Legalizing Marijuana

[The Trotsky]

Thoughts? Not at all, strictly medicinal, looser restrictions on medicinal, outright legality, etc.?

 

[Steven]

Let everyone over 18/21 smoke it.

Cigarettes are worse for you. So is alcohol. Don't see why weed is illegal, it's a complete contradiction in the law.

I would never do it though.

I hate contradictions in the law. Always leads to trouble. If it were up to me, alcohol, weed, and tobacco would be illegal. But that's not possible.

 

[The Trotsky]

I agree wholeheartedly. I think maybe a medical trial period would be nice first, but after that, full legalization and taxation. It would raise current prices (which sucks hard) but it's better in the long run

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The government has no business in telling you what you can do with your own body as long the body of anyone else (including an unborn child) is not being effected. I support the legalization of marijuana, but I believe the government can restrict its usage in public places and its usage around people who do not want to be exposed to it or are underage.

 

[Steven]

The government has no business in telling you what you can do with your own body as long the body of anyone else (including an unborn child) is not being effected. I support the legalization of marijuana, but I believe the government can restrict it's usage in public places and its usage around people who do not want to be exposed to it or are underage.

Agreed, like how the government in a lot of places bans public smoking.

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

The main advantage of legalisation is the added benefits of potential taxation that come with it, as well as regulation on the level of what FreakyLocz14 suggested above. By bringing it out of the underground, production and distribution could come under standardized procedures, checks into purity could be made in the open so customers would be less likely to get ripped off/suffer a bad reaction. I agree with most of the points mentioned above, so it would be superfluous to repeat them, but it's relatively encouraging that even an ex-Surgeon General of the US seems to agree with us:

"I think we consume far more dangerous drugs that are legal: cigarette smoking, nicotine and alcohol," said Joycelyn Elders, the former Surgeon General and a supporter of [lifting the prohibition of marijuana]. "I feel they cause much more devastating effects physically. We need to lift the prohibition on marijuana."

 

[Alex]

Legalize.

Marijuana is not nearly as harmful as anti-drug campaigns make it out to be. The opposition against California's November election, on Proposition 19, was ridiculous. The truth of the matter is, no one has ever been declared dead with direct links to marijuana. In fact, it would take about 800 joints for someone to overdose on weed, and as a daily smoker myself I can tell you that no one would ever smoke close to that amount in one sitting.

Alcohol and cigarettes are much more dangerous for anyone's health. Yet they are legal, controlled and taxed. I'm not saying to legalize marijuana for any minor to go and buy himself a quarter ounce at any given time. In Canada, the legal age for cigarettes is 19. If it must be, make the legal age 19 (I'd rather 18). Of course, minors would still get their hands on pot, there's no way of stopping that, and that money will always be dirty, but for those who are above the legal age, those dollars will go straight to the government. And we're not just talking a few hundred thousand per year. Marijuana would bring in $2.5 billion for the government. Every year. Instead of tax payers paying money to keep criminals in jail, we should save money by taxing weed. Those who don't have any interest in it will pay no money regarding it, other than a few illegal dealers and/or growers. Be it as it may, the cost of prison upkeep, regarding marijuana-related sentences, will decrease substantially.

Furthermore, by making it illegal to grow hemp, we are losing valuable resources. Hemp makes for greater, stronger, and longer-lasting paper, for all you tree-huggers out there, makes for stronger fabric, and you know what? It makes for a hell of a good couple hours! Smoking has become part of my daily habit and I love it. I'm not addicted. I'm not dependent. The worst part of my habit is that it burns quite a whole in my pocket but is that your problem? Of course not. Hell, if it were legalized, I know the costs would grow because the government would milk the crap out of marijuana, and that's something that I have to deal with. Am I ready to pay x amount of money for my pot? That's my decision.

As people have mentioned above, the government has no business in what we do with our money, with our bodies, and with our lives. The war on drugs is a failed campaign, costing tax payers much more money than they should be spending. Legalize pot.

 

[groteske]

Not gonna be legalized. Guv's making bank on drug busts.

 

[Dawn]

The government has no business in telling you what you can do with your own body as long the body of anyone else (including an unborn child) is not being effected. I support the legalization of marijuana, but I believe the government can restrict its usage in public places and its usage around people who do not want to be exposed to it or are underage.

They haven't even done enough to restrict public usage of tobacco yet.
Smoking in general is still a problem.

Until it's not a problem, I will personally not be supporting any additional types of smoking. Simple as that. I just won't support invasive drug use. It's come to the time where someone needs to grow a spine and make invasive ways of using drugs like smoking a private thing. No more smoking in schools (Given, this has already stopped for the most part. It used to be a problem, believe it or not.) No more smoking in the workplace. And decide whether we need to change any laws regarding family / relatives smoking. The rule needs to stop being "Only certain places you can't smoke" and start being "Only certain places you can".

As much as I have a huge personal bias against alcohol, at least people are punished when their use gets invasive. With smokers, if the law doesn't specifically restrict them, there's plenty willing to screw the public by smoking in public, and they aren't punished. INB4 "most smokers aren't like that." It only takes a few to cause a problem.

The way I see it, people want instant results by legalizing marijuana, when there's work to be done and problems to be solved. In my opinion, we need to solve that problem before we can ask for a payoff.

Legalize.

Marijuana is not nearly as harmful as anti-drug campaigns make it out to be. The opposition against California's November election, on Proposition 19, was ridiculous. The truth of the matter is, no one has ever been declared dead with direct links to marijuana.

... <--- That's me resisting the urge to say something rash.

The opposition is ridiculous? Really? At least the government showed a spine and didn't cave into pressure. They did their job. (Quite frankly, they've caved in before.) Whether you believe you're right or wrong, you need to accept that the opposition is justified in opposing you, and that they won fair and square. If you're so right, do a better job convincing others to stop opposing you. Calling others ridiculous is just bullying the opposition into submission, and when people see through it, it just hurts the point you're trying to make.

Also, death with a direct link to marijuana? I don't think you can even do that with the long term effects of tobacco or alcohol. (Given, there are more short term effects which are easier to link. Especially with alcohol.) Let me be blunt and say that I'd be hard pressed to believe you could smoke ANYTHING for say 40 years and not lose a few years of your life. We lose years of our life to weirder things. (Remember: Whether that means you shouldn't care because lots of things take off years of your life is not your choice to make for others. This is why we should have a general idea of the harm it can cause so others can make the decision for themselves.) Another thing we need to do before we legalize marijuana is get some good /honest/ medical info about the potential dangers of smoking it. I want to bash my head against a desk when I see someone / some website advertising that it is not dangerous. See my point above. When I go to research marijuana effects, there are so many conflicting "facts" floating around that I have no real way of finding out what is truth or not. The fact that I can't easily find out what the truth is is /ridiculous/! CLEARLY /someone/ is lying, and by someone I mean plenty of people, whether intentionally or not. I think we need to somehow get the truth out there, known, and accepted (or significantly more than it is currently) before we just go about telling people to go ahead and smoke it.

 

[Hanyou]

Why is the government "showing a spine" a good thing when they're restricting the private usage of a substance people freely choose to expose themselves to? I have a hard time with government restrictions of anything unless they significantly and directly affect other people. In the case of smoking, prohibiting it in public sort of makes sense, given widespread fear about the dangers of second-hand smoking. However, prohibiting it in private (including any privately-owned businesses, restaurants, etc.) is invasive and a misuse of government power. I consider it a bad thing when the government "shows a spine" on issues like this. The whole radical response to drug use is absurd.

It doesn't matter how dangerous a drug is. Marijuana could be the most dangerous drug in existence and I would favor its legalization, since adults ought to be able to make these sorts of decisions for themselves. Dismantle the entire federal "war on drugs" and start with marijuana. There's no reason for this wasteful, unsuccessful war.

This whole debate about how dangerous marijuana is is meaningless to me, since we shouldn't be restricting peoples' vices.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

They haven't even done enough to restrict public usage of tobacco yet.
Smoking in general is still a problem.

Until it's not a problem, I will personally not be supporting any additional types of smoking. Simple as that. I just won't support invasive drug use. It's come to the time where someone needs to grow a spine and make invasive ways of using drugs like smoking a private thing. No more smoking in schools (Given, this has already stopped for the most part. It used to be a problem, believe it or not.) No more smoking in the workplace. And decide whether we need to change any laws regarding family / relatives smoking. The rule needs to stop being "Only certain places you can't smoke" and start being "Only certain places you can".

As much as I have a huge personal bias against alcohol, at least people are punished when their use gets invasive. With smokers, if the law doesn't specifically restrict them, there's plenty willing to screw the public by smoking in public, and they aren't punished. INB4 "most smokers aren't like that." It only takes a few to cause a problem.

The way I see it, people want instant results by legalizing marijuana, when there's work to be done and problems to be solved. In my opinion, we need to solve that problem before we can ask for a payoff.

I see where you're coming from. If the government wants to ban smoking in public similar to how they ban being drunk in public, be it tobacco or marijuana, they can. While what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their concern as long as they aren't hurting anybody, it becomes everyone's concern when they go out in public using substances or being under their influence.

 

[Abnegation]

Is there any actual purpose to legalizing it? Tobacco would be illegal had the authorities known about it quick enough. So they wont let up on this. But it's not like it's not widely available either. It's harmful, no matter what way you look at it.

Someone come up with a legitimate argument as to what good it will do, other than make things more convenient for those who enjoy it. Because it's them, and onlt them that argue it should be legal, without thinking about the common good.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Is there any actual purpose to legalizing it? Tobacco would be illegal had the authorities known about it quick enough. So they wont let up on this. But it's not like it's not widely available either. It's harmful, no matter what way you look at it.

Someone come up with a legitimate argument as to what good it will do, other than make things more convenient for those who enjoy it. Because it's them, and onlt them that argue it should be legal, without thinking about the common good.

A right doesn't need to do good in order for it to be a matter of personal liberty and a right to privacy. The KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church get to enjoy their 1st Amendment liberties, and what good do they do?

 

[Palamon]

Keep it illegal. There's no need for it to be legal.

 

[Abnegation]

A right doesn't need to do good in order for it to be a matter of personal liberty and a right to privacy. The KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church get to enjoy their 1st Amendment liberties, and what good do they do?

Because they have movements, they are motivated to make a change, and the KKK are more about anti-immigration now, this is no longer the 1920's. As for the Westboro Baptist Church, they have quite extensive arguments as to why homosexuality should not be as widely displayed as it is. Further more, they are simply going against new legislation, such as allowing gay marriage. The debate about gay marriage is on-going also, although I support it in some ways, I think that many, many don't, and the debate as to whether allowing it or dis-allowing it for the common good is still a matter. So these types of movements get pushed through because they are topical.

In saying that, comparing movements to allowing the use of one of the top 3 most addictive drugs to become legal is fairly irrelevant. They are much different things. You could go ahead and argue that alcohol and smoking should be banned too, but they've been legal for a lot longer, and well no matter how unfair it may seem now, the government aren't going to get rid of either of them due to the fact that both bring in billions of dollars each year. But you can't argue that marijuana is an ordinary enough substance just to be legalized like this. Regardless of how many deaths it does or does not cause, the amount of anti-social behavior it causes and the fact that it is well known as the gateway drug, don't stand out well in the argument for it to be legalized. I mean if it does go ahead, why stop there, why not introduce heroine, meth, sure they're not as popular, but you could easily argue the same general points. You could argue anything when it comes to this, to show that it should be allowed, but the facts are there, it'd do more bad than it would do positive, it is abused severely, and it is most popular in poor areas, where anti-social behavior is common, there's reason for that too.

 

[Dawn]

I see where you're coming from. If the government wants to ban smoking in public similar to how they ban being drunk in public, be it tobacco or marijuana, they can. While what someone does in the privacy of their own home is their concern as long as they aren't hurting anybody, it becomes everyone's concern when they go out in public using substances or being under their influence.

Glad to see I didn't come off too harsh. I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but I think there are some steps we need to take before we should do that. I'm very sensitive about smoking, because I've always hated having to smell it, and I wound up with a job in which almost all my co-workers smoke. My job typically has me passing them by quite regularly, so I choke on cigarette smoke on a daily basis. Even the customers are exposed to it. It's very frustrating for me that they're allowed to do that. I mean... it baffles me. We're supposed to be well known for being clean, and yet smoking is allowed on the job... I don't think half these people even wash their hands! And half those people handle food! @_@

It used to be that in schools, teachers would go to the teacher's lounge to smoke, and non-smokers would be forced to breath that stuff in if they wanted to take a break or eat there.

I personally think smoking in the workplace is a major problem to focus on at this point and time.

 

[twocows]

I think it should be legalized and taxed heavily, like any other luxury item. It should also have the same restrictions as tobacco, which, in my state, means you can't smoke it inside or within a certain range of any public building.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Because they have movements, they are motivated to make a change, and the KKK are more about anti-immigration now, this is no longer the 1920's. As for the Westboro Baptist Church, they have quite extensive arguments as to why homosexuality should not be as widely displayed as it is. Further more, they are simply going against new legislation, such as allowing gay marriage. The debate about gay marriage is on-going also, although I support it in some ways, I think that many, many don't, and the debate as to whether allowing it or dis-allowing it for the common good is still a matter. So these types of movements get pushed through because they are topical.

In saying that, comparing movements to allowing the use of one of the top 3 most addictive drugs to become legal is fairly irrelevant. They are much different things. You could go ahead and argue that alcohol and smoking should be banned too, but they've been legal for a lot longer, and well no matter how unfair it may seem now, the government aren't going to get rid of either of them due to the fact that both bring in billions of dollars each year. But you can't argue that marijuana is an ordinary enough substance just to be legalized like this. Regardless of how many deaths it does or does not cause, the amount of anti-social behavior it causes and the fact that it is well known as the gateway drug, don't stand out well in the argument for it to be legalized. I mean if it does go ahead, why stop there, why not introduce heroine, meth, sure they're not as popular, but you could easily argue the same general points. You could argue anything when it comes to this, to show that it should be allowed, but the facts are there, it'd do more bad than it would do positive, it is abused severely, and it is most popular in poor areas, where anti-social behavior is common, there's reason for that too.

My argument has nothing to do with how addictive marijuana is or not, nor how ordinary it is or not.

My argument is based purely on two concepts: The right to liberty and the right to privacy. Both of these are doctrines of the United States Supreme Court. Liberty is the right to be left alone by the government, and the right to privacy is the right to not have government interfere in how one conducts their private life.

The right to privacy first appeared when the Court declared that laws banning married couples from using contraceptives are unconstitutional (see Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479). There were many things that were criminal before that are now protected under the right to privacy. These include abortion (see Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113) and homosexual sexual conduct (see Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558).

While those cases don't involve things that are harmful to human life, the Court also decided that people have the private right to refuse life-saving medical treatment, and to even remove a feeding tube from a human veggie provided that it can be established by clear and convincing (see Cruzan by Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health 497 U.S. 261). In the Lawrence case, the Court said that morality is not reason enough to restrict a personal liberty.

Glad to see I didn't come off too harsh. I'm all for legalizing marijuana, but I think there are some steps we need to take before we should do that. I'm very sensitive about smoking, because I've always hated having to smell it, and I wound up with a job in which almost all my co-workers smoke. My job typically has me passing them by quite regularly, so I choke on cigarette smoke on a daily basis. Even the customers are exposed to it. It's very frustrating for me that they're allowed to do that. I mean... it baffles me. We're supposed to be well known for being clean, and yet smoking is allowed on the job... I don't think half these people even wash their hands! And half those people handle food! @_@

It used to be that in schools, teachers would go to the teacher's lounge to smoke, and non-smokers would be forced to breath that stuff in if they wanted to take a break or eat there.

I personally think smoking in the workplace is a major problem to focus on at this point and time.

Whether or not a company will ban its employees from smoking on its premises is the sole decision of that company. Employees should express their grievances to their superiors.

I think it should be legalized and taxed heavily, like any other luxury item. It should also have the same restrictions as tobacco, which, in my state, means you can't smoke it inside or within a certain range of any public building.

While no judicial doctrine would prevent the government from placing high taxes on marijuana, I don't think it should be taxed any more heavily than tobacco is taxed.

 

[Abnegation]

My argument has nothing to do with how addictive marijuana is or not, nor how ordinary it is or not.

My argument is based purely on two concepts: The right to liberty and the right to privacy. Both of these are doctrines of the United States Supreme Court. Liberty is the right to be left alone by the government, and the right to privacy is the right to not have government interfere in how one conducts their private life.

The right to privacy first appeared when the Court declared that laws banning married couples from using contraceptives are unconstitutional (see Griswold v. Connecticut 381 U.S. 479). There were many things that were criminal before that are now protected under the right to privacy. These include abortion (see Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113) and homosexual sexual conduct (see Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558).

While those cases don't involve things that are harmful to human life, the Court also decided that people have the private right to refuse life-saving medical treatment, and to even remove a feeding tube from a human veggie provided that it can be established by clear and convincing (see Cruzan by Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health 497 U.S. 261). In the Lawrence case, the Court said that morality is not reason enough to restrict a personal liberty.

First of all, you're throwing out rights, rights that have no effect on things which are already illegal. I mean, you've said people have the right to their privacy, but nothing is illegal about abortion and homosexual activity. In addition to that, people have the right to refuse life saving medical treatment, but why should people be given the option to add to further engage in potentially dangerous substances and run the risk of going on to further substances by doing so? If you feel your argument is correct, you should also assume that the same argument could justify the use of class A drugs such as ecstasy because it's a "personal liberty".

 

[Mr Cat Dog]

Someone come up with a legitimate argument as to what good it will do, other than make things more convenient for those who enjoy it. Because it's them, and onlt them that argue it should be legal, without thinking about the common good.

The main reason why I support its legalization is that with legalization comes the possibility of heavy taxation a la tobacco and alcohol. I have no desire to use it myself. The increased revenue can be used for all sorts of public services, but to bring the issue back to marijuana, it could be: put into the health service to combat some of the adverse health effects in marijuana smokers; put into the police to help deal with some of the anti-social behaviour caused by marijuana smokers; put into public awareness campaigns to let people know of the dangers of smoking marijuana and to be responsible in doing so. Not to sound patronising, but are these not part of the common good?