NationStates Jolt Archive

come on. lets do it. they are fine in canada, netherlands, and amsterdam. wtf.

The Netherlands AND Amsterdam legalized pot? Wow.

The Netherlands AND Amsterdam legalized pot? Wow.

:D

There is absolutly no reason what-so-ever TO legalize it. Except maybe 'IM ADDICTED TO IT AND IT MAKES ME FEEL EVEN MORE DUMB THAN I ALREADY AM! YAY!'

netherlands, and amsterdam
Damn, Specoli'd right out of the gate.

We really, really have to pay enough attention so as not to end up as the oppositions argument, man...

*exhaling*

What?

There is absolutly no reason what-so-ever TO legalize it. Except maybe 'IM ADDICTED TO IT AND IT MAKES ME FEEL EVEN MORE DUMB THAN I ALREADY AM! YAY!'

Brilliant. You speak out of your ass often?

they are fine in canada
Um, no it isn't... Small amounts have been "decriminalized", and they just fine you, which is still total bullshit and an injustice.

If I have enough beer in my fridge to put me in the hospital, it is perfectly within what should be my rights to do so. But kaya? No....

Drugs should be legal, all drugs. It is noone elses buisness what someone puts in their body.

*passes it left*

What?

*starts giggling*

There is absolutly no reason what-so-ever TO legalize it. Except maybe 'IM ADDICTED TO IT AND IT MAKES ME FEEL EVEN MORE DUMB THAN I ALREADY AM! YAY!'

Legalize it.

Pro's:

Anyone who wants it, can get it already. Its not hard.
The government can tax it, and make money off of it.
Civil liberties are strengthened.
Using similar alcohol laws, it can be banned in certain places/at certain times(driving, etc).
Cheaper for the people who want it.
Money not wasted on drug war.
People cant live well as a drug dealer, at least not with weed.

Cons:

Exaggerated health risks

Personally i would agree with de-criminalizing it due the cost on state of constantly prosecuting and raiding houses for it, but is dependant on the amount held.

At the end of the day, no matter where i go i see pot heads and no punishment, so if you cannot catch everyone; why not just educate better on known effects and tax the hell out of it.

if it's not illegal for some thats half the fun gone.

*passes it left*

What?

*starts giggling*

hehehhehe
LOL
ROFL
ROFLMAO

Wait man, what's so funny? Aw fuck it, let's get some McDick's.

Legalize it.

Pro's:

The government can tax it, and make money off of it.


I shudder whenever I see this point. If it's regulated and sold by the gummit, like booze, they'll tax it to hell and gone.

You see how expensive alcohol and cigarettes are? How about gasoline? Do you want your weed, the one remaining cheap pleasure in life, to go that route as well?

Cons:

Exaggerated health risks
Lazier working class
Larger bureaucracy to deal with

Personally i would agree with de-criminalizing it due the cost on state of constantly prosecuting and raiding houses for it, but is dependant on the amount held.

At the end of the day, no matter where i go i see pot heads and no punishment, so if you cannot catch everyone; why not just educate better on known effects and tax the hell out of it.

if it's not illegal for some thats half the fun gone.

Good call. Obviously attempts at inforcing the ban are failing miserably, and there are no more severe adverse effects in marijuana than in legal substances like alcohol or tobacco, so why continue to make it illegal?

Lazier working class
Larger bureaucracy to deal with

Larger bureaucracy?

I find it endlessly ironic that many of the ridiculously far left that is running around from city to city making cigarette smoking in public basically an illegal activity are trying to make marijuana legal immediately in it’s wake :rolleyes:

Damn, Specoli'd right out of the gate.

We really, really have to pay enough attention so as not to end up as the oppositions argument, man...
dude, that's totally not my fault.

the other day, i was talking about weed and said amsterdam was a city. then my friend said, "no its a country", and im like, "what", and he's like, "damn, you didnt know amsterdam was a country?!"

and.. i just assumed it was true. what an asshole. i shouldve bet him money.

I find it endlessly ironic that many of the ridiculously far left that is running around from city to city making cigarette smoking in public basically an illegal activity are trying to make marijuana legal immediately in it’s wake :rolleyes:

Why? Are they trying to make it legal to smoke in public? As far as I know, smoking marijuana in public would be just as illegal as smoking tobacco in public. Perhaps you should re-examine the meaning of the word "ironic".

dude, that's totally not my fault.

the other day, i was talking about weed and said amsterdam was a city. then my friend said, "no its a country", and im like, "what", and he's like, "damn, you didnt know amsterdam was a country?!"

and.. i just assumed it was true. what an asshole. i shouldve bet him money.

Was your friend stoned?

I shudder whenever I see this point. If it's regulated and sold by the gummit, like booze, they'll tax it to hell and gone.

You see how expensive alcohol and cigarettes are? How about gasoline? Do you want your weed, the one remaining cheap pleasure in life, to go that route as well?
Yeah, I never buy that one either. If it's legal then I'm growing my own, or still getting it from the same guy because I trust him more than Phillip Morris.

Either way, I'm not getting it through the government. The financial benifit is that the government doesn't have to expend all those resources to hunt down pot smokers.

Legalize it.

Pro's:

Anyone who wants it, can get it already. Its not hard.
The government can tax it, and make money off of it.
Civil liberties are strengthened.
Using similar alcohol laws, it can be banned in certain places/at certain times(driving, etc).
Cheaper for the people who want it.
Money not wasted on drug war.
People cant live well as a drug dealer, at least not with weed.

Cons:

Exaggerated health risks


Well some of the health risks are decently weighty but it is every persons right to take their health into their own hands (as long as its not in public places where it endangers me ) I am cool with it

Larger bureaucracy?
You will need an organization to monitor it, tax it, and all kinds of other bullshit if the government is to regulate it.

Yeah, I never buy that one either. If it's legal then I'm growing my own, or still getting it from the same guy because I trust him more than Phillip Morris.

Either way, I'm not getting it through the government. The financial benifit is that the government doesn't have to expend all those resources to hunt down pot smokers.

Perhaps, but there will be thousands if not millions of casual smokers who will not want to go through the hassle of growing their own herb just because they can. People still shell out cash for cigarettes rather than grow their own tobacco because they want to pay for the convienence. The government will be able to profit from the sale of marijuana.

Was your friend stoned?
no

Um, no it isn't... Small amounts have been "decriminalized", and they just fine you, which is still total bullshit and an injustice.
injustice? hahahaha... dude, it's like a 20 dollar ticket.
quit yer whining. AT LEAST YOU FINALLY GOT YOUR INDEPENDENCE FROM BRITAIN!

You will need an organization to monitor it, tax it, and all kinds of other bullshit if the government is to regulate it.

But isn't there endless bureaucracy devoted to keeping it illegal?

But isn't there endless bureaucracy devoted to keeping it illegal?
no. just make the ATF be in charge of it, just like alcohol or tobacco.

no

Are you sure? :D That seems like a pretty dumb thing for him to be telling people.

and the DEA can be in charge of enforcing the laws, just as always, with big-time illegal dealers.

People cant live well as a drug dealer, at least not with weed.


Actually, according to Freakonmics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, most drug dealers live with their parents. Most make about $3.50 an hour (less than minimum wage) and they have a 25% chance of being shot on the job. The truth is, only a small minority of drug dealers make big money.

Actually, according to Freakonmics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, most drug dealers live with their parents. Most make about $3.50 an hour (less than minimum wage) and they have a 25% chance of being shot on the job. The truth is, only a small minority of drug dealers make big money.
nah, man. its more than a "small" minority. i knew a guy who bought a car with weed money. and i know another guy who used to buy pounds (from d.c. and also he grew some too)

Actually, according to Freakonmics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, most drug dealers live with their parents. Most make about $3.50 an hour (less than minimum wage) and they have a 25% chance of being shot on the job. The truth is, only a small minority of drug dealers make big money.

That was refering to an isolated group of crack dealers.

Perhaps, but there will be thousands if not millions of casual smokers who will not want to go through the hassle of growing their own herb just because they can. People still shell out cash for cigarettes rather than grow their own tobacco because they want to pay for the convienence. The government will be able to profit from the sale of marijuana.

But those casual smokers already get their dope from a well-established illegal network. If the gov't were to suddenly legalize it and open official stores (kinda like liquor control boards), people would still be able to get it from their friendly neighbourhood dealer.

Why go to the store if it's more expensive?

It is the considered opinion of His Royal Lowness Rod Almighty that citizens are responsbile for what they put in their bodies.

If breakfast is three egs and a pound of bacon, don't come crying to me when you have a heart attack. I've had one, and if you'd still rather eat at Waffle House, that's your problem.

Likewise, whether you get polluted on a quart of gin every night, smoke pot on Friday or snort cocaine to enhance your performance in some crappy job, whatever benefits or consequences are on you.

Likewise if your anti-inflammatory medicine has a nasty habit of causing heart attacks and strokes. If it's the only non-narcotic that works for you and you don't want to be sleepy from Vicodins, decide whether you prefer a possibly short but functional life, or a somewhat longer one where you're in a fog from the synthetic morphine.

And I don't stop at medical uses. In the Theocracy of Rod Almighty, if you want to use anabolic steroids, narcotic painkillers, potent amphetamines or high-power laxatives, it's up to you. If it's for medical reasons, fine, but if you just get a kick out of the way laxatives make you feel, go for it. Or smoke a rock of crack if you like, no one cares.

As long as you don't commit real crimes like stealing or killing people to support your vice, this is a free-drug country.

But isn't there endless bureaucracy devoted to keeping it illegal?
Which will stick around anyway even if marijuana is legalized. They will still need to keep harder drugs from entering the country.

So, you are creating new departments to monitor the prices and safety of it. It is nice in that it will create more jobs, but it makes the government larger in the process.

nah, man. its more than a "small" minority. i knew a guy who bought a car with weed money. and i know another guy who used to buy pounds (from d.c. and also he grew some too)

Hmm, was this immediate, or did he start out making under minimum wage?

Which will stick around anyway even if marijuana is legalized. They will still need to keep harder drugs from entering the country.

So, you are creating new departments to monitor the prices and safety of it. It is nice in that it will create more jobs, but it makes the government larger in the process.

Oh, in my Theocracy, there is no government department to regulate the quality, quantity or even existence of any drug you buy. If you're buying aspirin or crack, either trust your source or invest in some testing equipment. The government here won't jail you for using, but we're not going to hold your head while you puke or do any other silly babysitting.

nah, man. its more than a "small" minority. i knew a guy who bought a car with weed money. and i know another guy who used to buy pounds (from d.c. and also he grew some too)
Dude-don't answer statistical info with, "I know this one guy..."

First-Satistics stated allow for two people you've met to be successful. In fact, minorities remain minorities even after you've met them.

Second-It's exactly the same bullshit we have to deal with. "Every stoner I know is some brain dead hacky-sacker listening to Phish and talking about 'the colors...'" That says nothing other the person that they met is that way.

Tellin' ya man. We have to be careful.

If the stastic seems suspect look at the statistic, how it was gathered, what methods where used, who paid for it, etc. "I totally know this dude..." just proves that you totally know that dude. And it doesn't even do that well.

But those casual smokers already get their dope from a well-established illegal network. If the gov't were to suddenly legalize it and open official stores (kinda like liquor control boards), people would still be able to get it from their friendly neighbourhood dealer.

Why go to the store if it's more expensive?
at stores, it would end up being cheaper. even IF it's taxed, it would cost the same as tobacco or less. 20 joints for 5 bucks or a pack of cigars for $3.50. Well, those are the cigarette prices around here, anyway.

It depends how liberally you use the word drug dealer. If a drug dealer is anyone who sells drugs whatsoever, I can see that being true.

All I'm saying is, a long time friend of mine sells, and makes pretty nice money. He sells a lot, and has many connections. You dont make money by selling tiny amounts to a few people.

He sells a lot, and has many connections. You dont make money by selling tiny amounts to a few people.

I guess that’s true. Just like any business, the people who work hard will make money, but like in any other business most of the people involved are incompetent and lazy.

That was refering to an isolated group of crack dealers.

That would explain why they where selling so little then ;-)

On topic:
In the Netherlands, marijuana is still illegal. We do however allow limited possesion, 5 grams per individual and 500 grams for dealers. Dealers, the legal ones, are controlled and monitored. There is still significant illegal distribution.

Growing is still completely illegal. Which has given us the "stuff paradox". You can smoke it, sell it (incl. paying taxes) but you can't grow or process it.

Additionally, 500 grams for a dealer is not enough. Eith the 10 - 20 (or more) types of stuff they typically sell, you can't get a decent purchase.

All in all, the current situation is not ideal and they are luckily discussion the possibility to go legal. But this will not happen.

Why not? I hear you thinking. Well, because of international treaties and 'relationships'.

Maybe in another 50 years.

Lazier working class
Larger bureaucracy to deal with
Unions, fast food, and Wal-Mart al contribute to a lazier working class. It's a social issue, and if government did more about, we would complain that they were infringing on our civil rights. Besides, the working class has always been lazy, just like the independantly wealthy and other non-working classes. It's just that they want the benefits of working.

Unions, fast food, and Wal-Mart al contribute to a lazier working class. It's a social issue, and if government did more about, we would complain that they were infringing on our civil rights. Besides, the working class has always been lazy, just like the independantly wealthy and other non-working classes. It's just that they want the benefits of working

To summarize, everyone is lazy! :p

Legalize it.

Pro's:

Anyone who wants it, can get it already. Its not hard.
The government can tax it, and make money off of it.
Civil liberties are strengthened.
Using similar alcohol laws, it can be banned in certain places/at certain times(driving, etc).
Cheaper for the people who want it.
Money not wasted on drug war.
People cant live well as a drug dealer, at least not with weed.

Cons:

Exaggerated health risks
more Pro's:

* A seperation of casual cannabis users from the potentially dangerous criminal element of pushers and dealers - breaking the "gateway drug" effect.

* Higher quality/safer hash for the tokers out there, due to enforcable quality and health & safety controls - currently much hash can have all sorts of nasty shit in, like wood shavings, rubber (apparently :confused: ) and rat poisons :eek:

* Through regulation of taxes, in normal fiscal policy, the amount of weed people use can be controlled rather than just leaving it in the hands of money-grabbing dealers, from who its not exactly hard to get weed as it is now, and who would much rather make more money out of you through selling you heroin and coke anyway

* legalisation or decriminalisation allows valuable police time to be spent more constructively going after dealers and hard drugs

Basically, we should be allowed to do what we like to ourselves, as long as we do not harm or inconvienience others. However, at the same time the NHS should use hard-hitting anti-whatever adverts. You don't want a sudden increase in brain-damaged, cancer-suffering people in hospitals.

This should also be applied to smoking and drinking.

Um, no it isn't... Small amounts have been "decriminalized", and they just fine you, which is still total bullshit and an injustice.

If I have enough beer in my fridge to put me in the hospital, it is perfectly within what should be my rights to do so. But kaya? No....

Drugs should be legal, all drugs. It is noone elses buisness what someone puts in their body.
Let's hope your parents didn't have the same attitude before they had you. ;)

I think it should be legalised. Even though that I have never done it before, and never will.

Legalise it, but also make sure it's available in 'raw' non-cigarette form so that those of us who want to 'eat our greens' don't get cancer!

Cons:

Exaggerated health risks

Proven psychological alterations especially if smoked when the brain is still developing. Paranoia

The Netherlands AND Amsterdam legalized pot? Wow.

Yes, there's nothing like a post by an American.

Proven psychological alterations especially if smoked when the brain is still developing. Paranoia
keyword: "brain still developing"

So your fight against it is because it is bad for kids under 21? Well Who would legalize it for anyone under 21 or 18 anyway? Nice politician logic, but ommon sense voids it. Pot would not be legal for teenagers if it was legalized

There is absolutly no reason what-so-ever TO legalize it. Except maybe 'IM ADDICTED TO IT AND IT MAKES ME FEEL EVEN MORE DUMB THAN I ALREADY AM! YAY!'

It seems like not smoking pot has made you stupid. -.-

Exagerated health risks are no reason to deny adults the right to put what they like into their bodies. Especially when not allowing them to do so doesn't stop them, and generates a huge black market of people to supply them. Government ought to cash in eventually.

Ihatevacations']keyword: "brain still developing"

So your fight against it is because it is bad for kids under 21? Well Who would legalize it for anyone under 21 or 18 anyway? Nice politician logic, but ommon sense voids it. Pot would not be legal for teenagers if it was legalized
and it would be easier to restrict access to teenagers if it were legal & shops sold it. i mean dealers couldn't give a shit, but gaurenteed more shopkeepers will.

There is absolutly no reason what-so-ever TO legalize it. Except maybe 'IM ADDICTED TO IT AND IT MAKES ME FEEL EVEN MORE DUMB THAN I ALREADY AM! YAY!'Being an addict, wouldn't you like to eliminate the risk of spending years in prison?

I think this is a good idea. Living in the uk and following the continuing debate over what sould be done about this drug and it's classification (in case some of you do not know the uk have moved it down a class so that it is deemed the same as perscription drugs) I think it would be a lot simpler if it were legal, as well as all other drugs. If it were legalized then the country could benifit from the tax implications which could help to cover costs of rehab centres and provide clean areas with free disposable apparatus for those who require it i.e. syringes. This also would mean that anyone who does have a habit can get there hit in a safe place at where they are not in the clutches of undesirable people, can be monitered by health visitors / nurses.
This by no means that it would become a place to 'score' at anytime, but would be regulated on how much can be 'taken' within a certain time period.

And besides all that, it would make gettin some a whole lot easier!

I find it endlessly ironic that many of the ridiculously far left that is running around from city to city making cigarette smoking in public basically an illegal activity are trying to make marijuana legal immediately in it’s wake :rolleyes:I find it sad that you think those are the same people. :(

Ihatevacations']keyword: "brain still developing"

So your fight against it is because it is bad for kids under 21? Well Who would legalize it for anyone under 21 or 18 anyway? Nice politician logic, but ommon sense voids it. Pot would not be legal for teenagers if it was legalized

it is in Holland
And it still causes paranoia if over used but in moderation it isn't as harmful as some things that are legal.

and it would be easier to restrict access to teenagers if it were legal & shops sold it. i mean dealers couldn't give a shit, but gaurenteed more shopkeepers will.

Agreed

You will need an organization to monitor it, tax it, and all kinds of other bullshit if the government is to regulate it.
Then the government shall not regulate it at all.

At the end of the day be it illegal/legal, Class A/B/C/.../X/Y/Z. If peeps want to smoke it they can and will. Just like in the UK tobacco can only be sold to 16+ and alcohol to 18+ but i still see 8 yr old kids swigging vodka and puffing on a box of 20 B&H. It dont make a difference.
What it comes down to is EDUCATION, if people are informed of the dangers, it is distributed through sensible means and people still choose to do it than the govenment have done all that a govenment can without becoming totaltarian.
Anyway have you ever seen 2 stoned peeps fight... i havent (unless alcohol is involved).
I was recently at the Download Festival for 3 days of hard rocking and saw plenty of smoking going on and not once ounce of trouble. Medical risks aside (alcohol and smoking abuse are the biggest drain on the NHS in the UK). Let the people do as they wish. If its really that bad then we'll see it eventualy.

Most all of the health risks are only for extremely heavy use. Anything is dangerous with extremely heavy use.

And pot is not addictive, that's a medical fact.

Most all of the health risks are only for extremely heavy use. Anything is dangerous with extremely heavy use.

And pot is not addictive, that's a medical fact.

Spoken like a true addict!

Spoken like a true addict!
pot is not addictive. i smoked every day for about 2 years till about 2 months ago. since then i've smoked 1 joint, and have i felt any ill effects or withdrawal symptoms? have i craved a J? no i have not - and neither has anybody else who smokes weed, either occasionally or 24/7. it is not chemically addictive.

it is mildy psycologically addictive - as in pot it pleasurable, so you like doing things you enjoy and want to do them again. in that way, its about as addictive as eating chocolate :rolleyes:


i mean in my 2 months off it, i've had plenty of times when i've been stressed (or bored ;)) and i've said to myself "i could so do with a joint right now"... but because its not addictive i felt no convulsion that i had to go get some

3.8 GPA, 1450 SAT (old scale), was accepted to all the colleges applyed to, including St. John's in Annapolis, which accepts less than 100 freshmen nationwide, Black Belt, Eagle Scout, got that award thingie for over 320 community service hours ( graduated with about 500, not including Eagle Porject, which I spent about 157 hours my self on, which totaled to 544 hours).

Pot user.

Let's hear it for broken steriotypes :D

What doesn't make sense to me is why marijuana is illegal but cigarettes aren't. Cigarettes contain a hell of a lot more toxic stuff (including benzene, xylene, formaldehyde, radioactive polonium, acetaldehyde...) and are almost always addictive (with a substance more addictive than heroin), without any concievable health benefit.

Marijuana has real health benefits and is only rarely addictive, but is illegal. It seems marijuana should be legal and cigarettes illegal. Legalize it and tax it is what I say.

Why? Are they trying to make it legal to smoke in public? As far as I know, smoking marijuana in public would be just as illegal as smoking tobacco in public. Perhaps you should re-examine the meaning of the word "ironic".

San Francisco; Cigarette smoking banned. San Francisco; attempts to insert legal Marijuana blocks in the city...

October 10, 2004 • The city of San Francisco is considering one of the most prohibitive smoking bans of any city in the country. The proposal would extend current bans on smoking outdoors. NPR's Tara Siler reports.
MAY 09, 2005
San francisco Marijuana day
Pot smokers of san francisco, united to protest against the current laws that make marijuana smoking illegal. the party protest was much fun. People relaxing and roaming around with banners and selling tshirts, there was some post pot art too.

I’ll stick by the word, Irony. :p

pot is not addictive. i smoked every day for about 2 years till about 2 months ago. since then i've smoked 1 joint, and have i felt any ill effects or withdrawal symptoms? have i craved a J? no i have not - and neither has anybody else who smokes weed, either occasionally or 24/7. it is not chemically addictive.

it is mildy psycologically addictive - as in pot it pleasurable, so you like doing things you enjoy and want to do them again. in that way, its about as addictive as eating chocolate :rolleyes:


i mean in my 2 months off it, i've had plenty of times when i've been stressed (or bored ;)) and i've said to myself "i could so do with a joint right now"... but because its not addictive i felt no convulsion that i had to go get some

I'm the same. Use it as a person who drinks alcohol (as I don't), may use the occasional glass of wine as a wind down at the end of a hard day. i believe everyone should be entitled to do, take, say anything they want. If it hurts or harms them it is their fault. I dont like having people tell me what I can and can't do, it's my body/mind/soul not some old public school boy who know lectures on what the whole country should be doing. In my world I'd be giving everyone in parliment an ASBO as these are the people who alienate everyone in our society at one time or another!

he ment it's not the same people. Both groups are "lefties" but it is not the same accual people doing it.

San Francisco; Cigarette smoking banned. San Francisco; attempts to insert legal Marijuana blocks in the city...




I’ll stick by the word, Irony. :p

Irony would be if the same people who are trying to ban smoking in public were the ones trying to legalize marijuana, and were trying to legalize smoking marijuana in public. They're not, so it's not ironic.

Irony would be if the same people who are trying to ban smoking in public were the ones trying to legalize marijuana, and were trying to legalize smoking marijuana in public. They're not, so it's not ironic.

I've met too many people who are exactly both.

As for me, I don't believe the government should be in the business of telling people what they should and should not drink/ingest/smoke.

come on. lets do it. they are fine in canada, netherlands, and amsterdam. wtf.
Such smart people here who feel they can run a nation, ey?

See, this is the problem with teh world, dumb people think they know all and ruin the nations and the world with stupid tactics to get more power..

What will become of this world...

What doesn't make sense to me is why marijuana is illegal but cigarettes aren't.
Cigarettes have an official industry with lots of cash and know whose pockets to put it in

At the end of the day be it illegal/legal, Class A/B/C/.../X/Y/Z. If peeps want to smoke it they can and will. Just like in the UK tobacco can only be sold to 16+ and alcohol to 18+ but i still see 8 yr old kids swigging vodka and puffing on a box of 20 B&H. It dont make a difference.
What it comes down to is EDUCATION, if people are informed of the dangers, it is distributed through sensible means and people still choose to do it than the govenment have done all that a govenment can without becoming totaltarian.


well, id totally agree with you in theory, but living in Holland i can tell you:
we get loads of education on the risks, even what it feels like, what different kinds of drugs there are, what they contain, what the pleasure of them is, besides that "its not good for you"
well, people walk out the class and light another joint in breaktime, theres no stopping, the only sort of "education" which would work in my opinion, is how youve brought up, in my case: (including sigarettes) i was thought that its not teh most normal thing and i dont feel the urge to do it, but if i ever come along and would like to try, sure i will, but at least then ill know to not overdo it, and to do it in safe places...

The purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who are governed.

There is only one real right. The right to do whatever the hell you want so long as it does not interfere with anyone else's right to do whatever the hell they want.

Therefore, the manufacture, sale, and use of all drugs should be a protected right in all circumstances except when the user puts others in danger, namely while driving.

Drugs should not be taxed any more than any other substance. The fact that a substance has a neurological or any other effect on humans is totally unrelated to the need of a government to tax things, so a reverse favoritism is illogical in this case.

In the United States, only alcohol is treated this way.

No wonder its the only drug industry that isn't horribly corrupt, inefficient, and intentionally deadly to it's consumers.

Irony would be if the same people who are trying to ban smoking in public were the ones trying to legalize marijuana

i think smoking - of cigarettes and pot - should be banned from public places, and that weed should be legalised. i basically want to bring the legal status of marijuana up to that which tobacco holds today, or a slightly more regulated equivalent anyway. and then on top of that prevent smoking in public places.

so its not ironic, really - they are two pretty much unrelated issues




to put it simply (and avoid having to spell it out like this later):
* the health risks associated with tobacco use and marijuana use are on a par, to the best of my knowledge. not identical, but similar.
* therefore i would like to see marijuana enjoy the same legal status as its counterpart leaf, although with more regulation and possibly higher taxes (the price should never go above the street price)

* secondary/passive smoking is a health risk to those who do not choose to take that risk (by intentionally smoking stuff). especially true to children
* smoking can ruin a public place - especially restaurants - for non-smokers: smoke smells, tastes bad (ruins food), is unsightly, and makes many people cough and many others' eyes water. why should this majority have to put up with this?
* therefore i would like to see smoking, of any variety, banned in public places - with the exception of bars/pubs/clubs

* you should be free to inhale whatever you want in the comfort of your own home (but i do still think hard drugs should be policed... the government, for the most part, knows more about drugs than you do, so these "the government has no right to tell me what to put in my body" arguements don't hold sway over me... but then that's a different debate isn't it ;))


as you can see, quite unrelated issues

Therefore, the manufacture, sale, and use of all drugs should be a protected right in all circumstances except when the user puts others in danger, namely while driving.


So the legalization of drugs is only a means to further public transportation?

Damn hippies!!!! :D


btw: I'm smoking a J right now :eek:

btw: I'm smoking a J right now :eek:
good for you dude! fight the man! :cool:

heh, i'm saving my (meagre) stash for a blow-out on friday night... can't wait ;)

Pot should be legalized and treated exactly the way alcohol is treated. Where you can use it. Not while driving, etc. There's really no difference except you drink one and you smoke the other.

"lets legalize marijuana"
Lets not and say we did- imagine how many drug dealers, owners, and manufacturers we could catch!

Legalize it.

Pro's:

Anyone who wants it, can get it already. Its not hard.
The government can tax it, and make money off of it.
Civil liberties are strengthened.
Using similar alcohol laws, it can be banned in certain places/at certain times(driving, etc).
Cheaper for the people who want it.
Money not wasted on drug war.
People cant live well as a drug dealer, at least not with weed.

Cons:

Exaggerated health risks

That's pretty much what I was going to say. It also helps stop misconceptions. Teachers currently exaggerate "Oh my god, it's going to make you a loser dropout who is impotent and mugs old ladies to pay for your habit!!!!!" (which also makes people think it's not as bad as it is when they find out they've been lied to). Maybe people will be told the truth straight out if it was legal.

And of course, it's none of the government's business what you do, frankly.

which also makes people think it's not as bad as it is when they find out they've been lied to...
which is another reason why its a gateway drug... this great evil that everyone's always said will wreck your life isn't so bad... actually its kinda cool.... i wonder what all those other drugs are like..........


at least thats how it is with myself and friends (in fact all the pot smokers/drug users i know, really)

which is another reason why its a gateway drug... this great evil that everyone's always said will wreck your life isn't so bad... actually its kinda cool.... i wonder what all those other drugs are like..........


at least thats how it is with myself and friends (in fact all the pot smokers/drug users i know, really)


I actually used meth before I smoked hash and used meth every weekend for a year. I quit back in 2000. All in all I used meth for 4 years. But then, because of the comprehensive drug education we have in Denmark, I was aware the meth was a dangerous drug. But I accepted the risks.

I quit because I didn't want to rot my brain. Have only been smoking hash/skunk and occationally eating mushrooms since.

But those casual smokers already get their dope from a well-established illegal network. If the gov't were to suddenly legalize it and open official stores (kinda like liquor control boards), people would still be able to get it from their friendly neighbourhood dealer.

Why go to the store if it's more expensive?Liquor is only sold like that in oppressive states like Utah. I can buy Everclear at the grocery store.

Let's try Chellis' approach to this with another illegality: murder.
Legalize it.

Pro's:

Anyone who wants it, can do it already. Its not hard.
The government can tax it, and make money off of it--murder liscenses!
Civil liberties are strengthened--to those doing the killing at least.
Using similar murder laws, it can be banned in certain places/at certain times(driving, etc).
Cheaper for the people who want it--weapons prices should go down.
Money and time not wasted on homicide investigations--they have speeders to look out for too, donchaknow.

Cons:

Exaggerated health risks

Let's try Chellis' approach to this with another illegality: murder.
Legalize it.

Pro's:

Anyone who wants it, can do it already. Its not hard.
The government can tax it, and make money off of it--murder liscenses!
Civil liberties are strengthened--to those doing the killing at least.
Using similar murder laws, it can be banned in certain places/at certain times(driving, etc).
Cheaper for the people who want it--weapons prices should go down.
Money and time not wasted on homicide investigations--they have speeders to look out for too, donchaknow.

Cons:

Exaggerated health risks


Emotional appeal ...
difference is one hurts only yourself really (assuming non public area's) the other assumes interfering with anothers life

Not to mention the MASSIVE flaw in that anaylogy (By very deffinition murder can NEVER be legal)
Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of another human

As such it can never be legal

Let's try Chellis' approach to this with another illegality: murder.
Legalize it.

Pro's:

Anyone who wants it, can do it already. Its not hard.
The government can tax it, and make money off of it--murder liscenses!
Civil liberties are strengthened--to those doing the killing at least.
Using similar murder laws, it can be banned in certain places/at certain times(driving, etc).
Cheaper for the people who want it--weapons prices should go down.
Money and time not wasted on homicide investigations--they have speeders to look out for too, donchaknow.

Cons:

Exaggerated health risks
Damn you illogic, you beat me again, but I will catch you one day.. ONE DAY!

Emotional appeal ...
difference is one hurts only yourself really (assuming non public area's) the other assumes interfering with anothers life

Not to mention the MASSIVE flaw in that anaylogy (By very deffinition murder can NEVER be legal)
Murder is the ILLEGAL killing of another human

As such it can never be legal

Point taken. So let's make it "killing of others" instead.

Point taken. So let's make it "killing of others" instead.
Now that is theoredicaly possible

Again though one is (while causing harm to ones self) the other is causing harm to others ...

Now that is theoredicaly possible

Again though one is (while causing harm to ones self) the other is causing harm to others ...

True. I could get into the whole schpeal on how addictions like this force some to do drastic things to satisfy that addiction, sometimes harming others to accomplish this, but that would just make things messy and instead give the point to you.

Although, legalizing of killing does bring up a question: why is suicide illegal? If smoking, drinking, and drug-abusing are all health hazards and causing harm to ones self and are legal, why isn't suicide?

True. I could get into the whole schpeal on how addictions like this force some to do drastic things to satisfy that addiction, sometimes harming others to accomplish this, but that would just make things messy and instead give the point to you.

Although, legalizing of killing does bring up a question: why is suicide illegal? If smoking, drinking, and drug-abusing are all health hazards and causing harm to ones self and are legal, why isn't suicide?
Im not sure ... though it has been argued religous influance (how it is frowned upon in a lot of the majors ... specialy without a cause)

While I think suiciede is a definate sine of emotional trouble and atempted suicide should come with some manditory therapy I am not sure it should be illigal

It can be argued(at least the case of clinical depression or bi poler) that the person is not truly in a copetent frame of mind to make the decision to end their life
(it tends to get real complicated)

there is a difference between drug use and drug abuse.

And the health risks of death are not exadurated, you are dead.

Besides, pot is to self, killing is to others, negates your whole point.

Drugs should be legal in private. You should have the right to do whatever you want to your own body. But drugs should be illegal in public places where you can harm somebody while under the influence.

though i am a pothead, i say do NOT legalise it. why?
gov. would tax the hell out of it. plus the strength would be regulated and you would probably have to pay over triple the price now to get decent stuff.

though legalising it would take a bit off the taboo factor, it would just be more costly for me in the end.

though i am a pothead, i say do NOT legalise it. why?
gov. would tax the hell out of it. plus the strength would be regulated and you would probably have to pay over triple the price now to get decent stuff.

though legalising it would take a bit off the taboo factor, it would just be more costly for me in the end.
thats what the black market is for... the govt couldn't tax the price above the street cost or everyone will go back to buying it from dealers, as they do currently

in this way the govt would have to keep the price at least equal to, or below, the street price; at least for the short to medium term (until the illegal weed-trading infrastructure dissolves)