NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you favor legalizing marijuana in the U.S.A.? Why?


Sorry about the spelling error in the poll :(

I'm not a citizen of the US, so it's not really my place to have voted, but I did anyway.

I voted yes. There are dozens of reasons, some of which I've mentioned in past threads about this subject on NSG. The overriding reason, however, is that I simply can't see one single legitimate (to me) reason for its cultivation, possession or use, to be criminalised. Not one.

i favor removing the means of abusing any legal system that banning the possion of anything creates.

there are many things far more dangerous and harmful then pot, that are perfectly lawful, or at least only tokenly controlled.

for relatively innocent canabis to be so severely bludgeoned, is a legal absurdity of proportions more mind boggling then the efects of far more potent substances.

=^^=
.../\...

Yeah, tax the hell out of it and give it the same legislation as alcohol (don't drive and toke and stuff like that).

Honestly, I don't know.

On one hand is the very strong argument that if you're stupid enough to use it, and you're an adult, then not only are you going to use it no matter what I say, but by what right should I be able to say thee nay?

On the other hand, there are health issues involved with it (Hmm, second hand smoke from MJ, I wonder...) and, honestly, I do NOT like the idea of any substance that changes someone's mental abilities because sometimes it leads to very bad situations.

So... no idea.

Honestly, I don't know.

On one hand is the very strong argument that if you're stupid enough to use it, and you're an adult, then not only are you going to use it no matter what I say, but by what right should I be able to say thee nay?

On the other hand, there are health issues involved with it (Hmm, second hand smoke from MJ, I wonder...) and, honestly, I do NOT like the idea of any substance that changes someone's mental abilities because sometimes it leads to very bad situations.

So... no idea.

you don't have to like something to not make it a means and excuse for abusing whatever legal system there might have to be. you can still ban its sale, mass production or wholesale importation, without perpetuating the obsurdity of banning possession, which invites, virtually requires, unreasonable searches and ceasures, but even more damingly, creates opportunities for politically and otherwise motivated vendetta to victomise the innocent, by fraiming them by planting something on them.

that's my concern with any and all bans on mere possession of anything.

yes i think people are idiots to empaire their judgement, reguardless of what substances or whatever other methods they might use to do so, reguardless of how lawful or unlawful they might by, or how perminently harmful they might or might not be.

i just think we're bigger idiots to create this opportunity for legal abuse that banning possession of anything provides.

=^^=
.../\...

Tricky, i mean marijauna has environmental issues of chopping down lots of rainforest in South America namely Columbia, costs a lot of money for police to track down the dealers, has negative effects on your health, and legalisation is haphazard accross the globe, (see wiki...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World-cannabis-laws.png),

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) for health issues).
however legalising it might reduce crime and the underground business.
So to be honest i'm not sure, so i'd keep it illegal but not heavily enforced.

I'd say legalise it, then there is less pressure on other nations who would considered legalising it. It would have been decriminalised in Canada if the US wasn't so obsessed with us making it legal.

With it being legal, you reduce the black market's income, you get rid of the dealers and allow for people to trade openly.

In time, legality would lower demand. Many people smoke not for the high, but because it makes them feel rebellious.

I support the legalisation of cannabis. It's not doing any1 else harm except perhaps through second hand smoke and under such an argument only the smoking would be banned and tobacco smoking be banned properly as well. Harm to the user is minimal if at all, especially compared to tobacco and alcohol which are legal.

I certainly don't think it should be legal but unenforced because laws should be there to be enforced and because without the laws, the place would be worse.
Honestly, I don't know.

On one hand is the very strong argument that if you're stupid enough to use it, and you're an adult, then not only are you going to use it no matter what I say, but by what right should I be able to say thee nay?Stupid? What's stupid about it?

Saint B: I don't know any1 like that.

Stupid? What's stupid about it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and_the_effects_of_cannabis

woooah, i think i would make marijauna illegal if i based my view on that source. mmmm

Legalize it. Mary jane is less addictive than alcohol or cigarettes, and while it may contain more tar than tobacco, you don't chain smoke pot. And if you use a bong, then there's no tar at all.

I answered no.

Full legalization would be extremely bad considering the implications it would have concerning DUI and OTOH tobacco legislation: We don't want or need another alcohol or cigarette.

I'm in full favour of decriminalizing possession and for limited legalization of it...As long as I don't have to involuntarily suffer the side-effects - smell, traffic dangers, underage use and abuse - I'm ok with tha weed.

So, basically you'd be in favor of it being legal, but with restrictions similar to alcohol? yes?

woooah, i think i would make marijauna illegal if i based my view on that source. mmmm
Well, being bad for you doesn't make the best argument for legality or not (After all, Twinkies ain't all that great either) but that is what I base my stupid comment on.

I answered no.

Full legalization would be extremely bad considering the implications it would have concerning DUI and OTOH tobacco legislation: We don't want or need another alcohol or cigarette.

I'm in full favour of decriminalizing possession and for limited legalization of it...As long as I don't have to involuntarily suffer the side-effects - smell, traffic dangers, underage use and abuse - I'm ok with tha weed.

Sure, why not. I'd probably try it again if it were legal.

yes, cuz then it would be eaier to push for it here. although i think the law is more relaxed here regarding marijuana anyway.

yes it should be legal and everyone should be encouraged to grow their own.

its an anti-terrorism measure.

yes it should be legal and everyone should be encouraged to grow their own.

its an anti-terrorism measure.

P1) Terrorism is bad it kills lots of people
P2) People dieing is bad
P3) bring in laws to stop terrorism
C) anti-terrorism measures are a good thing

is that roughly what you're arguing? i can see a few issues with that.

No, there is absolutely no reason to. Medical marijuana is like medical whiskey.

P1) Terrorism is bad it kills lots of people
P2) People dieing is bad
P3) bring in laws to stop terrorism
C) anti-terrorism measures are a good thing

is that roughly what you're arguing? i can see a few issues with that.

*shocked look*

you have a PROBLEM with being against terrorism??

So, basically you'd be in favor of it being legal, but with restrictions similar to alcohol? yes?

Stricter.

I wouldn't want marijuana smoked in a place where innocent bystanders or children are in a position to suffer from direct side-effects (namely passive smoking), like most public places or apartments.

Some sort of café type solution would be ideal, perhaps combined with special permits for persons and families having a closed space for smoking or living in an "isolated" home.


Mind you, I would like some of these rules to apply to cigarette smoking too. :p

Honestly, I don't know.

On one hand is the very strong argument that if you're stupid enough to use it, and you're an adult, then not only are you going to use it no matter what I say, but by what right should I be able to say thee nay?

On the other hand, there are health issues involved with it (Hmm, second hand smoke from MJ, I wonder...) and, honestly, I do NOT like the idea of any substance that changes someone's mental abilities because sometimes it leads to very bad situations.

So... no idea.

Do you have an argument against marijuana that is not also an argument against alcohol or tobacco? If not then marijuana should be legal.

why bother when you can legalize meth?

No, there is absolutely no reason to. Medical marijuana is like medical whiskey.

Um, no. Marijuana is the most potent anti-nausea drug available in the US and has less side effects than anything that a doctor outside of California can prescribe.

I personally know several people who would not be alive today if not for medicinal use of marijuana.

And even if that were not the case, Whiskey is legal, so why should marijuana be banned?

why bother when you can legalize meth?

Maybe if they did that I could have the good Benedryl again.

The government has no right to say wether Americans can smoke the Gange.

P1) Terrorism is bad it kills lots of people
P2) People dieing is bad
P3) bring in laws to stop terrorism
C) anti-terrorism measures are a good thing

is that roughly what you're arguing? i can see a few issues with that.

I think what he's saying is:
P1) Terrorists get their funding from selling drugs.
P2) Terrorists can only get into the drug market because legitimate businessmen have been banned from it.
C) Terrorists would have less funding if those drugs sold legally.

Of course, the problem with that is they get their funding selling heroin, not from selling weed.

*shocked look*

you have a PROBLEM with being against terrorism??

Well i don't mind stopping bad things but other things must be remembered too.

P1) Terrorism is bad it kills lots of people
What is the definition of terrorism? What happens if it escalates into civil war, and you need another country to help you, when does it stop being terrorism and start becoming war.
P2) People dieing is bad
In most cases, but pointing to "Saddam Hussians" execution some people deserve to die.
P3) bring in laws to stop terrorism
That's fine, but you could spend ages leafing through a huge textbook on what is terrorism, and what isn't. E.g. Suicide bombers must be imprisoned, snipers should be imprisoned, a group of people firing rifles at another group of people firing rifles should be imprisoned, however this is what i'm getting at, a country that sends armed forces to stop terrorism could be viewed (by it's own definition) as terrorists, they have rifles, they have bombs, sure other countries keep tabs on them but that's not going to stop innocent people killed.
C) anti-terrorism measures are a good thing
To an extent, if they infringe on individual freedoms, and cost huge amounts of money and attacks still happen it could be argued to increase chances of terrorist activity because an increase in taxes would be required to bring in the new measures, or potential for economic issues may arise. However it stops potential terrorist activity, but proving this can be a problem.

So to conclude yes Terrorism is a bad thing, but properly defining what it is can bring in problems.
I'm not arguing for terrorism i'm arguing for individual freedom's, and potential political issues that can be started, than can, ironically increase numbers of terrorist attacks by the very measures brought in to stop them.

Does that make sense? I suppose i'm arguing an abstract point.
Anyway i've got work to do so i can't post for a while.

I do NOT like the idea of any substance that changes someone's mental abilities because sometimes it leads to very bad situations.

Bad people do bad things, stupid people do stupid things. Drugs dont make you do stupid shit, if you would of done it anyway

I really don't care.

I'm still not going to use it. My neurosurgeon still won't be able to operate on my brain while under it's influence. I'm still more interesting than any drug.

:)

Do you have an argument against marijuana that is not also an argument against alcohol or tobacco? If not then marijuana should be legal.

you make the assumption that we would legalize such things in this day and age

Maybe if they did that I could have the good Benedryl again.

I why stop there, lets see how Pepsi compete when Coke lives up to its name :D

Legalise it but put large duties on it and make stringent laws as to its use. Still slightly unsure on the issue, since a lot of people become pretty docile and also extremely irritating when smoking it.

That said, at least people don't really get into fights when they're stoned, unlike alcohol.

Keep it to enclosed areas like the cafés in Holland, and don't let people smoke it in the street, because if people don't want to take it in, they shouldn't have to simply because of people being inconsiderate.

Well i don't mind stopping bad things but other things must be remembered too.

P1) Terrorism is bad it kills lots of people
What is the definition of terrorism? What happens if it escalates into civil war, and you need another country to help you, when does it stop being terrorism and start becoming war.
P2) People dieing is bad
In most cases, but pointing to "Saddam Hussians" execution some people deserve to die.
P3) bring in laws to stop terrorism
That's fine, but you could spend ages leafing through a huge textbook on what is terrorism, and what isn't. E.g. Suicide bombers must be imprisoned, snipers should be imprisoned, a group of people firing rifles at another group of people firing rifles should be imprisoned, however this is what i'm getting at, a country that sends armed forces to stop terrorism could be viewed (by it's own definition) as terrorists, they have rifles, they have bombs, sure other countries keep tabs on them but that's not going to stop innocent people killed.
C) anti-terrorism measures are a good thing
To an extent, if they infringe on individual freedoms, and cost huge amounts of money and attacks still happen it could be argued to increase chances of terrorist activity because an increase in taxes would be required to bring in the new measures, or potential for economic issues may arise. However it stops potential terrorist activity, but proving this can be a problem.

So to conclude yes Terrorism is a bad thing, but properly defining what it is can bring in problems.
I'm not arguing for terrorism i'm arguing for individual freedom's, and potential political issues that can be started, than can, ironically increase numbers of terrorist attacks by the very measures brought in to stop them.

Does that make sense? I suppose i'm arguing an abstract point.
Anyway i've got work to do so i can't post for a while.

i suppose you ARE making an abstract point

im making a concrete point

taking the importation of marijuana away from the various drug cartels is a win/win for the US.

less money for them, more high for us.

why bother when you can legalize meth?
Because whilst the face-mask business would be making muchos money, the Poor Man's Crack also fucks people up in the head.

I why stop there, lets see how Pepsi compete when Coke lives up to its name :D
Having tried it in Marocco, Pepsi is lame compared to proper Coca-Cola.

Stricter.

I wouldn't want marijuana smoked in a place where innocent bystanders or children are in a position to suffer from direct side-effects (namely passive smoking), like most public places or apartments.

Some sort of café type solution would be ideal, perhaps combined with special permits for persons and families having a closed space for smoking or living in an "isolated" home.


Mind you, I would like some of these rules to apply to cigarette smoking too. :p

That, I would have no problem with myself.

Bad people do bad things, stupid people do stupid things. Drugs dont make you do stupid shit, if you would of done it anyway

you can be fundamentally bad now :confused:

I'm still more interesting than any drug.

even chocolate?!

at least people don't really get into fights when they're stoned, unlike alcohol.

*nods* prison guards turn a blind eye to marijuana because it makes the job so much easier

Because whilst the face-mask business would be making muchos money, the Poor Man's Crack also fucks people up in the head.

like Ritalin isn't already? :p

Having tried it in Marocco, Pepsi is lame compared to proper Coca-Cola.

Pepsi is just lame anyway though however how you ended up trying illegal coke-cola intrigues me

*nods* prison guards turn a blind eye to marijuana because it makes the job so much easier
Quite.
like Ritalin isn't already? :p
The level of facial fucked-up-ness is lots lower, and Ritalin is given as a vaguely legitimate cure for ADHD. Although tobacco would be cheaper and would cause less damaging of the brain. But there we go.
Pepsi is just lame anyway
Better than Coke neat, worse as a mixer.
though however how you ended up trying illegal coke-cola intrigues me
Because it isn't banned in Marocco.

Bad people do bad things, stupid people do stupid things. Drugs dont make you do stupid shit, if you would of done it anyway

I do stupid shit when I take drugs, does that make me stupid in general?

I don't really care whether it's legalised or not, as I still wouldn't use it and I doubt rates of use would change all that much as a result.

Michael Faraday, on justifying electricity to William Gladstone:
One day sir, you may tax it.

Although tobacco would be cheaper and would cause less damaging of the brain. But there we go.

is that why all the smart kids smoke?

Better than Coke neat, worse as a mixer.

so its you with the terrorism

I do stupid shit when I take drugs, does that make me stupid in general?

...

I don't really care whether it's legalised or not, as I still wouldn't use it and I doubt rates of use would change all that much as a result.

nor would I, come to think about it does anyone do marijuana anymore?

is that why all the smart kids smoke?
As a smoker, yes :P
nor would I, come to think about it does anyone do marijuana anymore?
Aye, a fair few.

I do stupid shit when I take drugs, does that make me stupid in general?

drugs don't make people do stupid things, they allow them to justify actions they wouldn't always justify.

if drugs where legal, they would be less dangerous. also they would appeal less.

drugs can mess peoples lives up, but having them illegal doesn't stop that.

legalising them would allow it to be more controlled.

Um, no. Marijuana is the most potent anti-nausea drug available in the US and has less side effects than anything that a doctor outside of California can prescribe.

I personally know several people who would not be alive today if not for medicinal use of marijuana.

And even if that were not the case, Whiskey is legal, so why should marijuana be banned?

California and Oregon.

Tricky, i mean marijauna has environmental issues of chopping down lots of rainforest in South America namely Columbia,

Uh, no. Nice try to work in an environmental argument, though.

Most of the weed for US consumption is grown in Canada, Mexico and right here in the US. If you're thinking Colombia, you're probably thinking cocaine.

costs a lot of money for police to track down the dealers,

Which ceases to be a large problem once weed is treated like booze.

has negative effects on your health,

Jury's still out -- anything in excess has negative effects on your health. Moderation is the key.

and legalisation is haphazard accross the globe, (see wiki... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World-cannabis-laws.png),

How is that an argument against?

however legalising it might reduce crime and the underground business.

So to be honest i'm not sure, so i'd keep it illegal but not heavily enforced.

Which doesn't solve anything because that's essentially what most forward-thinking jurisdictions (Alaska, for example) are already doing.

When people bring up legalization, everyone always yammers on about driving while stoned and whatnot. Well folks, people already do that, and how would that be any different that driving drunk, which is already illegal and enforced rather strongly? Maybe you have to add a THC-alyzer to the BAC breathalyzer for cops to use on your roadside audition for freedom, that's it.

I haven't used the stuff since about 1991, and the smell of it turns me off completely now. I don't smoke anything, but I might be convinced to go the brownie route once in a great while if it were legal, but I've seen what the drug enables. Weed doesn't cause problems directly when used in moderation, like booze, but I know people who've completely dropped out of their lives in order to be high all the time or do those things they only enjoy while high. They eventually realized what they were doing and snapped out of it, but it took a couple of years.

And that's just like booze. So while I'd not like to use the product myself, I don't see any detriment to me in allowing others the use of it. If you do anything while on it that you're not allowed to do while drunk, I support full prosecution. Simple enough.

Uh, no. Nice try to work in an environmental argument, though.

Most of the weed for US consumption is grown in Canada, Mexico and right here in the US. If you're thinking Colombia, you're probably thinking cocaine.
Which ceases to be a large problem once weed is treated like booze.
Jury's still out -- anything in excess has negative effects on your health. Moderation is the key.
How is that an argument against?
Which doesn't solve anything because that's essentially what most forward-thinking jurisdictions (Alaska, for example) are already doing.
When people bring up legalization, everyone always yammers on about driving while stoned and whatnot. Well folks, people already do that, and how would that be any different that driving drunk, which is already illegal and enforced rather strongly? Maybe you have to add a THC-alyzer to the BAC breathalyzer for cops to use on your roadside audition for freedom, that's it.

I haven't used the stuff since about 1991, and the smell of it turns me off completely now. I don't smoke anything, but I might be convinced to go the brownie route once in a great while if it were legal, but I've seen what the drug enables. Weed doesn't cause problems directly when used in moderation, like booze, but I know people who've completely dropped out of their lives in order to be high all the time or do those things they only enjoy while high. They eventually realized what they were doing and snapped out of it, but it took a couple of years.

And that's just like booze. So while I'd not like to use the product myself, I don't see any detriment to me in allowing others the use of it. If you do anything while on it that you're not allowed to do while drunk, I support full prosecution. Simple enough.

I wasn't really arguing against it, more pointing out that most other countries in the world don't have a clue either, i think if the laws for drug use at least looked similar there would be less problems with law enforcement but thanks anyway.
( i thought there was an environmental argument. from what i've heard from various teachers and other people, but i know other people who smoke it here illegally, i'm not bothered but i don't smoke it myself, i'll stick to alcohol.

nor would I, come to think about it does anyone do marijuana anymore?

Yo.

Even the 'big scary Wiki' thing on health couldn't come up with anything solid...hell, even the thing I don't believe in, driving while stoned, they couldn't come up with anything solid-
Both simulation and road trials generally find that driving behavior shortly after consumption of larger doses of cannabis results in:

* increased variability in lane position (such as taking a curve too tightly or too loosely).
* longer decision times, leading to slower responses to driving situations; and
* a more cautious driving style, including slower average speed and greater following distance.

Whereas these results indicate a 'change' from normal conditions, they do not necessarily reflect 'impairment' in terms of performance effectiveness, since few studies report increased accident risk.

Still won't do it.

And the cancer-
UCLA study

On 23 May 2006, Donald Tashkin, M.D., Professor of Medicine at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA in Los Angeles announced that the use of cannabis does not appear to increase the risk of developing lung cancer, or increase the risk of head and neck cancers, such as cancer of the tongue, mouth, throat, or esophagus.[84]The study involved 2252 participants, with some of the most chronic marijuana smokers having smoked over 22,000 marijuana cigarettes.[84][85][86][87] The finding of Donald Tashkin, M.D., and his team of researchers in 2006 refines their earlier studies published in a Dec. 17th 2000 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Cancer Epidemiology Biomarker and Prevention.[10] Many opponents of marijuana incorrectly cite the original finding of UCLA Medical Center from 2000 as "proof" that marijuana leaves the users at higher risk for cancer of the lung, and cancerous tumors,[83] even though the researchers at the UCLA Medical Center have revised their finding with a more in-depth study on the effects of the use of marijuana. This seemed to contradict assumptions made after some studies, like those from Dale Geirringer et al., which found that 118 carcinogens were produced when marijuana underwent combustion, and two carcinogens {2-Methyl-2, 4(2H-1-benzopyran-5-ol) & 5-[Acetyl benz[e]azulene-3,8-dione} formed when marijuana underwent vaporization with the Volcano Vaporizer.[88] To help explain this seemingly chemical proof of carcinogenity inherent in the process of combustion, Tashkin noted that "one possible explanation for the new findings, he said, is that THC, a chemical in marijuana smoke, may encourage aging cells to die earlier and therefore be less likely to undergo cancerous transformation."[84]

Got to get me a Volcano, my vaporizer is cool, but the Volcano is king.

Then there's all of this-
Cancer risk

Cannabis smoke contains numerous carcinogens;[75][76][77] however, scientific studies have failed to show higher cancer rates in cannabis smokers. A study published in 2006 by Donald Tashkin of the University of California, Los Angeles, the largest study of its kind, concluded there is no link between smoking cannabis and lung cancer.[78]

A study published in 2006 on a large population sample (1,200 people with lung, neck, or head cancer, and a matching group of 1,040 without cancer) failed to positively correlate a lung cancer risk. The results indicated a slight negative correlation between long and short-term cannabis use and cancer, suggesting a possible therapeutic effect. Cellular studies and even some studies in animal models suggest that THC has antitumor properties, either by encouraging programmed cell death of genetically damaged cells that can become cancerous, or by restricting the development of the blood supply that feeds tumors.[79]

Prior, a 1997 study examining the records of 64,855 Kaiser patients (14,033 of whom identified themselves as current smokers), also found no positive correlation between cannabis use and cancer.[80]

A Research Triangle Institute study concluded that THC, a dilative agent, may help cleanse the lungs by dilating the bronchi, and could actively reduce the instance of tumors.[81] Additionally, a study by Rosenblatt et al. found no association between marijuana use and the development of head and neck squamous cell carcinoma.[82]
vs.
However, a contrasting 2006 study linked the smoking of cannabis to the growth of cancerous tumors through the impairment of anti-tumor defenses.[83]
Underwhelmed.

Memory?
Memory

THC (the main psychoactive substance in Cannabis) is known to act on the hippocampus, an area of the brain associated with memory and learning, and impairs short term memory and attention for the duration of its effects; THC impairs episodic memory and learning in a dose-dependent manner whilst not affecting perceptual priming and working memory.[65]

Cannabis was found to be neuroprotective against excitotoxicity and is therefore beneficial for the prevention of progressive degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's disease.[66]

A 1998 report by INSERM and CNRS, which was directed by Dr. Pierre-Bernard Roques, determined that, "former results suggesting anatomic changes in the brain of chronic cannabis users, measured by tomography, were not confirmed by the accurate modern neuro-imaging techniques (such as MRI) ... Moreover, morphological impairment of the hippocampus [which plays a part in memory and navigation] of rat after administration of very high doses of THC was not shown". He concluded that cannabis does not have any neurotoxicity as defined in the report, unlike alcohol and cocaine.[67][68][69]

Even the strongest issue is muddy-
Mental health

Cannabis use has been assesed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis and depression,[35][36] however, the causality of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that hasn't been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use,[37] while others assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use.[38][39]

Seriously, this is just stupid. As mentioned, the health effects put it at really no worse than a twinkie. Amsterdam has legalization (or really really decriminlization) and their society hasn't collapsed, their surgeons don't toke up before operating and their drive thrus are safe. All the hyperbole about legalization falls apart when the fact that it is legal somewhere and none of that shit happens is taken into account.

You know someone who is stupid and uses weed? Stop hanging out with stupid people. Carl Sagan, goddamit...Carl Fucking Sagan.

There is no fucking reason I shouldn't be able to light a joint, eat a snack and watch some tv. There is no reason we should be spending the, what, $50 billion a year to keep me from doing just that. That's what's stupid.

I wasn't really arguing against it, more pointing out that most other countries in the world don't have a clue either, i think if the laws for drug use at least looked similar there would be less problems with law enforcement but thanks anyway.
( i thought there was an environmental argument. from what i've heard from various teachers and other people, but i know other people who smoke it here illegally, i'm not bothered but i don't smoke it myself, i'll stick to alcohol.

The environmental harm of marijuana is increased by it's current legal status. Illegal patches on public land create a hazard from pesticide run off to simply trash left by the 'camper' farmers. It's part of the reason you 'buy from someone you know,' so you know it doesn't come from one of those patches. With legalization such farms would not be profitable and would reduce in number as people can get their weed legally and growth can be regulated better. I'm not saying irresponsible growth will go away, but certainly much of the incentive for it will reduce.

Yo.

Even the 'big scary Wiki' thing on health couldn't come up with anything solid...hell, even the thing I don't believe in, driving while stoned, they couldn't come up with anything solid-


Still won't do it.

And the cancer-


Got to get me a Volcano, my vaporizer is cool, but the Volcano is king.

Then there's all of this-

vs.

Underwhelmed.

Memory?


Even the strongest issue is muddy-


Seriously, this is just stupid. As mentioned, the health effects put it at really no worse than a twinkie. Amsterdam has legalization (or really really decriminlization) and their society hasn't collapsed, their surgeons don't toke up before operating and their drive thrus are safe. All the hyperbole about legalization falls apart when the fact that it is legal somewhere and none of that shit happens is taken into account.

You know someone who is stupid and uses weed? Stop hanging out with stupid people. Carl Sagan, goddamit...Carl Fucking Sagan.

There is no fucking reason I shouldn't be able to light a joint, eat a snack and watch some tv. There is no reason we should be spending the, what, $50 billion a year to keep me from doing just that. That's what's stupid.

AMEN. And I haven't smoked or eaten the shit in over 15 years. I'm just sick of those who'd restrict others' freedoms using bad statistics and inconclusive science. THERE's your slippery slope.

If parents can enjoy a glass of beer with their adult children, why can't they enjoy sharing the bong? I did that with my mother and it was a great way to bond. I learned something that night, my mother is actually cool.

Think about that that means on a global scale. If you've got two warring nations and their leaders sit down and have a smoke, they'll realise that they have more in common than they thought. We're human.

Being in a coffeeshop in Amsterdam was fun. Unlike a pub, the coffeeshop was purely music. Even when it was full, it was never as loud as a pub could be. It was a great way to be out in public, and we weren't hurting anyone.

People who say that you can have a bad trip with marijuana don't realise how many perfectly legal foodstuffs we have that can have worse effects on us than marijuana. After all, marijuana doesn't go stale the way food does.

Yes, absolutely. I have yet to hear a legitimate argument on why it should not be.

Of course it should be legal. Either that, or let's go full-on with the war on drugs and make caffeine, alcohol and tobacco illegal. This half-assed contradictory pointlessness is getting old.

Tricky, i mean marijauna has environmental issues of chopping down lots of rainforest in South America namely Columbia

A tiny pet peeve of mine but:

Colombia is the country. Columbia is the spelling like "district of Columbia" or "Columbia" university. But there is no "u" in the name of the country, Colombia

A tiny pet peeve of mine but:

Colombia is the country. Columbia is the spelling like "district of Columbia" or "Columbia" university. But there is no "u" in the name of the country, Colombia

nah don't worry i wasn't referring to your version of Colombia, but the new state of Columbia, in which there is a big black space in the sky where lots of old medieval knights seem to be falling from, attracting a vast amount of Historians and people who like 'Medieval stuff'.

I've never done it, never will do it, and hate being around people when they do it...but it's not a matter for the government to be involved in...

if it works in holland, why not in the US?

Nö. Don't deserve it. :p

I support legalization of Marijuana and other drugs. It would certainly put an end to a fruitless and worthless War on Drugs.

However, I also support employers firing employees who come to work when high.

Hmm.

I voted no, just because you'd see burnouts a lot more often, but I wouldn't mind if it was legalized too much.

Hmm.

I voted no, just because you'd see burnouts a lot more often, but I wouldn't mind if it was legalized too much.

There are already lots of burnout....we just don't see them because they're all underground.

even chocolate?!

Ooh! A challenge! I think so. But a chocolate-covered Goofball is better still. :)

Ooh! A challenge! I think so. But a chocolate-covered Goofball is better still. :)

Things your wife says to you to spice up your sex life. :p

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

So there we go. The act of cultivating or consuming the stuff doesn't affect anyone but yourself. So it's really not the public domain, and the state has no reason to get involved.

Do you have an argument against marijuana that is not also an argument against alcohol or tobacco? If not then marijuana should be legal.
Actually I'm not happy with alcohol and tobacco for the same reasons as well.

Even though I wouldn't smoke it (mainly for the same reason I don't smoke cigarettes), I voted yes. I mean, if it was legalized it would greatly cut down on the domestic drug trade.

If it's legalized, the drug dealers will have their prices undercut by large commercial corporations and they will go out of business. Even drug dealers have families.
Think of the children.

No, it's more fun for me this way.
You have not experienced true terror until you have baked a car and driven through the most cop-infested portion of the state with someone hiding in the trunk.

No, it's more fun for me this way.

I agree - half the fun of it was the illegal status.

My favourite argument against it is cause it is a destructive drug upon society that leads people upon degenerate paths.

Leaving aside the opinion that people have the right to abuse themselves, I then tell these people that studies (and economic theory) has proved that legalization of illegal substances actually LESSENS use (Don't believe me? The Prohibition increased alcohol use). So, if the goal is to lower society's use of the substance, that effective solution is to legalize it. Isn't that just great?

There's also the fact that legalization practically eliminates background crime, cause it's no longer illegal to purchase it, so the crimes committed to actually get the substance no longer occur (another interesting fact; the Prohibition brought about organized crime).

That why I favour legalization, in accordance with my libertarian ideals. I favour legalization of every drug from heroin to coke to PCP to (I don't use drugs so someone else more knowledgeable fill in here)

Oh, and cause we can then make money off the former black market product. Always a plus.

I agree - half the fun of it was the illegal status.

You get to talk to hardcore gangster drug dealers, you can't get much cooler than that.

I favor legalization of all drugs for both medicinal and recreational purposes because I believe I should be able to choose what to do with my life. I also oppose seatbelt laws.

Fopr the record, I'd still probably stay sober most of the time and manipulate the drunks and the high.

You get to talk to hardcore gangster drug dealers, you can't get much cooler than that.
Ugh, I hate buying from 'gangstas'...them and hard core hippies are the ones that always come up with stupid ass names for their weed. Fuck, dude, is it sticky? Then bag it up.

We have like, Slovakians. I suppose by 'gangster' I really meant 'reminiscent of Al Capone'.