marijuana legalization

[blink.]

It can be noted that the population of the US is several hundred-million greater than that of the Netherlands. (I admit the TV show is just exaggerating it.)

Similarly, though marijuana itself is not as addictive or deadly as other drugs, it can lead to further drug use. It's thus safer not to use it at all, and it's legalization would lead to an increase of use in both it, and deadlier drugs. (Think logically people) Even if it would decrease Marijuana use, it would increase the use of other, more deadly drugs.

Ultimately, it's not a good idea. This is my personal opinion, feel free to comment.

I'd like you to start reading threads before you post, it does a world of wonders, believe me.

 

[twocows]

It can be noted that the population of the US is several hundred-million greater than that of the Netherlands. (I admit the TV show is just exaggerating it.)

Similarly, though marijuana itself is not as addictive or deadly as other drugs, it can lead to further drug use. It's thus safer not to use it at all, and it's legalization would lead to an increase of use in both it, and deadlier drugs. (Think logically people) Even if it would decrease Marijuana use, it would increase the use of other, more deadly drugs.

Ultimately, it's not a good idea. This is my personal opinion, feel free to comment.

I didn't actually watch the video, but the image that shows up by default on the video screen shows the count per million people. This means that the count is not stacked against countries with more people. It's saying, for every 1 million people there are in the country, there are 38 drug-related deaths in America, and 2 in the Netherlands.

I would guess that marijuana is a gateway drug only because it is illegal. Compared to other illegal drugs, it's relatively harmless. The reason people migrate to other drugs is because they're already used to breaking the law by getting marijuana; someone says "hey, try this," and instead of their response being "that's illegal, no thanks," it's "I already do pot, so it's not like breaking one more law is going to hurt."

 

[Captain Hobo.]

No no no that is very stupied. That would cuase a lot of bad things.

 

[øbliteration]

Oh Sillypillz, you're just askin' for it.

Most who smoke the ganj (correct me if I'm wrong) would be teenagers, hmm? So at what age would said legalization happen? Certainly at least 21. Wouldn't, then, the gateway theory still be relevant here even if it's legalized?

They're both illegal at the point of high abuse, and this is where the gateway theory actually matters -- ages 13-21.

Why, then, would legalization of marijuana for 21 and over stop the gateway theory (a theory which applies mostly in the High School and College years?) from applying here? Legalization of a drug for a certain age and above wouldn't make the thrill any lower... because it'd still be illegal. You think alcohol and tobacco aren't gateway drugs because they're legal at a certain age? You think there's no "thrill" or "rebel" status?

 

[kingofjokers]

No we all know what will happen if we make it legal.

 

[Luck]

It can be noted that the population of the US is several hundred-million greater than that of the Netherlands. (I admit the TV show is just exaggerating it.)

Similarly, though marijuana itself is not as addictive or deadly as other drugs, it can lead to further drug use. It's thus safer not to use it at all, and it's legalization would lead to an increase of use in both it, and deadlier drugs. (Think logically people) Even if it would decrease Marijuana use, it would increase the use of other, more deadly drugs.

Ultimately, it's not a good idea. This is my personal opinion, feel free to comment.

Well, most of those were per a certain amount of inhabitants and not in percentages.
However, even then, it does show that much less people in the Netherlands used drugs before. And you are using the slippery slope argument, so...yeah.

No we all know what will happen if we make it legal.

No, we actually don't. Please explain since you know so much about the subject.

 

[the bitter end.]

I'd like you to start reading threads before you post, it does a world of wonders, believe me.

yes or no? keep it civilized.

USA btw guys. at least for me.

Firstly, I see no way in which my post contradicts this. Secondly, I'd prefer you not boss me around.

@luck - I admit there are some people who can take marijuana without becoming addicted to it, or harmed by it as well as other drugs. Point taken.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

I support hemp being legal, yes. I do not however support the legalization of marijuana. I favor keeping all current narcotics off the streets and not legitimizing illegal industries out of convenience.

Hemp is one thing, pot is another, and there is a major difference. Hemp is historically significant to this country, having been grown on our farms by American yeomen as a cash crop to be used for paper, rope, cloth-substitute, and even animal feed. George Washington and many others farmed it alongside Tobacco. The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp. As a soldier I acknowledge the Army's Hemp For Victory plans in WWII and the Navy's need for hemp ropes for sails. It's a fiber source for many products and has historical significance in America just as tobacco does.

Pot though, is in a sense genetically manipulated, that is to say it's bread to contain abnormally high levels of THC. Pot is to hemp what crack is to cocoa. It's a drug. Chemically altered to affect the body and mind. No, I don't want it legalized, nor do I want to legalize people growing it for "medicinal" use.

I also don't want to legalize a harmful substance just so the government can tax it. I hate that line of thinking. We'll legalize it which sends the message that it's ok for an individual to choose to use, then tax the hell out of it to send the message that it's bad and should be deterred. Either it's wrong and shouldn't be encouraged, or it's ok and should be free to access without heavy taxation. It's completely hypocritical to me to want the government out of your personal life (stop taking my weed) only to invite government regulation/subsidization/taxation which only further limits choice and burdens the individual. There's no point. At all. It's a non sequitur, with no redeeming qualities to it. It serves only as a feel-good justification to both legalize drugs and empower the government at once. It's illogical and an unreasonable approach; an attempt to pacify both sides of the debate with a compromise.

I support keeping pot illegal and enforcing the law as greatly as possible.

 

[Spearow]

To speak frankly, I think marijuana legalization is about principle, more than science: it doesn't matter how bad marijuana is for you, whether it is "worse"/more addictive than alcohol or other drugs. If you live in a country like the U.S. which purports to grant its citizens basic freedoms, you should be able to smoke whatever you damn well please. You should be able to do unhealthy things to yourself if you so choose, so long as your activities do not harm other people.

I just don't like the arbitrariness of drug laws, and especially because I strongly suspect the reasons are mostly based in ingrained social constructs. A mainstream politician would be (figuratively) lynched for supporting marijuana legalization, but the same politician would also lose popularity from all sides if he were to propose a ban on alcohol. There's not much scientific evidence that either drug is substantially worse than the other. They both alter your state of mind, they both affect judgement and have potential to be abused as well as used responsibly. The difference is mostly in whether or not they are socially acceptable.

 

[BenRK]

You never hear of car crashes involving drug use of any kind, as they're all labled as DUI.

I can see a major problem with it being legalized though, regardless of your opinions of it. If tobacco companies grab a hold of it, they WILL put stuff in it to make it more addictive, maybe even sneaking in some stuff they do with cigarettes. I'm sure you all can agree that it would be bad if it was legalized and stuff like that happened.

Hey, got to make money somehow.

 

[twocows]

Oh Sillypillz, you're just askin' for it.

Most who smoke the ganj (correct me if I'm wrong) would be teenagers, hmm? So at what age would said legalization happen? Certainly at least 21. Wouldn't, then, the gateway theory still be relevant here even if it's legalized?

I'm surprised nobody's called you out on this. BIIIG citation needed. As I hear it, 20-somethings smoke even more marijuana than high school students.

I support hemp being legal, yes. I do not however support the legalization of marijuana. I favor keeping all current narcotics off the streets and not legitimizing illegal industries out of convenience.

Odd how you talk about anything in a "medical sense" and call marijuana a narcotic in the same sentence. It's a common misnomer, but marijuana is not a narcotic.

Pot though, is in a sense genetically manipulated, that is to say it's bread to contain abnormally high levels of THC. Pot is to hemp what crack is to cocoa. It's a drug. Chemically altered to affect the body and mind. No, I don't want it legalized, nor do I want to legalize people growing it for "medicinal" use.

You're using a common fallacy to support your argument called the "naturalistic fallacy." Just because it's not natural doesn't mean it's undesirable. If you want to argue that it's bad for you, then fine; just don't argue that it's bad simply because it's not natural.

I also don't want to legalize a harmful substance just so the government can tax it. I hate that line of thinking. We'll legalize it which sends the message that it's ok for an individual to choose to use, then tax the hell out of it to send the message that it's bad and should be deterred. Either it's wrong and shouldn't be encouraged, or it's ok and should be free to access without heavy taxation. It's completely hypocritical to me to want the government out of your personal life (stop taking my weed) only to invite government regulation/subsidization/taxation which only further limits choice and burdens the individual. There's no point. At all. It's a non sequitur, with no redeeming qualities to it. It serves only as a feel-good justification to both legalize drugs and empower the government at once. It's illogical and an unreasonable approach; an attempt to pacify both sides of the debate with a compromise.

That's absurd. What's wrong with legalizing it and then taxing it? You didn't even answer that, you just said "it's bad because it's hypocritical," which isn't true nor relevant. If it were legal, it would be a luxury, and luxuries USUALLY get taxed highly for various reasons. And so what if it's harmful to people? This kind of nanny-state thinking makes me sick. People should be allowed to choose to do whatever stupid crap they want to do to themselves.

I support keeping pot illegal and enforcing the law as greatly as possible.

Do you also support putting cameras in our houses so that the government can stop us from doing ANYTHING potentially harmful? And let's keep "enforcing" the law the way we are: arresting about 1 in 1000 offenders and charging them a hefty fine, then letting them go with a criminal record that will prevent them from getting any good job the rest of their life. Sounds completely fair.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

Odd how you talk about anything in a "medical sense" and call marijuana a narcotic in the same sentence. It's a common misnomer, but marijuana is not a narcotic.

I know it's classified as a depressant and not a narcotic. And peanuts are legumes not nuts. Who cares though? Was it even worth trying to correct me on? It's trivial, almost as bad as correcting grammatical errors. It's common terminology for illegal drugs regardless of distinct categorization, so I'm not going to worry about it.

You're using a common fallacy to support your argument called the "naturalistic fallacy." Just because it's not natural doesn't mean it's undesirable. If you want to argue that it's bad for you, then fine; just don't argue that it's bad simply because it's not natural.

Do you even understand what my point was? I was making the literal distinction between hemp and pot, that being that one is a natural crop while the other is a manipulated and chemical-filled plant purposefully bread for drug use. If you want to argue about what I said then that is fine, but don't attack positions I don't have or assume I'm talking about something I'm not. I was differentiating two things for a significant reason- one should be legal in my eyes (hemp) and the other should not (pot). I was doing nothing else.

That's absurd. What's wrong with legalizing it and then taxing it? You didn't even answer that, you just said "it's bad because it's hypocritical," which isn't true nor relevant. If it were legal, it would be a luxury, and luxuries USUALLY get taxed highly for various reasons. And so what if it's harmful to people? This kind of nanny-state thinking makes me sick. People should be allowed to choose to do whatever stupid crap they want to do to themselves.

Again, you're a prime example of this thinking I'm against. You say you want to avoid a nanny state yet at the same time are advocated huge government involvement in the economy and individual's purse. That's the whole point. You're by default supporting a nanny state by supporting the levying of excessive taxes on legitimate products in a market economy. Again, it's hypocritical in my view. I believe in a laissez faire economy where the government taxes people and products as little as possible, restricting government profits solely for the legitimate, necessary, and proper roles of government enumerated under the Constitution. It's not the government's job to tax what is legitimate, luxury or not. What's wrong with taxing it? Exactly what's wrong with taxing everything else. If it's legitimate then there should be little involvement by the government, as little deterrence as possible, less regulations, less restrictions, and less confiscation of wealth. It's unnecessary and goes against the concept of economic liberty in my view.

Do you also support putting cameras in our houses so that the government can stop us from doing ANYTHING potentially harmful?

No, because that's tyrannical and potentially violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights, specifically the Fourth Amendment.

And let's keep "enforcing" the law the way we are: arresting about 1 in 1000 offenders and charging them a hefty fine, then letting them go with a criminal record that will prevent them from getting any good job the rest of their life. Sounds completely fair.

It's not the government's, the law's, or society's job to be "fair." In a republic like ours I expect things to be based on what is just, not what is fair. Why have laws at all if we're selective about when to enforce them? The law is the law. If a child rapist is forced to alert his community of his presence, can't live near an elementary school, and has a hard time finding a job, is that "fair?" If a drunk driver kills someone in a car crash and goes to jail a few year, is that "fair?" Fairness is subjective and means nothing. Justice should be our concern in a republican government founded on the rule of law and based on civic virtue. In a just society the criminal pays for his crimes. If your objection is the harshness of the penalties then write your local congressman or something, but until the penalties change the law must be strictly enforced and our sovereignty upheld.

 

[øbliteration]

[jq]I'm surprised nobody's called you out on this. BIIIG citation needed. As I hear it, 20-somethings smoke even more marijuana than high school students.[/jq]

This isn't wikipedia. Also as "you hear it" might need a citation too :3

Also, you never really answered me. Although your sources might say that more 20+ year olds smoke it, still an abundance of 13-21 y/o smoke it and it would STILL be illegal for them.

 

[blink.]

[jq]I'm surprised nobody's called you out on this. BIIIG citation needed. As I hear it, 20-somethings smoke even more marijuana than high school students.[jq]

This isn't wikipedia. Also as "you hear it" might need a citation too :3

im pretty sure twocows is leagues ahead of you

he's right

youre wrong

 

[Yamikarasu]

If I wanted to smoke marijuana, all I would have to do is ask some of my friends who smoke weed and they would be like "sure, come to my house this Saturday night and I'll hook you up." Nothing would change in this scenario if it were made legal, although it would probably be illegal for people under 21 to smoke it in the same way that it is illegal for my age group to drink alcohol (btw, I could probably ask those same friends for alcohol if I wanted to. Go figure. :P)

But I don't want to smoke marijuana, and that's just a personal choice. Do not think that because it is illegal, teens have a harder time coming by it. I think it should be legalized, and the government should tax the hell out of it. It would also make room in a lot of prisons, and would save the money the government spends on "enforcing" marijuana prohibition. Money raised by marijuana taxes could be used for drug rehabilitation programs and other social projects.

 

[Luck]

Agent Cobalt, please tell me that you didn't just try to enforce your defense by claiming historical significance and saying that a founding father did it. By your very lines, slavery should be legal, since of course, it has historical significance, as well as the Dark ages, not even mentioning the Holocaust. Maybe we should kill 6 million more Jews since that is clearly significant. Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were a slave owner(no matter how much George Washington opposed slavery, he still owned them), to name only two significant figures since you want to pull the president card.

Pot though, is in a sense genetically manipulated, that is to say it's bread to contain abnormally high levels of THC. Pot is to hemp what crack is to cocoa. It's a drug. Chemically altered to affect the body and mind. No, I don't want it legalized, nor do I want to legalize people growing it for "medicinal" use.

So because you don't want it to be used, other people should suffer when marijuana is the best choice currently? >link<
And I fail to see your comparison, since you put little effort into your reasoning other than "it is chemically altered."
And FYI, genetic altering isn't always bad like you claim it is.
A simple Google search will show you that you are wrong. >link<

 

[Agent Cobalt]

Agent Cobalt, please tell me that you didn't just try to enforce your defense by claiming historical significance and saying that a founding father did it.

No, see, I was giving historical context and explaining the history behind hemp.

By your very lines, slavery should be legal, since of course, it has historical significance

No, see, that's unconstitutional. The Constitution was amended by the Thirteenth Amendment, making slavery illegal. It's also a non-sequitur and doesn't follow any rational line of thinking. Here I am talking about a fiber-substitute being used for paper, rope, and so on in the past, and you think that line of thinking is so two dimensional that hemp can be replaced and substituted with the institution of slavery according to my line of thinking. No, according to my very lines, I'm a constitutionalist and the Constitution prohibits slavery and racially based bondage; it says nothing about fiber products (unless you warp the Commerce Clause into something it's not).

as well as the Dark ages

...what about the Dark Ages?

not even mentioning the Holocaust. Maybe we should kill 6 million more Jews since that is clearly significant.

Oh. My. Lord. Wow, just wow. Did you really compare my acknowledgment of a fiber product's economic viability and cultural relevance to the bondage and enslavement of mankind based on skin color and the systematic extermination (genocide) of over six million people? That's like when gay marriage advocates liken their movement to the Civil Rights struggle. There's no comparison.

Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were a slave owner(no matter how much George Washington opposed slavery, he still owned them), to name only two significant figures since you want to pull the president card.

Their use of slavery of no relevance to the point I was making. And the president card? I mentioned one guy, Washington. You brought in Jefferson. I wasn't making it about presidents by painting a picture of the historicity of hemp's use and significance in America. Hemp was used for many non-drug products and was an absolute necessity. I really don't think you're grasping what my post was about because you're attributing ideas to me that are not mine, you're tossing me non-sequiturs, and you're debating points I haven't made.

So because you don't want it to be used, other people should suffer when marijuana is the best choice currently?

...no? By "people growing it" I wasn't saying anything about the medical industry; I was talking about any old schlep growing it on their own using "medicinal use" as an excuse for drug abuse.

And I fail to see your comparison, since you put little effort into your reasoning other than "it is chemically altered."

...what? If you read the previous page you'll find me correcting someone that made the same mistake you're making in extending my comparison of two plants and two drugs beyond a simple comparison; It's a comparison and nothing more; it serves only to illustrate another point, that is the distinction between hemp and pot. Nothing more, nothing less.

And FYI, genetic altering isn't always bad like you claim it is.

I never made that case, never claimed that, so how am I wrong about something I didn't say? You're projecting that conclusion on to me as a result of you misunderstanding my post contrasting pot and hemp.

I don't even understand where you're coming from here. First you critiqued me on supporting hemp being legal which is completely safe, viable, and a historically good product. Then though you go after me supporting keeping pot illegal. Why support legalizing pot but support banning hemp? Or was your outrage over my pro-hemp statements purely because you have disdain for historical and national relevance being brought up?

 

[lx_theo]

.No, see, that's unconstitutional. The Constitution was amended by the Thirteenth Amendment, making slavery illegal. It's also a non-sequitur and doesn't follow any rational line of thinking. Here I am talking about a fiber-substitute being used for paper, rope, and so on in the past, and you think that line of thinking is so two dimensional that hemp can be replaced and substituted with the institution of slavery according to my line of thinking. No, according to my very lines, I'm a constitutionalist and the Constitution prohibits slavery and racially based bondage; it says nothing about fiber products (unless you warp the Commerce Clause into something it's not).

And you act like it shouldn't be changed in the future because it is how it is. The past is perfectly fine, but when it comes to the here and now, its bad to change it for the better. The law for illegal drugs really is unconstitutional when you get down to it. The government does have the authority to tell you what you can and can not put in your body. They get around it by having a need for stamps or something like them, that they don't make, to have possession of it.

 

[Agent Cobalt]

And you act like it shouldn't be changed in the future because it is how it is.

Please refer to the previous page where I mention that the law can be changed in our republic. I'm not stating drugs are good and should be legalized, no, but I'm also not saying you don't have a say in the matter and that laws can't change.

The past is perfectly fine, but when it comes to the here and now, its bad to change it for the better.

I never made the case that it's bad to change the law for the better. I just disagree with your definition of better.

The law for illegal drugs really is unconstitutional when you get down to it.

Oh I'd really like to hear your reasoning for this. As a man who has been studing the Constitution and constitutional law for half a decade now, I can't find the unconstitutionality of drug laws.

 

[Luck]

No, see, I was giving historical context and explaining the history behind hemp.No, see, that's unconstitutional. The Constitution was amended by the Thirteenth Amendment, making slavery illegal. It's also a non-sequitur and doesn't follow any rational line of thinking. Here I am talking about a fiber-substitute being used for paper, rope, and so on in the past, and you think that line of thinking is so two dimensional that hemp can be replaced and substituted with the institution of slavery according to my line of thinking. No, according to my very lines, I'm a constitutionalist and the Constitution prohibits slavery and racially based bondage; it says nothing about fiber products (unless you warp the Commerce Clause into something it's not)....what about the Dark Ages?Oh. My. Lord. Wow, just wow. Did you really compare my acknowledgment of a fiber product's economic viability and cultural relevance to the bondage and enslavement of mankind based on skin color and the systematic extermination (genocide) of over six million people? That's like when gay marriage advocates liken their movement to the Civil Rights struggle. There's no comparison.

You missed my point. You claim that it should be legal because it has historic significance, based on this.

Hemp is historically significant to this country

Every single major act of torture and injustice has at least some historic significance to it.
And personally, I believe that our supposed rights are outright lies. But that isn't here nor there, now is there?

No, see, that's unconstitutional

Oh gee, now that bull comes up. The constitution is supposed to be the supreme court of the land, but places are still exempt from that. I'm no law buff, but I can very well tell you that my rights are stripped from me when I am in my school. Don't you remember when children got suspended for wearing wristbands showing their opinion of the Vietnam war? Freedom of speech at its finest. I'll just use the words of the late George Carlin to support my opinion.

"Either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all."

And just in case you still think we have rights, just do what he said and go to Wikipedia, and type in "Japanese-Americans 1942".

Oh I'd really like to hear your reasoning for this. As a man who has been studing the Constitution and constitutional law for half a decade now, I can't find the unconstitutionality of drug laws.

It isn't a free country if you don't have the freedom to do what you want with your body without government involvement.