|
Author
|
Topic: Legalize marijuana?
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 10-15-2003 01:34 AM
I never understood this; why should we legalize marijuana?
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikuse
Farting Nudist
Member # 3037
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 01:41 AM
because minor drug offenders fill our prisons and you don't even flinch
From: In my pants. | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
137
Whiner
Member # 1465
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 02:16 AM
Yeah, ridiculous amounts of money are spent on enforcing these laws, but how many people does it really deter? Maybe a few scared suburban kids, until they find out how things really work. Most (I'm quite tempted to say all) of you either work or go to school with someone who sells weed. Provided someone is willing to spend the money, it's almost guaranteed that they can get their hands on some weed. Very few casual smokers (not dealers) ever get caught (or commit any crimes that victimize someone, as a result of smoking), so I don't see why possession should be illegal.
We do have some bright folks here with widely different viewpoints, so I want people here to tell me what's wrong with my proposition. I think possession should be legalized, but not sale. Aside from the logical inconsistency arising from the fact that weed is not free, I wonder why this would not work out for the good of the people. Harmless stoners can do their thing, and dealers will have to be discreet, which is a mindset that may result in less violent crime (not that weed is notorious for victimizing innocents or anything). People higher up in the chain will still have to watch their backs, but they already do that. Nothing changes for them.
I'll even throw this in: For many, many people smoking weed is a lifestyle. They do it everyday, and are generally harmless people. Now, the Declaration of Independence recognizes the pursuit of happiness as an inalienable right. So, why should a generally harmless part of the population have to risk prosecution in their pursuit of happiness? A stoner's use of weed can be likened to a caffeine addict's use of coffee. It "gets them right", and balances them for a more satisfying day. Making caffeine illegal would be just as great a sin as prohibiting marijuana was.
I originally came up with this "pursuit of happiness" idea in support of psychedelics, but with the caffeine comparison it works even better here.
edit: spelling errors
[ 10-15-2003, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: 137 ]
From: Space. Like, outer space. | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 03:48 AM
137: I think possession should be legalized, but not sale.
I don't think that's really the way to go. It would make all the bullshit possession charges go away, and it would make things easier for all of us (hypothetically, of course), but it doesn't do anything about the system of organized crime that's involved in getting the weed to the guy at your local used CD shop in the first place.
I know you mentioned this, but I think this problem is orders of magnitude larger.
Aside from the logical inconsistency arising from the fact that weed is not free...
Well, weed is free. Everyone could share seeds and have it growing in their gardens, not that there's anything wrong with that. But this Merka and we have money and Messkins to do things for us. We don't grow our own tomatoes either. Capitalism wins.
I'm just not sure that setting the precedent for more logically inconsistent laws would be worth the freedom to toke at a concert without being paranoid.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 07:58 AM
Why not cocaine too?
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 12:50 PM
Exactly. Why not?
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
powercat
Farting Nudist
Member # 1103
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 12:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 10,000Lb.Snorlax:
Why not cocaine too?
Because we don't need a generation of wasted, brain-dead losers destroying our country. It's bad enough worrying about some drunk @$$hole plowing into my car when I'm driving at night, now I'm supposed to worry about pot-heads and coke-heads, too? I don't think so. If you want to enjoy your illegal drugs, move to Europe and leave us alone.
- - - - -
http://xbox360s.freepay.com/?r=24531001
From: Stockton, CA | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 01:34 PM
So, the money is better spent building druglords we created than paying your salary?
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 02:01 PM
Ahh....
I am so going to post here in a couple hours.
But for now:
Powercat: "If you want to enjoy your illegal drugs, move to Europe and leave us alone."
Xlation: "If you want freedom to do what you want, get the hell out of America! We don't believe in that "freedom" bullshit!
I want drugs legalized. All of them. It's the right thing to do, and freedom itself is worth making sacrifices for. Enough motherfuckers should have died for that to convince everyone, but lots of people don't seem to be able to remember that. Banning marijuana was accomplished in two steps: step 1, they skirted the law and put a tax on weed: can't do anything with it without a tax stamp. Same kind of thing had been applied in the past for other goods.
The trick? They never sold many stamps. Just a couple, I think. That made it illegal.
Why didn't they just ban it outright?
Because banning a substance is against the Constitution. Nothing in the Constitution gives anyone the right to control a substance. They knew this, so they had to walk around it.
Once America was firmly on board the idea of controlled substances, only *then* could they go and ban it for real.
And has anybody seen the reasons why we had stuff made illegal? A lot of the time, it usually comes down to "This stuff makes black men angry and they rape white women." With a side of "I don't do this, you don't do this, it's bad, let's make it illegal."
now I'm supposed to worry about pot-heads and coke-heads, too?
Don't you already?
Nobody is asking for DUI to be made legal.
- - - - -
Subject: Ninja and Opensource
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uiru
Sketch Molester
Member # 437
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 02:04 PM
We should be worrying about getting rid of the drugs we already have, as opposed to introducing new ones. Yes, if a person sits in their basement and tokes up with their buddies they probably aren't going to hurt anybody... probably. However, the same idea applies to alcohol, and how many people die needlessly due to drunk drivers? You can't take something that impairs your judgement, give it to the unwashed, uninformed, unintelligent masses and expect everything to be just fine. People are too stupid to not drive when they can barely stand up straight. If possession, and thus, use of marijuana was legal, people wouldn't have to hide in basements. They could drive somewhere. Then they could drive back.
That said, it amuses me that tobacco is so readily accepted when marijuana is not. Marijuana messes with your head but I'm somewhat certain it isn't fatal. People are also too stupid to realize that smoking is not good for you. On top of being wholly unattractive.
If there were some way to keep the actions of stupid people from interfering with the not-stupid people, we could let them do all the drugs they wanted. We'd let them drink until they piss themselves at the table, smoke weed until they think they're floating and do cocaine until they can see their ancestors and everything else all they liked and they'd burn out and die sooner or later. Trouble is, there's no guarantee that the guy they crash into on the way home isn't another drugged up moron.
~Uiru
- - - - -
TIDUDSOFIEIHUGHEXXXC: "maybe he will let you touch his blow up do"
AFRO NOOOOOOO!!!
From: the floating castle of Newfoundland | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 02:05 PM
I was thinking that cokeheads would probably have faster reflexes than drunkards too...
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 04:13 PM
Personally, I don't smoke weed, but I think it should be legalized. It would save the government a lot of money and we could even make money by taxing it. Maybe having a license to sell, much like a liquor license, would work out. I think all in all, it would be better than keeping it illegal.
Plus, marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes (although obviously still harmful to some degree), and cigarettes are legal.
Although I don't think what Uiru said about pot smokers being able to "drive somewhere and drive back" would be a good idea, as DUI charges would still need to be in effect. From what I understand, marijuana can affect your driving, although not necessarily as bad as alcohol can.
[ 10-15-2003, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Dweedle ]
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 04:19 PM
It makes you feel like you're going seven hundred fucking miles per hour when you're only going 35...or...so I've heard.
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 04:48 PM
What are the drug laws in the Netherlands? Marijuana and the shrooms legal, but harder stuff banned? I dunno for sure, but that's my understanding of it....
I think it's pretty clear that the current "war on drugs" stuff is not getting the job done. We need to change our strategy, but I dunno how much.
Actually, I don't even know exactly what our strategy is right now. Lock people up, create manditory minimums and yell at countries that produce the stuff?
I always hear about treating drug addiction as a medical problem instead of a criminal one, and it seems to make a great deal of sense. At least as a starting point. But appearently that's soft on crime, or something.
A legal, regulated marijuana market has its upsides. Excise tax revenue, reducing organized crime (I dunno much about how big this is either. Holy shit am I ignorant on this subject), FDA regulated potency and safety standards. Plus, I think it's difficult to justify the legality of alcohol when comparing the relative harm the two substances do. I guess I don't have too strong of an opinion on legalization, but there are definitely other avenues to pursue first.
quote:
Because banning a substance is against the Constitution.
Pretty broad use of a very direct word here. I don't know all the judicial histroy involved, but I don't think the Supreme Court would agree with you if push came to shove. And even Old Man Jefferson reneged on this position.
Besides, even if all Federal drug-banning laws were rescinded, there's no way to deny that states absolutely do have this right.
[ 10-15-2003, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: gruco ]
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 10-15-2003 07:26 PM
Can anyone possibly find statistics showing how many people smoke weed now?
Do those statistics even exist?
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
EspeonNidoking
warcraft 3
Member # 2028
|
posted 10-15-2003 08:13 PM
making marijuana government regulated would make so much $$ and less "crime" for the country i've heard.
at the worst, i don't see how if it's government regulated it could be no worse than drinking alcohol.
i understand it can be treated like alcohol actually with "under the influence" driving and whatnot.
[ 10-15-2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: EspeonNidoking ]
- - - - -
"Yeah, my pubic hair has dollar signs trimmed in it!
$$Bling Bling$$" ~Jman
From: Summit,New Jersey, Tampa, Fl, and Rindge, NH | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DoomMullet
Farting Nudist
Member # 3363
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 08:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
It makes you feel like you're going seven hundred fucking miles per hour when you're only going 35...or...so I've heard.
Yeah, it pretty much does exactly that.
As much as I'd like to think it would work if marijuana was illegalized and government controlled, it would never work out. This argument was stated very well by my economics professor, but I can't really remember it all.
What I do remember is that the government, in all its wisdom, will tax the hell out of it. In the end, it really won't change a thing, because there will still be all the backyard distributing happening to beat the rising costs of government weed, not to mention how weak the gov't product will be. There will be just as much law-breaking as before because of this.
The best solution that I can foresee is the decriminalization, like they've begun to do in Canada. For example, if you are carrying up to a quarter pound on your person, you will not be held criminally liable, but once you go one ounce over that limit, you'd better watch yourself.
- - - - -
What kind of a fuckass fuck of a bumfuck shithole town is this?
From: fondling your balls, don't you feel that? | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sonuis
Sonius
Member # 1508
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 09:06 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dweedle:
Plus, marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes (although obviously still harmful to some degree), and cigarettes are legal.
I read in some magazine in an article versus the two that Marijuana is much more harmful. Something like, "4 more times the tar clogged into your throat" or something like that. Though, the article didn't make too much sense other than that part.
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 09:22 PM
It's been said that a joint is as bad as four cigarettes, but from what I understand, most potheads don't smoke the whole joint anyway.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
MK
is somewhat large.
Member # 1445
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-15-2003 10:57 PM
People are always like "it's harmless, whatever..."
All of my friends's brothers are potheads. My friends's seen his own brothers and other friends of his just change into, well, slobs and people who don't amount to anything, all they care about is getting some more drugs...
It really does fuck up your mind, and well, make you stupid... ![[Trash Koffing]](graemlins/trashkoffing.gif)
[ 10-15-2003, 10:58 PM: Message edited by: MK ]
Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanderZRPG
Got a whale of a tale to tell ya, lads!
Member # 1615
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 12:13 AM
1) Common Marijuana smoking entails deeper inhalation than that of cigarettes. Due to this, and the chemical factors within Marijuana, there is a higher chance of developping Lung Cancer from Marijuana than from common cigarettes. Albeit, of course some brands of cigarette will always be worse than some other brands/types of Marijuana, however, the (I can't remember if it's Canadian or American) Cancer Society has spoken. And they don't, in theory, have any reason to be biased against marijuana.
2) Yes, it does mess with your mind. As does every drug. The reason that Tabacco and caffeine are legal is that the amount that they impare your mental processes is nearly immeasuably small (over the short term; if you measured a pre-smoker who hasn't had a puff before, and the same guy 20 years later, I'm sure you'll find degenerate differences). And the nutcase who believes that cocaine would improve reflexes when driving is sadly mistaken; cocaine does not improve reflexes. If can improve muscular performance, to a degree, and bypass some levels of pain and such (think of it as mini-PCP, I suppose, which makes you insanely strong and inpervious to pain; hence why the L.A.P.D use 3-4 pairs of handcuffs on PCP users), but due to it negatively affecting the chemical processes of the brain, it would not assist with activies such as driving.
There are several different views for those of us who do not approve of such drugs as people do, today. Rush Limbaugh (some radio host guy in LA) was hooked on Pain killers; this was still considered a drug problem.
One anti-drug idea is to begin the system with ample education (like, doubling what we get, now). Once you are certain to have had all the warnings drilled into you, your parents or whatnot can sign some form or something confirming your education, and then you're on your own. All the drugs in the world will be at your fingertips. Have at it. However, all public support and institutions will be removed. If you want to mess up your mind/body/life, then you deal with it, and don't make everyone else pay for it. If you're a druggie, you can't get a car to be able to kill someone with (of course, you could always steal, but that would be dealt with as it is, now, I suppose; I don't really believe in this method, so I haven't thought through the details).
The other method is just to illegalize everything. Remove it all, and then let's get on with our lives. Honestly, there's more to life than the joint your days revolve around.
I personally think that legalization of pot would be a very bad idea. People can come up with all the clauses they like, with their own levels of 'breathalyzer' stuff and whatnot, but innocent people will die, be it in a mugging gone wrong, or an accidental car crash. If it was just the druggies being messed up, I wouldn't mind as much, but it affects everyone. Plus, the potentially-non-druggy families of the druggies need to pay for the funeral, and such....
Bleh.
- - - - -
From what we've learned, it seems like you'd prefer girls dressed in ant costumes or something... -Kazuki (Regarding tl;dr)
Owner of the Power Advantage DBZ RPG
(www.poweradvantage.net)
From: High Prairie, AB, Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mentar the Malady Monkey
worst username ever
Member # 1182
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 12:19 AM
Pot doesn't make you stupid. Addiction does.
- - - - -
WHAT.
From: Pandemonium, HL, Hades | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kazuki
Farting Nudist
Member # 3519
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 12:20 AM
See, this is why I'm drug-free!
Though I'm also a virgin...
Coincidence?
- - - - -
" When we get outta the 80's and into the 90's, we'll make the 60's look like the 50's. "
From: Seattle, WA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 10-16-2003 12:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mentar the Malady Monkey:
It's been said that a joint is as bad as four cigarettes, but from what I understand, most potheads don't smoke the whole joint anyway.
Yea, most cigaret smokers go through two packs a day (maybe three.) Main reason is the nicotine found in cigarets is addictive.
If the government legalized alcohol because of prohibition, they could do the same for marijuana.
Though I know the problem is really bad (everyone I know has access to marijuana) I can’t really prove it (I’m doing a report and I need references.)
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanderZRPG
Got a whale of a tale to tell ya, lads!
Member # 1615
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 12:43 AM
Ack, forgot one important fact:
If the gov. legalized pot, they'd have agencies make it, themselves. They would put in additives and preservatives and such, which is one of the major contributions to cigarettes being carcinogenic.
- - - - -
From what we've learned, it seems like you'd prefer girls dressed in ant costumes or something... -Kazuki (Regarding tl;dr)
Owner of the Power Advantage DBZ RPG
(www.poweradvantage.net)
From: High Prairie, AB, Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cesar
Farting Nudist
Member # 529
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 01:42 AM
Here are some marijuana info and statistics sites from the CBC, anthough it only records Canadian information.
Info, stats, and links to other related sites
Vancouver provides heroin users with a safe medical environment to take their drugs.
Personally, I would rather see cars off the streets before legalizing any other drugs. I see people in cars more of a threat then a stoner walking down the street singing a tune, or holding an axe.
quote:
"We're not legalizing it, we're decriminalizing."
– Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, April 29, 2003
quote:
"I'm 39 years old… and, yes, of course I tried it before, I mean obviously."
– Federal Justice Minister Martin Cauchon, July 2002
Gotta love politics ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 02:04 AM
From the top, gentlemen!
never understood this; why should we legalize marijuana?
Because liberty is important for its own sake. Because a person smoking weed causes harm to no one but himself. Because marijuana is certainly on par with nicotine and alchohol, the two drugs with which it is often consumed, both of which are legal- and one of which went through the exact same thing as weed is going through now. Because it is wrong to restrict people. Because freedom is worth striving for, and this is one of the few countries that has the balls to acknowledge that. Because weed is illegal for the wrong reasons. Because we waste time and money that could be either in our pockets or doing useful work for us in other areas. Because our prohibition on drugs influences our international politics- hell, some of the decisions we've made with regard to horrible regimes make you think that the people responsible were high themselves- and only make sense when you remember that we are trying to fight against nature and our own national values. Because we are creating (have created) an uberpowerful criminal underclass. Because each law that prohibits something lets the government into your life a little more. Because the laws are moralistic and irrational.
so I don't see why possession should be illegal
Listen up people, I talk to a bunch of people all the time who are in favor of "decriminalization" of drugs, or some drugs, or small amounts of drugs. A lot of the time this is because people who do the drugs in question don't think that *they* could possibly be committing a crime. To these people, I say, think outside yourself. There will be no freedom for yourself if there is no freedom for others. The people who are in favor of making any given thing (anal sex, marijuana) illegal tend to be people who don't do it, can't step out of their own world view for a second, and not only want others to share their belief (legitimate), but also want the government to enforce their beliefs on others. We didn't use to have drug laws. When we didn't, there was no drug epidemic. We had a bunch of ignorant politicians with dubious special interest backing get all moral (and Americans are a moral people (or try to be, or at least recognize that it is a desirable thing: while many may be immoral, very few are amoral), so they usually try to elect moral people) and pass drug laws. The amount of lives that are lost, the amount of effor that goes into fighting- you think it would matter if it all goes down. But no, all that happens when a shit ton of grass comes in is that my friends in Florida smoke up. Do they drive high? Sometimes, yes. But they also drive drunk.
"Freedom isn't free" is a cliche, but a true one. The price we pay for cars is auto accidents (one of them, but we'll focus on the social aspects that are relevant). The price we pay for freedom from government restrictions like Europe is a horrible urban sprawl. The price we pay for freedom to bear arms is a class of gun accidents. Every freedom has a price, even freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Nothing, nothing along those lines comes for free. If we had laws against tobacco and alchohol, we would have safer roads and less cancer patients. As a society, you can add up how many humans died this year that wouldn't with some kind of regulatory measures passed. We pay for that freedom with our lives. I can think of a lot of times where government regulation could save lives, but no one would consider the regulations because they offend our current sensibilities. What I am saying is that freedom to do drugs is no different.
Because we don't need a generation of wasted, brain-dead losers destroying our country.
I have met maybe *one* person who doesn't do drugs because the government tells them not to. Everyone else who doesn't do or has never done drugs that I know has a *personal* reason for it.
I won't throw away your arguement, though, because I believe it is valid.
Let's not stop there, though, let's go to the logical conclusion.
We'll throw away alchohol and tobacco, first. Well, at least alchohol. A drunk driver is about the worst thing you can put on the road, and I doubt that a cokehead is really going to do anything that a drunk won't.
Why not mandate Christianity? The beliefs espoused by modern Christians are pretty much designed to discourage human conflict except at a very high level- one woman with one man, a system of beliefs that encourages love of family and care for your fellow man. Several conflicts have been caused by different religions, and many conflicts have been massaged by the presense of it (civil rights, for instance)- in fact, religion only causes war when there is more than one of them. So make that the law, just one religion.
While we're raping the first amendment with good intentions, we should get rid of a lot of the hostile speech and press. If you look at the previous century, you'll see a lot of divisive movements caused by unfriendly sentiments. The most important value for a society that values human life above all is harmony, not freedom.
I can go on with this. The conclusions that I drew are actually valid, they just don't describe a country I would want to live in. It would be better objectively, though, if your measure is not getting smacked into by cokeheads on the road.
Your point is good though, because it addresses the ability of society to alter its constituency by legislative means instead of moral ones- replacing values with laws.
I think that is an awful idea. I would rather have Billy Angry Average high on his drug of choice and with no arguement against society than I would have him high and breaking the law, or even sober and trying to break the law.
Is society losing productivity due to drugs? Probably. Does it have the right to demand productivity? Probably not. In most other ways it doesn't get away with it, why should this be different.
You can't take something that impairs your judgement, give it to the unwashed, uninformed, unintelligent masses and expect everything to be just fine.
I don't expect everything to be just fine. People who make that claim are lying- though, in the case of weed, everyone who wants it already has it, mostly.
I don't expect everything to be fine. I expect everything to be free.
The remainder of Uiru's post is basically "I want people to have freedom, but your freedom to swing your arm stops at my nose." This is legitimate, and I think if we had better and more effective DUI penalties maybe this would be less of a problem. DUI is a crime that can hurt people. But I don't think that giving people more ways to get UI is the problem, nor do I think that DUI would greatly increase with legal weed. Assume the number of potheads increases by a factor N, where 1 < N < 2. Weed DUI could hardly increase by more than N, could it? I think it wouldn't increase much, because presumably the people who are DUIing right now don't care about the law against DUI, while the people who *would* smoke weed if it were legal but aren't because it is illegal clearly *do* care about the law. I doubt it would make much difference.
I don't know about coke and heroin and all the other things though. We could legalise them one at a time- heck, we could use the extra police power we get back to enforcing the actual crimes that hurt people, like DUI.
It would save the government a lot of money and we could even make money by taxing it.
You can always spot a liberal in an arguement. They immediately try to tax things. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
But yes, it would be a massive improvement for the government. The taxes on weed wouldn't need to be that great (and you could still grow your own, and probably even give it to your friends, just like you can with homebrew alchohol now), but you can bet they would be as high as they could be without causing a black market to exist (or continue to exist). Organized crime would be dealt a huge blow, and over the next couple generations would be on the retreat. Police would be in less danger. There are a lot of benefits.
But appearently that's soft on crime, or something.
In this country, it used to be soft on crime to let a black person get away with sitting in the white section.
Do not let laws choose your morality.
but I don't think the Supreme Court would agree with you if push came to shove
You are probably right on that.
Besides, even if all Federal drug-banning laws were rescinded, there's no way to deny that states absolutely do have this right.
I *think* you are right about that. Pretty sure.
grucs, can you give me a link to that Jefferson thing?
Do those statistics even exist? (weed usage statistics)
Estimates exist. I don't actually know where, though.
People are always like "it's harmless, whatever..."
Yes, this is a lie. It isn't *really* addictive, but I've seen it fuck up some people's lives pretty good...
Did you catch the flavor in my speech?
"I've seen it fuck up some people's lives pretty good..."
If "it" were "a flaming bus", sure. But weed is something you do yourself. I really *have* seen a lot of my friends fuck up their lives, either temporarily or permanent, because of their weed usage. Would they have been golden in a world without weed? Well, for the sake of arguement, sure. But maybe they would have been better off if they weren't allowed to drive, too. Or had any number of other freedoms stripped away.
All of my friends's brothers are potheads. My friends's seen his own brothers and other friends of his just change into, well, slobs and people who don't amount to anything, all they care about is getting some more drugs...
I have also seen this. It is very sad. It is one of the many reasons I don't do drugs.
It really does fuck up your mind, and well, make you stupid...
In their defense, some people do fine. Almost everyone I know has at least *tried* weed. A couple smoke occasionally, a few whenever they see it, and a couple base some of their existence around it. When I asked one of my first friends to try it how it made him feel, he said something like "It was nice and relaxing, but the next day I didn't feel 100%. Like some things just did felt foggier."
I didn't want anything like that!
And the government had nothing to do with it.
What I do remember is that the government, in all its wisdom, will tax the hell out of it. In the end, it really won't change a thing, because there will still be all the backyard distributing happening to beat the rising costs of government weed, not to mention how weak the gov't product will be. There will be just as much law-breaking as before because of this.
That is total bullshit, and you should know it as soon as it slipped from your keyboard or from your teacher's mouth. The government has taxes on alchohol. A lot of them, I think. And what happened to all the illegal importation and transportation when alchohol, which used to be illegal, was legal again?
Why, that shit just went away! Well, not totally, but mostly. If the government taxed weed enough for it to be at 3/4 of it's current price, they would be making a killing. Every motherfucker in the illegal drug industry makes double what he puts in, it seems. You pay 30, you sell for 60. Think Phillip Morris could beat that kind of setup? Point is, moonshine is only signifigant in really poor areas. Underground cigarrettes only matter in places with stupidly abusive taxes on them. The government could tax weed at 100% and it would still be cheaper at the gas station than from the pusher who paid 5 for what he sells for 10, and the other doublings that took place above him.
There is no way that this would happen.
they'd have agencies make it, themselves
Yes. Just like they make cigarrettes, alchohol, and drugs in general. Oh wait, no, those are three huge private industry that operate within a large body of legislation- but are still private industries.
- - - - -
Subject: Ninja and Opensource
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 08:28 AM
Wordswordwords...
Anyway, do you think many people who do not currently drink and/or smoke weed already would start smoking if it became legal?
If weed became legal, I might choose to smoke in situations where I might otherwise drink, but I'm not going to blaze up at my desk any more than I hit the flask in my office right now...
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanderZRPG
Got a whale of a tale to tell ya, lads!
Member # 1615
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 10:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
Because a person smoking weed causes harm to no one but himself.
As stated like 15 times throughout this thread, this is not true. If you lock 'em up in a little room, then give'm the pot, then keep them there until the effects wear off, maybe.
quote:
Because marijuana is certainly on par with nicotine and alchohol, the two drugs with which it is often consumed, both of which are legal- and one of which went through the exact same thing as weed is going through now.
What makes you the authority over what it is on par with? Weed most certainly messes up your mind worse than either of the others, statistically speaking.
quote:
Because weed is illegal for the wrong reasons.
Once again, there was probably hundreds of reasons that it is/was banned, and I doubt any of us are an authority of it.
quote:
Because the laws are moralistic and irrational.
Once again, your personal view.
quote:
To these people, I say, think outside yourself. There will be no freedom for yourself if there is no freedom for others. The people who are in favor of making any given thing (anal sex, marijuana) illegal tend to be people who don't do it, can't step out of their own world view for a second, and not only want others to share their belief (legitimate), but also want the government to enforce their beliefs on others.
A common arguement for the decriminilization of pot: Potheads see the big picture, whereas the educated everyone-else does not. Of course, that must be it! The potheads couldn't just be doing it to make their getting pot easier (not because a sizable portion of them are lazy, addicted creeps who don't want to work for their illegal stashes or anything)
Bah, I have to go to class; I might comment more, later.
- - - - -
From what we've learned, it seems like you'd prefer girls dressed in ant costumes or something... -Kazuki (Regarding tl;dr)
Owner of the Power Advantage DBZ RPG
(www.poweradvantage.net)
From: High Prairie, AB, Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Psybro
Half Psyduck. Half Slowbro. All cop.
Member # 290
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 10:54 AM
What compelling evidence is there that decriminalising marijuana will have a negative effect on a nation?
In the UK, posession is no longer an arrestable offence, and I can't say it seems to have made a great deal of difference to anything.
From: Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceoalex316
Time for the flaming leprosy party
Member # 338
|
posted 10-16-2003 12:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LanderZRPG:
quote:
Because marijuana is certainly on par with nicotine and alchohol, the two drugs with which it is often consumed, both of which are legal- and one of which went through the exact same thing as weed is going through now.
What makes you the authority over what it is on par with? Weed most certainly messes up your mind worse than either of the others, statistically speaking.
What statistics?
- - - - -
Maximum Penetration Industries.
From: NYC | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
DoomMullet
Farting Nudist
Member # 3363
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 12:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
That is total bullshit, and you should know it as soon as it slipped from your keyboard or from your teacher's mouth. The government has taxes on alchohol. A lot of them, I think. And what happened to all the illegal importation and transportation when alchohol, which used to be illegal, was legal again?
It's really not a comparable situation. Alcohol had been legal for all of history, then they just slapped the Amendment on the Constitution that said it wasn't. That is why there was the bathtub alcohol, that is why the organized crime boomed. Once it was legalized again, people got over that deviant attitude and bought it from the stores again, and the mobs moved on to other areas of money-mkaing such as racketeering and smuggling drugs and whatnot.
Weed has been illegal for so long, it is impossible to tell the social backlash that would occur if we just up and legalized it all tomorrow. I believe a slow decriminalization is the way to go, because it allows the small after-school users to go on with their lives, but it still allows the authorities to nab the large distributors.
- - - - -
What kind of a fuckass fuck of a bumfuck shithole town is this?
From: fondling your balls, don't you feel that? | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 12:57 PM
LanderZ: Once again, there was probably hundreds of reasons that it is/was banned, and I doubt any of us are an authority of it.
This is a dangerous mindset. The whole point of democracy is that you, yes, you, that guy on the couch with the remote who couldn't care less on politics, you ARE the authority. Politicians answer to YOU. You have the ultimate decision-making power.
Of course, no one's really fearing for our society, because no one really advocates that; the "we are not the authority" tack seems to be played only when it supports the invoker's argument, and freely ignored when the invoker has an ax to grind. The fact remains that, our leaders being human, we stand a fair shot at understanding their motives, especially in a society which prizes distribution of information.
What makes you the authority over what it is on par with? Weed most certainly messes up your mind worse than either of [alcohol or tobacco], statistically speaking.
So you're admitting that they screw you up pretty bad, so basically, we're supposed to have a cutoff point for screwupness's legality? We should be free until person #5293 gets hurt?
cfalcon: Because the laws are moralistic and irrational.
LanderZ: Once again, your personal view.
That is not a defense.
A common arguement for the decriminilization of pot: Potheads see the big picture, whereas the educated everyone-else does not.
Doesn't pretty much everyone in any argument believe this?
Of course, that must be it! The potheads couldn't just be doing it to make their getting pot easier (not because a sizable portion of them are lazy, addicted creeps who don't want to work for their illegal stashes or anything)
Everyone has an agenda. The perceived righteousness of it is superfluous. The question is whether or not everyone should have the right to screw with our bodies as we choose, not how that right would be used by a particular subset.
- - - - -
[insert sig here]
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 01:15 PM
Dammit, I've gotta work all day.
Wow this is gonna be fun, though, if yall don't beat me to him.
I can do a little, a guess.
Originally posted by cfalcon:
Because a person smoking weed causes harm to no one but himself.
As stated like 15 times throughout this thread, this is not true. If you lock 'em up in a little room, then give'm the pot, then keep them there until the effects wear off, maybe.
Ok, three guys watching Clerks and smoking does no harm to anyone, as long as they don't DUI, right?
But now they should be drinking beers, which is ok, as long as they don't DUI, right?
You can't use "they might drive" as a reason. That's bullshit, because:
(a) It is totally legal to drive while angry, tired, or otherwise chemically impaired (internal chemicals). The illegal part is actually doing something bad, like being negligent and hitting someone.
(b) Alchohol and medications are available at the drugstores and GAS STATIONS across our fine land. They contain chemicals that will fuck you up so bad that you can't drive (in the case of alchohol, maybe can't find your fucking car). Why can you sell these at places where you need to drive to get to, and back, even? Well, because it's the law that you can't drink too much AND THEN drive. They make a crime out of the HARMFUL activity, not the harmless one.
Can you give me more examples where those guys watching Clerks can fuck you up, please? Assuming they don't (1) smoke so much they can't think or react right (2) get into the damn car (3) hit you.
Assuming they never bother with (1) or (2), how can they hurt you.
Because marijuana is certainly on par with nicotine and alchohol, the two drugs with which it is often consumed, both of which are legal- and one of which went through the exact same thing as weed is going through now.
What makes you the authority over what it is on par with? Weed most certainly messes up your mind worse than either of the others, statistically
speaking.
Well sir, I have seen a whole ton of people get stoned, drunk, or drunk and stoned. Weed can't do ANYTHING that can touch really drunk. I mean, you can drink until you die. Can you smoke weed until you die? Perhaps it's possible, but I don't know how. It would probably suffocation or something. Drunk people piss themselves, throw up where they are, get in fights, can't recognize some things, blah blah blah... alchohol in quantities can seriously fuck you up, up to and including the inability to function as a human, and then death.
Weed can't touch that. Maybe I'll find you documentation later. Perhaps you would also like proof that the goddamn sky is blue. Both can be found on Mother Internet.
Because weed is illegal for the wrong reasons.
Once again, there was probably hundreds of reasons that it is/was banned, and I doubt any of us are an authority of it.
You're just doing this to make my day, right? Wowo this is gonna be fun.
A common arguement for the decriminilization of pot: Potheads see the big picture, whereas the educated everyone-else does not. Of course, that must be it!
Look, I know I wrote a lot of words, but if you'll look at the ones right around the ones you quote, you'll see that I'm addressing potheads who are really only thinking of themselves.
The potheads couldn't just be doing it to make their getting pot easier
I HATE this arguement because it turns an arguement about principle into one about selfishness. "Well, jackass, you just want in legal because you're already doing it!"
Ok wiseass, so, WHAT ABOUT ME?
Why do *I* want drugs legalized, then, if not for the reasons I stated?
Gotta work, really looking forward to this one, tho
[ 10-16-2003, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: cfalcon ]
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
gruco
I am Ian Garvey's lovechild.
Member # 1645
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 01:28 PM
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
grucs, can you give me a link to that Jefferson thing?
Sure thing!
From: Clock Town | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanderZRPG
Got a whale of a tale to tell ya, lads!
Member # 1615
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 02:51 PM
Bleh.
1) Meh, I was in a rush; I don't think authority was the word I meant to use. Maybe "expert" or something would better fit the bill. Basically, does anyone here the exact reasons as for why is was banned, in the first place? (Aside from the fact that they banned just about all drugs in the... I think 30s, might be 20s, why did they bring alcohol back, but not pot, etc.)
2) Also, yeah, I wasn't entirely considering alcohol as for mental effects; my mistake. Smoking, however, is mild and harmless compared to what marijuana does. The originally smoked tobacco plant (which had FAR less chemicals than todays has, so don't bring up cancer, please, since I doubt anyone here has proper information about the original plant, like marijuana is harvested in plant-form, not manufactured [this makes sense, really...] ) did nothing even remotely close to what pot does.
And alcohol, consumed in small amounts, does less than pot in small amounts (although, I'm sure that there can be some sort of equivilancy found, where the two are equal, but one beer vs one joint is basically what I'm talking about). Marijuana PERMANENTLY damages the chemical receptors in the brain; i.e., every time you weed-it-up, bad stuff happens that you can't go back on. Once again, I'm sure there are varieties on this (from brand of weed, etc.), but the fact remains that stuff if PERMANENTLY messed up. Something crazy like 99% of all Tobacco-related problems will be gone after 20 years of quitting smoking (and keeping away from exposure, etc.); Pot causes lifelong problems.
3) Not going to find the quotes, but I wasn't trying to turn the issue of "potheads want pot to be made legal" into a complete issue of selfishness. Its just that conflict of interest is notably present in that situation. For the rest of us who aren't addicted to it (be it once a week, or several daily joints), we have less reason (LESS! KEYWORD!) to be biased to one side or another.
As for how pot can hurt people:
In theory, one could argue that NO drug used by random Joe, will hurt another person. And, in the same theoretical scenario, they would be right. However, this is not the case.
Back home (I'm at University, now), in one of my World Book Health and Medical Annual collection (I think it was 1992... or 93, around there), there is a story of some girl who had... I think teeth pulled, and the dentist used laughing gas on her. She was still 'high' when she came home, for a few hours. Now, this drug is not really a dangerous thing; no long-lasting side effects, used to be commonly used as a pain-number during minor surgery. Well, the girl somehow got a pair of scissors, and cut off her long ponytail.
Damage done:
-To the girl when she 'snapped out of it'.
-To the parents, both when they saw the damage, and when their little girl was emotionally hurt by the incident, afterwards.
-To the dentist, who, if I can recall, went through some lawsuit for letting her go while still high, or giving her too much, or some such.
-To all the patients of said dentist, who got to transfer to a new clinic when his was under legal fire.
A commonly used drug, shown to be harmless to the human body (physically, I mean), managed to hurt a LOT of people.
I'm not going to go into every reprecussion that can arise from Pot, but people, today, are already being hurt by Alcohol and Tobacco, be it when a girl passes out from drinking at a party, and gets pregnant (parents all fear this one), to when some guy starts smoking "cause the cool kids do it", only to be hooked, and less physically capable, for the rest of his life.
No, I'm not arguing that these drugs are "good", while pot is "bad". In my mind, with the POSSIBLE exception of medically perscribed medicine (used correctly), all drugs are bad.
However, since this discussion is about legalizing marijuana, I've talked about that, not why "Beer and smokes should be made illegal".
And as for the arguement that "they sell these things in public place"; that is for the owner/manager of the establishment to decide. There is no law stating that a gas station need sell beer/smokes, but if they can make a profit by doing so, they very probably will. I'm not saying this is right, but its how things work, at our present time.
- - - - -
From what we've learned, it seems like you'd prefer girls dressed in ant costumes or something... -Kazuki (Regarding tl;dr)
Owner of the Power Advantage DBZ RPG
(www.poweradvantage.net)
From: High Prairie, AB, Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 04:49 PM
Pot isn't something that I particularly want or need. So I don't really care if it's "illegal". Cry me a river for all the under 40 y/os inAmerica who are bored and want some chronic. As for government funding a futile war -- like duh ; look at Irag AM I RITE? lolz
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ikuse
Farting Nudist
Member # 3037
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 05:48 PM
raise your hand if you've ever smoked pot before _o/
just wondering how many people are giving their opinions on weed without knowing anyhting about it firsthand
From: In my pants. | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
10,000Lb.Snorlax
loves long time.
Member # 13
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 06:07 PM
o_o/
And I still don't want it legalized. imagine that! ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
From: Denver | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rolken
Vulcan
Member # 7
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 06:15 PM
ikuse: just wondering how many people are giving their opinions on weed without knowing anyhting about it firsthand
That's reality. You don't have to experience everything to relate to it. Raise your hand if you've had an abortion, please!
From: Provo, UT | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-16-2003 08:48 PM
Ned, you make my neurons hurt. Is your best argument really "it must be illegal for some reason am i rite"?
In the area of pointless tangents, I never said that someone on coke would make for a better driver than someone who's stone cold sober, just that I might rather have that guy on the road than the stoner who will see me crossing the street and react a few minutes later.
cfalcon made the point today that if we had the option of having only either beer or pot legal, Merka has chosen poorly.
As for the lasting health effects of alcohol vs. weed, ask any alcoholic (practicing or otherwise) about chemical addiction. Or my grandfather about liver damage. Oh wait, you can't, the alcohol already killed him.
Anyway, to refocus the argument, what is it, specifically, about weed that you feel is the rationale for outlawing it? OK, now throw out everything that also applies to beer, unless you want to make the case that beer should also be illegal.
The alternative, I suppose, is to argue that, even though there's no rational reason for alcohol to be legal while weed is not, you just want as few of these things to be legal as possible. (If you feel this way and still think alcohol should be legal, however, please run yourself over with a lawnmower.)
EDIT: Also you might want to do a Google search on Merkin "Prohibition", "Al Capone", and if you're feeling all into Merkin legislative history, the 18th and 21st Amendments.
[ 10-16-2003, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanderZRPG
Got a whale of a tale to tell ya, lads!
Member # 1615
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-17-2003 02:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. K:
Ned, you make my neurons hurt. Is your best argument really "it must be illegal for some reason am i rite"?
One of my statements was regarding that... Actually, if I recall properly, I re-stated, and asked if anyone knew the original reason.
quote:
In the area of pointless tangents, I never said that someone on coke would make for a better driver than someone who's stone cold sober, just that I might rather have that guy on the road than the stoner who will see me crossing the street and react a few minutes later.
Hence why I didn't bring up driving as the sole example of how it can hurt people. I think there were 3 or 4 others who were focusing on it, though; I might have mentioned it in my first post, mind.
quote:
As for the lasting health effects of alcohol vs. weed, ask any alcoholic (practicing or otherwise) about chemical addiction. Or my grandfather about liver damage. Oh wait, you can't, the alcohol already killed him.
As I said, I wasn't considering alcohol fully when I made that statement. I suppose I was mainly comparing tobacco vs marijuana, or small-amounts alcohol vs small-amounts marijuana.
And I was just stating the facts for the damage marijuana does. Yes, alcohol is bad, and can mess up your body, and I doubt marijuana can do a bunch of the stuff beer can do, but it's an inborn fear to me (and probably most people) to lose mental capacity; becoming mentally handicapped, or such, and still have a relatively 'normal' body is just damned freaky; worst part would be if you knew that you were once so much better, mentally. It'd probably drive me, and any number of people, either to insanity, or suicide.
quote:
Anyway, to refocus the argument, what is it, specifically, about weed that you feel is the rationale for outlawing it? OK, now throw out everything that also applies to beer, unless you want to make the case that beer should also be illegal.
The alternative, I suppose, is to argue that, even though there's no rational reason for alcohol to be legal while weed is not, you just want as few of these things to be legal as possible. (If you feel this way and still think alcohol should be legal, however, please run yourself over with a lawnmower.)
I specifically addressed this point: I don't think alcohol should be legal as it is, today. When used properly, some studies seem to show (I don't entirely trust them, so don't hold me to this, please) that something like a glass of wine per day helps lead to a healthier life, or some such, but if we were forced to decide between ALL alcohol vs NO alcohol, I'd personally choose none. Same with smoking; my mother smokes, and I've worried about that since I was young. Even if taking it away might hurt her for a little bit, it would be better, in the long term.
As I said, I am not trying to redirect this topic to "ban beer-n-smokes", but rather pointing out the problems with legalizing pot. Just because the problems are found in other, legalized drugs does not make it a defense for legalizing pot; If "smoking is bad for you, and people are allowed to do it, then pot should be allowed, even though it's bad for you" does not cut it as an arguement (sort of along the lines of 2-wrongs != right, methinks).
- - - - -
From what we've learned, it seems like you'd prefer girls dressed in ant costumes or something... -Kazuki (Regarding tl;dr)
Owner of the Power Advantage DBZ RPG
(www.poweradvantage.net)
From: High Prairie, AB, Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
137
Whiner
Member # 1465
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-17-2003 04:45 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cfalcon:
Weed can't do ANYTHING that can touch really drunk.
Damnit, beaten.
It's true. I've done both. Extreme drunken-ness will lead to vomiting, lack of a basic understanding of your surroundings (which leads to horrendous decision-making), and an inability to control yourself in the most basic ways.
Weed (in extreme amounts) will definitely decrease reaction-time (not as bad as alcohol, where temporary loss of conciousness is common), cause dizzyness (which is an effect of alcohol occurring before anything that can be considered extreme, but weed won't do that after a certain amount of time getting accustomed to it) and WILL NOT KILL YOU.
It has been shown (in clinical studies (which I don't feel like finding links to)) that smoking outrageous amounts of weed will cause you to fall asleep long before any fatal overdose is possible.
The most dangerous aspect of smoking weed (when used responsibly) is that the same amount of tobacco contains only a quarter of the tar. Besides gumming up your lungs (instead of outright poisoning them) it is safer than cigarettes, and certainly much better for you than alcohol.
they banned just about all drugs in the... I think 30s, might be 20s
No, they didn't. Research more.
Oh, I'd love if you (Lander) could find links discussing evidence of permanent damage caused by weed. I've never heard of this.
(not sarcastic, I know how I can sound)
From: Space. Like, outer space. | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SDShamshel
Farting Nudist
Member # 791
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-17-2003 11:56 AM
Fun fact: Lack of sleep is more dangerous while driving than driving while under any sort of influence.
From: Tokyo-3 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Donald
Bob the Builder
Member # 1551
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-17-2003 02:19 PM
Legalizing mary jane isn't going to do the skyrocketing obesity rates in North America any favours. Just thought I'd throw that in.
From: In your girl's panties | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cfalcon
OLDNBLD
Member # 19
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-17-2003 02:42 PM
What?
I doubt that would have signifigant effects- certainly nothing like the effect beer has, being all grain carbohydrates and all. I mean, a guy who drinks a six pack is performing the nutritional equivalent of drinking a six pack of cokes- not very good.
As K asked earlier, how many more people would end up doing weed if it were legal that don't already?
I won't pretend the number won't go up, but everyone who *likes* weed already does it. The prohibition has *no effect* on the availability (really, only the price is affected). Since real addiciton isn't a factor, that wouldn't even matter... I imagine you would have more casual users, and that's about the size of it.
From: 39°45' N, 104°52' W | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Dweedle
My hands and feet are mangos
Member # 1209
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-17-2003 04:35 PM
cfalcon: Can you give me more examples where those guys watching Clerks can fuck you up, please? Assuming they don't (1) smoke so much they can't think or react right (2) get into the damn car (3) hit you.
Assuming they never bother with (1) or (2), how can they hurt you.
It hurts me more than words can express to watch my friends do something that could very well ruin their lives.
[ 10-17-2003, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: Dweedle ]
- - - - -
the only way to get pass this will be to commit suicune
From: second of all, Quagmire's not really a bad guy! | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. K
Racist
Member # 2
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-17-2003 05:36 PM
Ned: I don't think alcohol should be legal as it is, today.
Oh, well, OK. This firmly puts you Loon Territory and we've already seen what happens when you try to ban alcohol, but at least you're consistent.
That's cool, I guess.
Just because the problems are found in other, legalized drugs does not make it a defense for legalizing pot...
Not directly, but I hope you would agree that it would be a good idea for laws to be consistent and to be rationally defensible.
So, your main argument is that pot should be illegal because it is bad for you, right? Why, then, do you think that it should actually be illegal? Why should people go to jail for smoking weed? Do you think that outlawing the substance is the most effective way to deal with the situation?
By the way, cfalcon, Donald was making a joke about the munchies.
[ 10-17-2003, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Mr. K ]
From: Cinnabar Island | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged
|
|
LanderZRPG
Got a whale of a tale to tell ya, lads!
Member # 1615
Member Rated:
|
posted 10-17-2003 07:12 PM
... I'm thinking my reply to the links post got stuck in some other thread, but most of it lies in books and pamphlets I have at home (while I am staying at university). I'll see if I can find much of it on the 'net.
And, basically, that's my point, K. Pot is indecently bad for your health, and for the health of people around you. If it was JUST you, then I suppose it'd be fine, but between people paying for rehab clinics, and random joes who get affected by it, as I showed before, that doesn't happen.
And, yes, I'd prefer if the laws were consistant.
And as for the Loony bin comment; Alcohol kills people. Innocent people. It doesn't save lives to balance that out. Nor is it considered part of a 'natural life and death ratio', like if water killed us over term but we still needed it, etc. I don't think something like that has a reason to be here; politicians use it as a "bread and circus" type of deal, to keep the slobby, welfare masses happy, but that doesn't make it right.
The same could be said with guns and such, too, and I'm very much in agreement with that.
- - - - -
From what we've learned, it seems like you'd prefer girls dressed in ant costumes or something... -Kazuki (Regarding tl;dr)
Owner of the Power Advantage DBZ RPG
(www.poweradvantage.net)
From: High Prairie, AB, Canada | Registered: Mar 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic