage drinking. She said that it wasn't really all that popular, because the kids that did drink were looked down on as "bad". Here, however, the kids that are thought of as "bad" are looked up to by their peers. Americans can't get enough of hellraisers, the more scandalous, the better.
Another reason that marijuana usage rates may have gone down in those countries, is, as the poster from the Netherlands said, the government usually supplied marijuana that was of inferior quality than people wanted.

How do you know?

Being from the Netherlands I say they might as well legalise it, it's already completely tolerated and if they legalise it at least they can tax the hell out of it.

Another reason that marijuana usage rates may have gone down in those countries, is, as the poster from the Netherlands said, the government usually supplied marijuana that was of inferior quality than people wanted.

How do you know?

Firstly, I'm not from the Netherlands. Secondly, there was an article in the Times a couple of months ago about the situation regarding cannabis in the Netherlands. Being the cynic I am, and not trusting any publication owned by Rupert Murdoch, I decided to find out more, only to discover that, for once, the Times' journalists had done some decent research. But I'm still not sure whether the price figures I gave were accurate.
But, usage rates barely dropped at all - maybe by 5% at the most.


Over 100 million Americans have at one time or another experimented with marijuana.

If this figure drops by 5%, that would still make 95 million Americans....about a third of the population. So if the government did decide to supply cannabis, the effect on usage rates would be negligible.

V. good idea.

/giggles

All right, how about the ban on cigarette advertising on television?

That's a different issue. It's still not illegal to smoke, and tobacco cigarettes are much more dangerous that pot. Let me restate: pot is one of the least pharmacologically active substances you can ingest.

Well, I can't say I've ever gotten a "buzz" as it seems to imply a pleasant feeling, but I've been in the same room with someone who was smoking marijuana and it certainly had an effect on me.

What effect did it have? Was it bad? Why didn't you just leave?

Granted, this was the opinion of someone of an earlier generation, so it's conceivable that things have changed now, but about ten years ago, people were asking my German teacher (she was from Germany) what it was like to have underage drinking. She said that it wasn't really all that popular, because the kids that did drink were looked down on as "bad". Here, however, the kids that are thought of as "bad" are looked up to by their peers. Americans can't get enough of hellraisers, the more scandalous, the better.
Another reason that marijuana usage rates may have gone down in those countries, is, as the poster from the Netherlands said, the government usually supplied marijuana that was of inferior quality than people wanted.

I can tell you one of the biggest differences, they don't bullshit their kids the way we bullshit ours. When you tell a kid that marijauna will kill them, make them do crazy things, commit crimes, etc. Then they find out it doesn't, you've lost all credability and authority you might have had. When executives in this country get away with collapsing a Fortune 500 company, causing thousands upon thousands of people to lose their jobs and life savings and having their political connections save them (Enron, Ken Lay isn't going to jail). When half of this country does NOT support the actions of its government, and when these officials are engaging in what can only be considered criminal activity, kids notice. When you show children these kinds of actions and events, and that there are no repercussions, what do you really expect? You can't say it's OK for a kid to listen to Ashlee Simpson, and then punish them for cheating on a test.

Again, this is a moral and subjective opinion, and whatever you don't like should be outlawed. Not everyone thinks or feels the same way you do, so by trying to get the government to ban things you don't like, you're imposeing your morals onto the rest of us. That's the opposite of freedom. If I don't have the option to choose, that's not really free, now is it?

How do you know?

I don't, that's why I don't go around advocating bans on things I don't understand.

That's a different issue. It's still not illegal to smoke, and tobacco cigarettes are much more dangerous that pot. Let me restate: pot is one of the least pharmacologically active substances you can ingest.

What effect did it have? Was it bad? Why didn't you just leave?

I can tell you one of the biggest differences, they don't bullshit their kids the way we bullshit ours. When you tell a kid that marijauna will kill them, make them do crazy things, commit crimes, etc. Then they find out it doesn't, you've lost all credability and authority you might have had. When executives in this country get away with collapsing a Fortune 500 company, causing thousands upon thousands of people to lose their jobs and life savings and having their political connections save them (Enron, Ken Lay isn't going to jail). When half of this country does NOT support the actions of its government, and when these officials are engaging in what can only be considered criminal activity, kids notice. When you show children these kinds of actions and events, and that there are no repercussions, what do you really expect? You can't say it's OK for a kid to listen to Ashlee Simpson, and then punish them for cheating on a test.

Again, this is a moral and subjective opinion, and whatever you don't like should be outlawed. Not everyone thinks or feels the same way you do, so by trying to get the government to ban things you don't like, you're imposeing your morals onto the rest of us. That's the opposite of freedom. If I don't have the option to choose, that's not really free, now is it?
That's true, cigarettes are still legal, but my point was that it seems as though they're slowly being made illegal.

The first time I did leave somewhat quickly, but the second time I was at a concert.

I have to agree, I think that people should be honest with their children about drugs. They say "don't take this, it won't feel good" and then if their children succumb to peer pressure and do, it will feel good, and they'll think their parents were lying about drugs.

I fully support the idea of putting the issue to a vote, either by state, nationally, by county, by city, etc.

This isn't really relevent to my argument, as aside from the secondhand smoke, I never really argued about the effect that marijuana has, but there is a lot of propaganda out there about it. How much of it is true? Is it a gateway drug? Does it kill your brain cells and shrink your testicles?

Yes.

I fully support the idea of putting the issue to a vote, either by state, nationally, by county, by city, etc.

It has been up for a vote in several states, and places where medical pot laws have been passed, the Feds have come in and stomped on what the population of that state has voted for.

This isn't really relevent to my argument, as aside from the secondhand smoke, I never really argued about the effect that marijuana has, but there is a lot of propaganda out there about it. How much of it is true? Is it a gateway drug? Does it kill your brain cells and shrink your testicles?

This is relevant. There are a lot of dangerous things in society that are not outlawed, but just because they are dangerous, doesn't mean they should be banned. Just because you don't like them, doesn't mean they should be or remain banned. Propaganda is the American way these days. There's no proof that pot is a gateway drug. It is, however, a very useful plant that could solve some of the agricultural, environmental and energy problemsthis country faces. It is unfortunate, in my opinion, that it remains illegal due to the puritan notion that if it causes any type of intoxication or mood elevation, then it should be banned. Most conservatives in this country are afraid that somebody, somewhere, might be having a good time.

Is it a gateway drug? Does it kill your brain cells and shrink your testicles?

Having used pot socially for the last few years, and not having gone onto anything else (though I've tried 'shrooms once, and never again), I'd say no to the first question.
I haven't noticed any deterioration in any of the things that pot is meant to affect, such as short-term memory, and concentration. So, although it probably does differ from person to person, it doesn't seem to have had this effect on me.
And no, it doesn't shrink your testicles. That is, excuse the pun, bollocks.

I really annoys me when some anti-drug sites try to "present to the facts."

"Can." "May." "Has been associated."
I laughed outloud when one section was simply prefaced with "One study showed ..."

Having used pot socially for the last few years, and not having gone onto anything else (though I've tried 'shrooms once, and never again), I'd say no to the first question.
I haven't noticed any deterioration in any of the things that pot is meant to affect, such as short-term memory, and concentration. So, although it probably does differ from person to person, it doesn't seem to have had this effect on me.
And no, it doesn't shrink your testicles. That is, excuse the pun, bollocks.Fair enough. Are there any negative effects of marijuana that I haven't mentioned that you've had?

I really annoys me when some anti-drug sites try to "present to the facts."

"Can." "May." "Has been associated."
I laughed outloud when one section was simply prefaced with "One study showed ..."
THE TRUTH! :p

Weed will make your balls shrivel, your brain explode, and you will DIE. :D

Just like you could die from throat cancer from smoking all those cigarettes, or die slamming into a van containing 1 mother and 4 kids. Seems a pretty flimsy reason for making it illegal. It wont kill you, stupidity will. It's those people that cant handle being high that are the risk. People get stupid while drinking but we still allow it, and it is far less likely that you will do something stupid while high. The only reason that it is illegal is because of the cotton and timber industries as it can be used for paper and clothing. Politics do play a role in the demonization of pot and alot of pothead liberals have blamed the conservatives. Im a conservative, and a stoner. You cant just say to hell with a party because of one thing it doesnt endorse. It's not the conservatives fault that pot is illegal. If people weren't so naive then they might realize that politicians make alot of money from different industries and you cannot sit there and tell me that democrats do not get paid off in one form or another. And im tired of people still trashin on Bush. Get over it. He's your president whether you like it or not. Were Kerry to win that election I would have shut up about him. I would have gotten over it. Anyway, pot should be legal because it is no more harmful than tobacco and though it may distort your sense of time that is about it, but this goes strictly for the people who can handle it and someone who cant is a rare thing. For some reason its usually really skinny people who freak out or act stupid. Take my take on this topic as truth because i am a stoner and ive seen every different type of smoker whether it be heavy, light, stupid, cool, quiet,silly, you name it, ive seen it

The Republicans want to put additional penalties on drug use.

The Democrats are pussies and support current regulations, or slightly reduced penalties.

Only the Greens and Libertarians have the balls to support outright legalization.

Fair enough. Are there any negative effects of marijuana that I haven't mentioned that you've had?

The only negative effect I've ever had from using pot was when I (and others) decided to make chocolate hash brownies, and I threw up. I'd put that down to the taste more than anything else. Please, people, don't try this. It's a waste of good pot.

I thought that in many states it was technicaly legal to use and sell, but that you are required to obtain a license, which of course they will not provide. I think this dates back to the days when states could not make up thier minds if it should be legal or not, so put this system in place so it could accomodate either.

I thought that in many states it was technicaly legal to use and sell, but that you are required to obtain a license, which of course they will not provide. I think this dates back to the days when states could not make up thier minds if it should be legal or not, so put this system in place so it could accomodate either.
I've never heard of that. That would be interesting, though.

I've never heard of that. That would be interesting, though.
Would search the web for reference but as I'm at work, better not!

http://www.jackherer.com/

that should be good

Fair enough. Are there any negative effects of marijuana that I haven't mentioned that you've had?

Dry mouth, red eyes, and a desire to giggle and have fun.

It has been up for a vote in several states, and places where medical pot laws have been passed, the Feds have come in and stomped on what the population of that state has voted for.


Oregon's medical marijuana has never been hassled by the feds I think mainly due to the faithfull system they have in place. Besides a initial dealing with the dhs there is no government involvement and no buy, sale depots. The problem I do see with it, is the faith is completly left to the patients to find other honorable patients to 'share' (free) cuttings, clones or seeds in order to get started. As long as you find sharing and non greedy, unselfish people, it does work.



Some people with trash that was going to be taken to the dump (cost money), would charge someone that came up and wanted to take it off their hands.

Oregon's medical marijuana has never been hassled by the feds I think mainly due to the faithfull system they have in place. Besides a initial dealing with the dhs there is no government involvement and no buy, sale depots. The problem I do see with it, is the faith is completly left to the patients to find other honorable patients to 'share' (free) cuttings, clones or seeds in order to get started. As long as you find sharing and non greedy, unselfish people, it does work.

But California's has.

Oregon's system is a not for profit. California is all about profit. I believe most of the states that have medical marijuana are for profit. Profit should not stand in the way of medication of any kind.