Should marijuana be legalized?

[ThatKidMike]

Read the thread Silver, the Netherlands has been used again and again.

For the upteenth time, the Netherlands is not a good example, because the US and Netherlands are completely different. The U.S has a much larger history with drug abuse and violence that the Netherlands do not. Just because they've successfully legalized it, and kudos to Netherlands for that, does NOT MEAN that the U.S will have the same result.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

However, how much harm does marijuana really cause? That's what I'd like to know; I've heard a number of people say that it's less harmful than tobacco. If that's true, there's no reason for it to be illegal.

But surely we should be working towards making tobacco/nicotine illegal, not making other substances legal. These things have no real benefit to society and are simply a detriment.

 

[Luck]

For the upteenth time, the Netherlands is not a good example, because the US and Netherlands are completely different. The U.S has a much larger history with drug abuse and violence that the Netherlands do not. Just because they've successfully legalized it, and kudos to Netherlands for that, does NOT MEAN that the U.S will have the same result.

Marijuana wasn't even illegal until the beginning of the 1900s. America didn't seem to have any huge problems directly related to marijuana then, but feel free to correct me~

But surely we should be working towards making tobacco/nicotine illegal, not making other substances legal. These things have no real benefit to society and are simply a detriment.

Making them illegal will do no good either. The Volstead Act already showed us that making a popular substance illegal will only do harm. If nicotine and tobacco were made illegal, then a thriving black market will be made for it. Having no benefit to society? Well, it has an economic benefit iirc, but feel free to correct me.

The only way you could prevent people from using tobacco and nicotine without creating a black market is by educating them or using propaganda.

 

[donavannj]

Go ahead, let stupid people make stupid decisions. But have it illegal to do in public, and by public I mean around anyone else that doesn't smoke weed. I will not be suffering for other people's mistakes, and I don't think anyone else should either, under any condition. Furthermore, quite frankly I don't care if it inconveniences the smokers. I'm sick of breathing people's mistakes, literally. And that, is the only way I would support legalizing marijuana, or smoking in general for that matter. Disagree if you will, but I work in an environment where I have to give old men lights, and sit around people who smoke, in public, all day long with a smile on my face. I've had to refuse cigarettes, with a smile on my face. I feel wrong pretending it doesn't bother me for the sake of being polite.

Good point. Public smoking is a concern, since it violates the rights of nonsmokers who choose not to poison themselves, and smoke will force poison into their system whether they like it or not, and I, having relatives who smoke cigarettes, constantly have to ask them to not light up in their house when I'm visiting.

 

[Silver]

Read the thread Silver, the Netherlands has been used again and again.

For the upteenth time, the Netherlands is not a good example, because the US and Netherlands are completely different. The U.S has a much larger history with drug abuse and violence that the Netherlands do not. Just because they've successfully legalized it, and kudos to Netherlands for that, does NOT MEAN that the U.S will have the same result.

I don't appreciate the tone you conveyed with that reply.

That being said, who's to say that the Dutch and Americans are different. Certainly not you, correct me if I'm mistaken but I highly doubt you're an expert on Dutch politics and culture, much less their society. Especially since you're a seventeen year old kid from America.

 

[SIN1488]

1) Lower taxes
2) This lets people have more spending money
3) ?????
4) PROFIT!!!1

Sorry for the meme example but I think you get the point.

Ah, thanks, that does make sense. Politicians should just use memes to explain their ideas. :P

Constant you haven't had any proof that im wrong on any account or for that matter anything worthwhile to say besides random things to discredit me, and no weed crimes don't instantly put you in jail, unless you have obscene amounts.

Well if you need evidence to back up your claims, at least use real life examples that you've seen or experienced. They can't be proved either, but it's better than nothing.

Also, another thing, if it's legalized in California and not other states for a while, imagine the tourists we'd be getting, which means...... more money! $_$

It will be like Amsterdam, but with Disneyland! :D

 

[ThatKidMike]

I don't appreciate the tone you conveyed with that reply.

That being said, who's to say that the Dutch and Americans are different. Certainly not you, correct me if I'm mistaken but I highly doubt you're an expert on Dutch politics and culture, much less their society. Especially since you're a seventeen year old kid from America.

Ad hominems are no way to attack an argument buddy. You don't need to be an expert to know that the U.S and Netherlands hold two completely different societies, especially in drug relations. Don't kid yourself



Luck, I'm exactly sure on the state of the US in the 1900s in relation to Marijuana, aside form the fact that around that time was (probably) the peak of the "devil plant" movement and whatnot.

And lol yeah, moreso than tourists I'd imagine there'd be an influx of new residents in CA.

 

[Dawn]

I've heard a number of people say that it's less harmful than tobacco. If that's true, there's no reason for it to be illegal.

Now, here's some common sense speaking on my part, because the ignorance of people who say Marijuana is safe, even relatively, makes me rage.

See, tobacco is bad for you. However, there are some forms of tobacco and nicotine that are meant to help people quit smoking that miraculously show no hint of doing harm to their body. The one instance I'm thinking of is a strip that is placed under the lip of the mouth.

So, why is tobacco or nicotine bad for you? Given the above logic says it's the way you use it. I mean, common sense should dictate from the start that breathing smoke from burning things is bad for you. Firemen wear breathing masks for a reason. What I'm trying to say is, if you're going to smoke something, you really should know and accept right off the back that it's bad for you whether it's tobacco, or weed, or paper, or hair, or whatever.

So yeah, whether or not it's less dangerous than tobacco, it's still smoking, which means it's bad for you.

 

[Master Bait]

No. It's like saying being high is legal. Then people would start killing each other.

 

[Luck]

Now, here's some common sense speaking on my part, because the ignorance of people who say Marijuana is safe, even relatively, makes me rage.

See, tobacco is bad for you. However, there are some forms of tobacco and nicotine that are meant to help people quit smoking that miraculously show no hint of doing harm to their body. The one instance I'm thinking of is a strip that is placed under the lip of the mouth.

So, why is tobacco or nicotine bad for you? Given the above logic says it's the way you use it. I mean, common sense should dictate from the start that breathing smoke from burning things is bad for you. Firemen wear breathing masks for a reason. What I'm trying to say is, if you're going to smoke something, you really should know and accept right off the back that it's bad for you whether it's tobacco, or weed, or paper, or hair, or whatever.

So yeah, whether or not it's less dangerous than tobacco, it's still smoking, which means it's bad for you.

Pretty sure anything is bad for you in excess. Caffeine is bad for you if you take in too much of it, as well as fat.

Anyways, it's not all bad. Cigarettes will never have enough good for me to actually use them, but they are used to release stress, and honestly, they do help some people who have stressful lives. Don't state it in a manner where you're saying "it's completely bad", even if it is almost that.

No. It's like saying being high is legal. Then people would start killing each other.

You're a great troll, so I'm responding.
Marijuana is a demotivator. It makes people more relaxed and lazy. And it does make everything taste better. You're thinking of crack cocaine and other drugs.

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

Making them illegal will do no good either. The Volstead Act already showed us that making a popular substance illegal will only do harm. If nicotine and tobacco were made illegal, then a thriving black market will be made for it. Having no benefit to society? Well, it has an economic benefit iirc, but feel free to correct me.

The only way you could prevent people from using tobacco and nicotine without creating a black market is by educating them or using propaganda.

Ignoring the drop in revenue, you could slowly phase out nicotine by raising the legal age every year, thus meaning less and less people would start using it. Eventually, you should end up with a legal age of about 70 to keep the already addicted happy, but it would mean that far fewer youths would start. Even if you ignored that fact that it would be hard to get (as you'd have to ask a OAP to buy you cigarettes for you or steal them from your grandparents), it would surely start to be seen as something for the elderly and not "cool".
Just a random idea I came up with.

 

[twocows]

But surely we should be working towards making tobacco/nicotine illegal, not making other substances legal. These things have no real benefit to society and are simply a detriment.

There are people who enjoy smoking and when done it private it doesn't hurt anyone else. There's no reason to deprive people of things they like doing just because those things may be harmful to themselves. Are we going to start banning candy next? Or perhaps television? If I wanted to live in a nanny state, I wouldn't be living where I am. There are plenty of foreign governments who think they know what's good for me better than I do, and I don't really want to live in any of them.

 

[SIN1488]

I said before that I'm not sure about legalization because of how it will effect kids. Now I'm pretty sure. Basically, if it became legal then most street dealers would go out of business. That means marijuana will become a product sold in shops much like alcohol or cigarettes. So since kids or young teenagers won't be able to get it from street dealers anymore, the only source is smoke shops, liquor stores, etc.

And those street dealers might try to stay in business by selling to minors, but since the police won't be after the smokers 21 and over anymore, they will go after the underage ones and the dealers selling to them. That's why I think they would die out pretty fast.

So since they wouldn't be able to easily get it from there, it will become less available, and underage people will only try to get it if they really really want it. So I think I shouldn't worry about that part, and start thinking of other reasons why it's worth it. Also, does anyone know exactly what Prop 19 says? Is there anything else riding on the coattails of it?

 

[Aether★]

I don't really know what to say about it. There was many speculations between politics in Poland about it, but no conclusion. They legalized afterburners (? boosters ? I don't know), which have worse effects than Marijuana and they are practically chemical. Marijuana is natural, but... Hard to say about it. I smoked it once and I exaggerate a bit, so I had "little problems" later and I decided to not smoke it ever again.

 

[SIN1488]

They legalized afterburners (? boosters ? I don't know), which have worse effects than Marijuana and they are practically chemical.

Sorry to go a little off topic, but what the heck are those?

 

[El Gofre]

Sorry to go a little off topic, but what the heck are those?

Afterburner is a term generally applied to any drug taken when using another drug, with the initial effect fading. It's usually done to increase the intensity of the high/trip you're already on. That's what it means in the UK (Or at least my area) anyway.

But yeah, I think it should be legalised despite not actually using it myself.

 

[Rapidash]

There are people who enjoy smoking and when done it private it doesn't hurt anyone else.

I disagree completely.

This point might not apply to Americans, but in the UK we have the NHS, paid for by the taxpayer. It's an amazing system, and means that everyone gets fair and equal care, and everyone foots the bill. Obviously a logical alternative. Why should tax payers have to pay extra because people are drunk/high/smoking cigarettes and then either destroy their or have accidents that need NHS attention.

For those of us that don't drink or smoke, it's difficult to hear how much tax money goes on treating those with completely preventible conditions which have been brought on by substance abuse. So I really don't think that another substance that puts people "out of their minds" is really a great idea.

 

[Aether★]

Afterburner is a term generally applied to any drug taken when using another drug, with the initial effect fading. It's usually done to increase the intensity of the high/trip you're already on. That's what it means in the UK (Or at least my area) anyway.

But yeah, I think it should be legalised despite not actually using it myself.

Not exactly. You can take it not as booster. It is very intense by itself.

Those are usually tablets or powders.

The last one are just an antitussive tablets, but in higher portion they have actions similar to drugs.

 

[Livewire]

I disagree completely.

This point might not apply to Americans, but in the UK we have the NHS, paid for by the taxpayer. It's an amazing system, and means that everyone gets fair and equal care, and everyone foots the bill. Obviously a logical alternative. Why should tax payers have to pay extra because people are drunk/high/smoking cigarettes and then either destroy their or have accidents that need NHS attention.

For those of us that don't drink or smoke, it's difficult to hear how much tax money goes on treating those with completely preventable conditions which have been brought on by substance abuse. So I really don't think that another substance that puts people "out of their minds" is really a great idea.

I wish America had a more comprehensive health system like England's and the majority of Europe it seems. The amount of Money used to pay for treatment of carcinogenic diseases- Lung Cancer, emphysema, etc is obscene here in the US. Like billions annually.

But, from a monetary standpoint, i can see why it could be legalized. The potential for monetary gain in growing/selling etc of legal marijuana is Huge. It would become a massive industry.

I would also like to point out the double standard when it comes to drugs or marijuana- it can be legally prescribed for medical purposes. Also, i can go out now to my Drug store or pharmacy and buy several types of drugs with just as potent effects as Marijuana. Some of the active ingredients in common medicines- like pseudophendrine in Benedryl or the acetaminophen in Advil can screw you up just as much as getting High can.

 

[twocows]

I disagree completely.

This point might not apply to Americans, but in the UK we have the NHS, paid for by the taxpayer. It's an amazing system, and means that everyone gets fair and equal care, and everyone foots the bill. Obviously a logical alternative. Why should tax payers have to pay extra because people are drunk/high/smoking cigarettes and then either destroy their or have accidents that need NHS attention.

For those of us that don't drink or smoke, it's difficult to hear how much tax money goes on treating those with completely preventible conditions which have been brought on by substance abuse. So I really don't think that another substance that puts people "out of their minds" is really a great idea.

That's a different system than what we use so it doesn't apply to my arguments, but I'd ask why there isn't some measure in place to disqualify such people from the taxpayer-funded version of health care. That seems like a pretty obvious requirement of such a system. If you do stuff that is harmful to yourself, you should obviously have to pay for the consequences. Over here, if you're a smoker, your health insurance costs go up. Makes sense to me.