Should Marijuana be legalized?

[BloodSword]

Short answer-There is absolutely no question in my mind that marijuana should be legal.Period.

 

[Meh]

Then the government is liable for making legal that which brings harm.

Now everyone would want to go off on me because we are supposed to be talking about reefer, however legalization based on the principle: "we should have the maximum liberty to live life the way we want"(same as the dribble that comes from Fenrisúlfr) opens the doors to all drugs as well as many other social behavior problems. One example that comes to mind would be driving drunk, your not harming anyone until you actually have an accident with them. Now everyone would want to say... "no, you have the potential to cause an accident and for that reason we cant allow drunk driving" By comparision it could be said that someone that sells drugs to another is opening up the possibility of bringing harm to that person by giving them access to that which is known to be harmful, addictive, and typically negatively life altering and a burdon to society.

Now we are back to the responsibility of the government for opening the door. This is why we have the FDA and ATF, this is why drugs are "controled substances", this is why it is a Doctors decision to administer controled drugs.

I agree the problems that evolve around smokers of weed are a PITA but this is such a complex problem. I feel the employment drug testing should be made illegal due to its flaws and the best we could hope for is decriminalization of possesion up to a certain amount. Now this was done in the 70's (at least in NY) but I forget all the details, seems it was 7/8ths or 5/8th of an ounce. Now with all this controversary Im wondering if it changed again.

Remember the government was responsible along with the insurance industry and hob nobs for making random drug testing mandatory in the work place. With that step in the wrong direction seems to me that would be the first order of reversal. Not some blindly idealistic free for all.

That is a myriad of ideals that merely sound profound and logical but can be said about any type of social taboo.

 

[razoredge]

That is a myriad of ideals that merely sound profound and logical but can be said about any type of social taboo.

So lets hear the myriad of social taboos

 

[Meh]

So lets hear the myriad of social taboos

It can be anything, but the topic at hand is drugs.

People that do drugs harm themselves.

One example that comes to mind would be driving drunk, your not harming anyone until you actually have an accident with them.

How does that pertain to drugs, specifically weed?

Drunk drivers are an obvious problem - there exists no evidence for negative affects of weed aside from the blatantly obvious such as lung problems over a lifetime.

giving them access to that which is known to be harmful, addictive, and typically negatively life altering and a burdon to society.

Harmful is arguable in the context of weed, and it's most definitely not addictive. Addiction is a chemical reaction, not the mere fact that "ohh duude I need pot"

Negatively life altering is arguable as well, the whole "lazy" syndrome from potheads is not due to pot, it's the fact they're lazy, worthless human beings that shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

Now we are back to the responsibility of the government for opening the door. This is why we have the FDA and ATF, this is why drugs are "controled substances", this is why it is a Doctors decision to administer controled drugs.

The ATF is nothing more than a criminal group with fancy outfits and badges - most of their actions are illegal. The FDA is just a joke.

I agree the problems that evolve around smokers of weed are a PITA but this is such a complex problem. I feel the employment drug testing should be made illegal due to its flaws and the best we could hope for is decriminalization of possesion up to a certain amount. Now this was done in the 70's (at least in NY) but I forget all the details, seems it was 7/8ths or 5/8th of an ounce. Now with all this controversary Im wondering if it changed again.

Considering the fact that I know of several druggies that manage to hold their jobs, drug testing needs serious improvement.

It's decriminalized in some areas still.

I wanna say it was 5/8ths.

Not some blindly idealistic free for all.

It's pot. Not some mexinugget black tar heroin.

 

[razoredge]

You entirely missed my point that the premise of "one should have the right to do as they please"... applied to one drug opens the doors to all others. Then that would be the next concentrated effort for those that want easy access to drugs without feeling dirty. So by this it becomes a complicated issue. Myself I even wish alcohol was illegal due to the problems I have seen it create for those of addictive nature and all involved in their life.

Others even yourself have taken this further into other drugs, but as soon as I go that far stemming from the principles brought forward by others for why weed should be legal, then everyone wants to remind me that we are talking about weed. Im just tying the entire drug issue together and whether the government has the right to open this door of free drug trade to society and further capitalize on it, there-by makeing our own government drug pushers. At that point you have the government capitalizing on something that brings harm to its own people.

So "someone that does drugs only harms themself" is fine and dandy if you want to ignore that someone sold it too them.

I dont need to be told different people are different and character traits are character traits. Thats a given, again you arent understanding why I bring up the issues I am, its beyond the surface cut and dry of a ideal or statement. "drugs should be legal because it would save the government money and everyone should have the right to do as they please"...... yarite... if only life was that simple and the issue so base

What you think of ATF or FDA has nothing to do with what Im saying about how involved they would get upon legalization... therefore throwing everyones theory about "saving money" right out the window.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Razoredge:

I already said this "most people who use DO would grow their own" but please learn something about our government and ALL past governing bodys in mankinds history, would you. Everyone wants to say I dont have a arguement, but Im the only one offering the reality. Everyone else is thinking in their own little fairy tale world that doesnt exist.

and further on

This is why I have said, its all an idealistic view. "Yes it would be great if weed was legal, lateeda". But that is just the surface idealism, governments will still feel the need to control it and tax it. THis is why I said learn something about the government, it was not an insult. Maybe I should have said spend some time thinking about how the government functions. This is in regards to all aspects mentioned in this topic. "They will save money", hell no they will probably start a whole new department just to control it. They dont waste too much time on weed now as it is, there are after bigger fish. Then the IRS gets involved, they will probably need a entire division to figure out whos selling it and not paying income taxes. Then there is sales tax. I just think its alot bigger and more complicated than the ideal "should be legal... problem solved"

and still yet

Others even yourself have taken this further into other drugs, but as soon as I go that far stemming from the principles brought forward by others for why weed should be legal, then everyone wants to remind me that we are talking about weed. Im just tying the entire drug issue together and whether the government has the right to open this door of free drug trade to society and further capitalize on it, there-by makeing our own government drug pushers. At that point you have the government capitalizing on something that brings harm to its own people.

Seriously?....'the right to open this door of free drug trade to society and further capitalize on it'....Do you know the history of the war on drugs, and for the sake of the thread topic, particularly marijuana?

I'd suggest starting here, even if you've seen this before, in the following order. It'll shoot the better part of 50 minutes to shit, but is worth it.





- until about midway through this one

secondly, regarding to the current state of the war on drugs
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/walter-cronkite/telling-the-truth-about-t_b_16605.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/achong1.html
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/17438347/how_america_lost_the_war_on_drugs
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101021104/

Current laws positively effect society ? Ok, please go learn about alcoholism. Lets go to that level with drugs ? Which are far less discriminate that booze when it comes to grabbing people.

I'm sorry if I missed it, but just what basis are you founding this statement on? Less discriminate than booze when it comes to grabbing people? Not to mention that you are trying to compare alcoholism to a wide range of chemicals under 'drugs', and even if you were only talking about cannabis, you are clearly uneducated and/or fairly inexperienced when it comes to either substance, and harder substances or have been seriously mislead regarding other substances than alcohol. I would assume as well, all that let alone abuse of said substances. Frankly, IF this is the case, imho you have no argument to begin with, as you are unequipped to provide certain accurate information or perhaps insight on the matter, which is not to say that it is due to some form of fault or err on your part. No offense is intended by my statements. Also, I hope those videos and articles have shed a bit of light for you on the subject, including but not limited to your questions, as some of your previous statements are clearly erroneous, and you don't seem to have all the information about the government you are telling people to learn about. Also if you didn't know that your government is already involved in 'drug pushing' then that's also something you should research.

Idealistic youth, can never see around the corner

Idealistic youth, we can either follow the old inefficient and outdated corners 'your generation'(?) has left behind, or we can make new corners. AKA Social Evolution

Also, on a note of this 'gateway drug' crap. This is another huge misconception that is just thrown around to 'scare' you. I know from a great deal of my own experience that marijuana is no more a gate than alcohol. In the case of marijuana users that go on to hard substances and get addicted and become 'public menaces', it is almost absolute that the 'gate' comes from the sort of characters that you have to deal with to get a bag of ganja. The people you meet. This does not include experimentation or people predisposed to addiction. On a quick note of addiction, marijuana is less addictive than coffee, and FAAAR less than alcohol. Actually, to be clear, there is NOTHING in D9THC that is addictive.

EDIT: Formatting

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

All his generation did for ours is foul things up, and is not leaving us with a mountain of debt from such ill-fated endeavours like the Great Society, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the current brouhaha in Iraq. Thus let his words fall upon deaf ears.

 

[razoredge]

All his generation did for ours is foul things up, and is not leaving us with a mountain of debt from such ill-fated endeavours like the Great Society, Vietnam, the Cold War, and the current brouhaha in Iraq. Thus let his words fall upon deaf ears.

I'm well aware of what my generation and those previous and since have done that were mistakes. Im not sure where you feel I was a part of any of it... or that you said anything valuable in this post or any others I have read. Which could bring to question your generation but I sure wouldnt hold all accountable for what ever it is thats wrong with you.......

 

[razoredge]

Razoredge:
Seriously?....'the right to open this door of free drug trade to society and further capitalize on it'....Do you know the history of the war on drugs, and for the sake of the thread topic, particularly marijuana?

I'd suggest starting here, even if you've seen this before, in the following order. It'll shoot the better part of 50 minutes to shit, but is worth it.

I'm sorry if I missed it, but just what basis are you founding this statement on? Less discriminate than booze when it comes to grabbing people? Not to mention that you are trying to compare alcoholism to a wide range of chemicals under 'drugs', and even if you were only talking about cannabis, you are clearly uneducated and/or fairly inexperienced when it comes to either substance, and harder substances or have been seriously mislead regarding other substances than alcohol. I would assume as well, all that let alone abuse of said substances. Frankly, IF this is the case, imho you have no argument to begin with, as you are unequipped to provide certain accurate information or perhaps insight on the matter, which is not to say that it is due to some form of fault or err on your part. No offense is intended by my statements. Also, I hope those videos and articles have shed a bit of light for you on the subject, including but not limited to your questions, as some of your previous statements are clearly erroneous, and you don't seem to have all the information about the government you are telling people to learn about. Also if you didn't know that your government is already involved in 'drug pushing' then that's also something you should research.


Idealistic youth, we can either follow the old inefficient and outdated corners 'your generation'(?) has left behind, or we can make new corners. AKA Social Evolution

Also, on a note of this 'gateway drug' crap. This is another huge misconception that is just thrown around to 'scare' you. I know from a great deal of my own experience that marijuana is no more a gate than alcohol. In the case of marijuana users that go on to hard substances and get addicted and become 'public menaces', it is almost absolute that the 'gate' comes from the sort of characters that you have to deal with to get a bag of ganja. The people you meet. This does not include experimentation or people predisposed to addiction. On a quick note of addiction, marijuana is less addictive than coffee, and FAAAR less than alcohol. Actually, to be clear, there is NOTHING in D9THC that is addictive.

EDIT: Formatting

I must admit you totally lost me as to your point with any of this. I do know most of the stuff presented in that documentary. The part about getting rid of the Mexicans made me smile...... if only we could find something today. The machine gun thing came to mind... perhaps its time to start issuing those stamps, real Americans would answer the call by the hords.

Anyhow.... I believe you would have to address directly to what ever it is you have a problem with that I said. I only found your post to be like all others, full of personal attacks as to "who I am" and nothing substancial to the topic or questions I posed. Which suprised me coming from you.

The vids only comfirm everything I said about our government and what people needed to learn about when it comes to our government. The vids as well as Walters litle write up only confirm that NO money would be saved. Walter wants to spend it all on fixing addicts when legalization would only create more addicts. NO MONEY SAVED. The war on drugs is not working because everyone is pussy footing around working within the law.... against the lawless. Any enemy must be met on their own terms. AGAIN A REMINDER THAT IM NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST WEED.... AS WALTERS REPORT WAS NOT EITHER. GAWD!

Walter points out misjustices in our legal system regarding drugs. IMAGINE THAT..... . Point being there are many misjustices regarding other crimes, is there suggestion that we make these other crimes no longer illegal ? as some form of fix.... lol

Anyone notice many pre drug law users later became outspoken advocates on creating drug laws ? The one vid had a guy, I have read of others.

What information about the government is it "I dont have"... lol

What is it I was illequipped to speak about ?

What points did I bring forward that were not valid, so much so that not one person addressed them ?.... that is really funny

I expected some decent alternative responses on this topic but aside from idealistic dreams of "saving money" and "we have the rite to do as we please" got nothing but sticks thrown from behind bushes.

"Gateway drug" Im am split on this. It did not cause me to do anything but a bit of experimenting in the 70's, however I could not understand how others I knew just became druggies... perhaps too much experimenting until addiction began to have its effect ? Addictive personalities in the first place ?.... thus my reference to alcohol... of which I have no idea what your response is about, or your interpretation.

Actually weed is addictive, there is NO physical addiction, the body doesnt go through hell. The mind is another story, not hell but a desire not easy to resist occurs. I am placeing no emphisis on this just putting the rumor in its place.

Youth is blindly idealistic, just a fact, not a "generational critique" as the hurt have made it, I've been there done that.

"Old inefficiency", interesting thought, society would do well to get back to the efficiency of pre industrial revolution when men could really take care of themselves. I guess that sums up what I think of outdated corners and social evolution. It would take care of much needed natural selection as well.

 

[PhantoMPhones]

What points did I bring forward that were not valid

for starters how about this one;

addicts when legalization would only create more addicts

Please provide your sources of this information, as well as any scientific data or report to back it up.

The war on drugs is not working because everyone is pussy footing around working within the law.... against the lawless. Any enemy must be met on their own terms.

So, what you are saying is that police and other 'authorities' should have access to and make use of, 'any means necessary' to stamp out among others medicinal and recreational and/or self-medicating marijuana users? Doesn't this sound a little like, gee I dunno, totalitarianism? And what about the funding for this little crusade, where does that come from? And more than just 'i think alcohol should be illegal too' please enlighten me on the details and delicacies of the marijuana illegal-alcohol legal, state of affairs as it pertains to health issues, medicinal benefit, and the social and geopolitical issues surrounding said state of affairs.

AGAIN A REMINDER THAT IM NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST WEED.... AS WALTERS REPORT WAS NOT EITHER. GAWD!

Again a reminder that the subject of this thread is 'Should marijuana be legalized?', and that this gross generalization and tangent into legalization of other substances is moot, Mr. Cronkites report as well as the other general info regarding the war on drugs notwithstanding. Also, regarding Mr. Cronkite's report, you seem to have missed the point to his article G-O-D

"And I cannot help but wonder how many more lives, and how much more money, will be wasted before another Robert McNamara admits what is plain for all to see: the war on drugs is a failure." - Walter Cronkite

"The federal government has fought terminally ill patients whose doctors say medical marijuana could provide a modicum of relief from their suffering - as though a cancer patient who uses marijuana to relieve the wrenching nausea caused by chemotherapy is somehow a criminal who threatens the public.

People who do genuinely have a problem with drugs, meanwhile, are being imprisoned when what they really need is treatment.

And what is the impact of this policy?

It surely hasn't made our streets safer. Instead, we have locked up literally millions of people...disproportionately people of color...who have caused little or no harm to others - wasting resources that could be used for counter-terrorism, reducing violent crime, or catching white-collar criminals.

With police wielding unprecedented powers to invade privacy, tap phones and conduct searches seemingly at random, our civil liberties are in a very precarious condition.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on this effort - with no one held accountable for its failure.

Amid the clichés of the drug war, our country has lost sight of the scientific facts. Amid the frantic rhetoric of our leaders, we've become blind to reality: The war on drugs, as it is currently fought, is too expensive, and too inhumane." -Walter Cronkite

Actually weed is addictive, there is NO physical addiction, the body doesnt go through hell. The mind is another story, not hell but a desire not easy to resist occurs.

Yes and this can happen with any substance or non-substance, someone can be addicted to licking cinder blocks ffs, would you care to argue semantics further?

I am placeing no emphisis on this just putting the rumor in its place.

Ohhhh.... you mean rhetoric, propaganda.

I only found your post to be like all others, full of personal attacks as to "who I am"

Pardon me, I could have sworn you said something to the effect of;

Youth is blindly idealistic, just a fact...

Then again I am just a youth right?

Also, if you didn't catch it the first time;

Frankly, IF this is the case, imho you have no argument to begin with, as you are unequipped to provide certain accurate information or perhaps insight on the matter, which is not to say that it is due to some form of fault or err on your part. No offense is intended by my statements.

I thought the bold IF would have stood out better, not to mention my expression of non-hostility.

I expected some decent alternative responses on this topic but aside from idealistic dreams of "saving money" and "we have the rite to do as we please" got nothing but sticks thrown from behind bushes.

Idealistic dreams of saving money? How much is spent fighting MARIJUANA? You are trying to group all drugs together and say they are inexorably linked, I can't imagine what you think about prescriptions. And you are basing your OPINION (baseless as of yet) that legalization of MARIJUANA (or even 'other' substances) is going to create this new giant population of addicts that the state will have to care for. Once again I ask for your sources regarding this.

"Old inefficiency", interesting thought, society would do well to get back to the efficiency of pre industrial revolution when men could really take care of themselves. I guess that sums up what I think of outdated corners and social evolution. It would take care of much needed natural selection as well.

Awww, how nicely that wraps it all up in a neat little package, right? Pretty, idealistic if you ask me.

So what is your position, we should be stamping out these 'undesireables', or that we should be taking care of ourselves?

Speaking of natural selection, out of curiosity, if we are to stamp out anything that 'causes harm' how does this system of government 'protecting' the people from themselves in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM aid in natural selection?

 

[razoredge]

for starters how about this one;

Please provide your sources of this information, as well as any scientific data or report to back it up.

for starters depending on how on the ball anyone is in keeping up, this entire topic has jumped back and forth from weed to all drugs... BY EVERYONE. So by addicts Im obviously talking about other drugs. Sources of information and scientific data... eh ? Interesting that people need some scientist to point to the obvious. I would only suggest AGAIN, as I did before and you have questioned again in this nonsensical post....... lets take a look at alcoholism in this country. Make your determination yourself or do research if thats the only way your mind can grasp things.

So, what you are saying is that police and other 'authorities' should have access to and make use of, 'any means necessary' to stamp out among others medicinal and recreational and/or self-medicating marijuana users? Doesn't this sound a little like, gee I dunno, totalitarianism? And what about the funding for this little crusade, where does that come from? And more than just 'i think alcohol should be illegal too' please enlighten me on the details and delicacies of the marijuana illegal-alcohol legal, state of affairs as it pertains to health issues, medicinal benefit, and the social and geopolitical issues surrounding said state of affairs.

Wasnt I talking about Cronkites artical? I was refering to his talking about "THE WAR ON ******, NOT WEED!. I gave my opinion on how to deal with the war on drugs... PERIOD, wrap your head around whats being talked about would you. Your easily distracted then twist it to say something else.

The little crusade "WAR ON DRUGS" is already funded but has been mamzy pansying around.... PERIOD!

Alcohol illegal: its how I feel, deal with it. Its a real problem for many people and reaches down into familys, friends, work place, it is NOT just harmful to the user, apply this elsewhere in this topic. As well as how alcoholic parents/parent seem to raise future alcoholics becasue they are raised into a belief system that says its alright to be a drunk... apply that to useing drugs around your children and find the same results. Throws only brings harm to the user right down the toilet.

Health issues, I think your the first to mention this in this topic. most of its been about recreational use. Which I have not posed any problem with, only its legalization and for reasons I already went through SOOOO many times. For health it would have to be prescribed and I could care less either way. People suffering to death is a whole nother topic I wont get into.

Again a reminder that the subject of this thread is 'Should marijuana be legalized?', and that this gross generalization and tangent into legalization of other substances is moot, Mr. Cronkites report as well as the other general info regarding the war on drugs notwithstanding. Also, regarding Mr. Cronkite's report, you seem to have missed the point to his article G-O-D

I didnt miss any point of his artical, what is it that has you confused ? Because I dont agree with it ?

Yes and this can happen with any substance or non-substance, someone can be addicted to licking cinder blocks ffs, would you care to argue semantics further?


Ohhhh.... you mean rhetoric, propaganda.

No I just responded to your statement about it NOT being addictive... sweetpea

Pardon me, I could have sworn you said something to the effect of;

Then again I am just a youth right?

Also, if you didn't catch it the first time;
I thought the bold IF would have stood out better, not to mention my expression of non-hostility.

You said I was illequiped, clearly uneducated, fairly inexperienced, and attacked generations, at that point what ever you said about being non-effensive was moot. Should be easy for you to comprehend.

My statement about youth being blindly idealistic stands as well known fact, I make no appoligies. Everyone has been there. Its not an insult, just a burdon youth with all its "answers" has to deal with.

Idealistic dreams of saving money? How much is spent fighting MARIJUANA? You are trying to group all drugs together and say they are inexorably linked, I can't imagine what you think about prescriptions. And you are basing your OPINION (baseless as of yet) that legalization of MARIJUANA (or even 'other' substances) is going to create this new giant population of addicts that the state will have to care for. Once again I ask for your sources regarding this.

How much will be spent on its legalization and control ?

They are linked if legalization is based on "we should have the right to do as we please" and "we need to stop the war on drugs... because it costs money"

I despise the entire health care system, including drug companies and believe in live and let die, it is the ultimate expression of freedom to do as nature pleases.

Yes as I said Cronkites piece evolved around "helping" druggies rather than giving them crap. He felt this was the duty of the state, so whats your point ?

Alcoholism answers the rest of your question, its legal and its the widest spred and problematic substance abuse in this country.

Awww, how nicely that wraps it all up in a neat little package, right? Pretty, idealistic if you ask me.

I dont know if its idealistic or just a feeling that life and the world was far better without all the complications that followed. I'd have to check some scientific data probably but Im pretty sure I have the rite to feel this way.......

So what is your position, we should be stamping out these 'undesireables', or that we should be taking care of ourselves?

Yep, I think drug dealers should be shot on site, end of problem

Speaking of natural selection, out of curiosity, if we are to stamp out anything that 'causes harm' how does this system of government 'protecting' the people from themselves in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM aid in natural selection?

This is a good point in other fields, but I will stick with the basic topic of drugs... OK ? Sticking with that, would you or anyone like to suggest that drugs are discriminate to those of a lower mental capacity ?

 

[zabu of nΩd]

The ignorance is not mine. No one has addressed how it would work because no one has a clue. No one has any answers to the problems I have questioned.

And yet you continually use the lack of a definite answer for this to leap to the conclusion that the government will just lock everyone up for having trace amounts of it in their system, which is absurd. They'll just come up with a cutoff point for concentration and test people on that basis, like they do with alcohol. What's so impossible about that?

This is why I have said, its all an idealistic view. "Yes it would be great if weed was legal, lateeda". But that is just the surface idealism, governments will still feel the need to control it and tax it. THis is why I said learn something about the government, it was not an insult. Maybe I should have said spend some time thinking about how the government functions. This is in regards to all aspects mentioned in this topic. "They will save money", hell no they will probably start a whole new department just to control it. They dont waste too much time on weed now as it is, there are after bigger fish. Then the IRS gets involved, they will probably need a entire division to figure out whos selling it and not paying income taxes. Then there is sales tax. I just think its alot bigger and more complicated than the ideal "should be legal... problem solved"

This may come as a shock to you, but some of us don't fucking care if the government makes money off of weed. It's better that they make money off of it, thus creating a chance that the money will be put to good use in other parts of our government, than that they shit money down the toilet on raids, crop burnings and arrests.

Not to mention that legalising it is a step to building popular support, which could lead to pressure on the government to ease off of the taxes. You seem to be completely oblivious to how much legalisation could affect public opinion on cannabis.

Wow, thats alot of people, I easily forget how HUGE our population has become. So this no doubt includes overnight stays in the county lockup, that is good, give people something to think about.

Something to think about? How about leaving them the fuck alone because they're not doing anything wrong? Do you honestly think people who smoke pot are all scumbags and lowlives?

Now everyone would want to go off on me because we are supposed to be talking about reefer, however legalization based on the principle: "we should have the maximum liberty to live life the way we want"(same as the dribble that comes from Fenrisúlfr) opens the doors to all drugs as well as many other social behavior problems. One example that comes to mind would be driving drunk, your not harming anyone until you actually have an accident with them. Now everyone would want to say... "no, you have the potential to cause an accident and for that reason we cant allow drunk driving" By comparision it could be said that someone that sells drugs to another is opening up the possibility of bringing harm to that person by giving them access to that which is known to be harmful, addictive, and typically negatively life altering and a burdon to society.

Way to narrow-mindedly lump all 'drugs' together as being "known to be harmful, addictive, and typically negatively life altering". There are plenty of regular pot-smokers and hallucinogen-takers who do absolutely no harm to anyone, have no addictions, and benefit emotionally, creatively or spiritually because of drug use. You can be a D.A.R.E. parrot all day long if you want, but that does not change the reality that there are responsible drug users everywhere.

Take salvia for instance. It's been legal forever, and governments are only recently beginning to crack down on it, probably mainly because all the Youtube videos of people on it are frightening paranoid mothers. You never hear mentions of salvia users turning into bums and degenerates, getting hooked on it for life, or causing mayhem in the streets. Many people who do it, in fact, have no desire to use it again any time soon because it's so damn powerful.

This is basically how it goes with all psychedelics - moralistic idiots with knee-jerk reactions to people "acting crazy" or looking "possessed by the devil" rush to ban something without bothering to understand the first thing about the drug or what it's like for the person on it. Drugs haven't destroyed our fucking society, and they aren't going to whether they're legal or illegal. The only real difference is whether governments decide to demonise and persecute people for drug use or actually try to educate people on it and reduce the harm that's done by general ignorance as well as the black market. Drugs aren't fucking going away, and they shouldn't go away either.

 

[razoredge]

And yet you continually use the lack of a definite answer for this to leap to the conclusion that the government will just lock everyone up for having trace amounts of it in their system, which is absurd. They'll just come up with a cutoff point for concentration and test people on that basis, like they do with alcohol. What's so impossible about that?

I lack a definitive answer ? Where did you answer the questions ? Talk about lacking ! Where did I say the government was going to lock people up for trace amounts ? How are they going to test people ? Did you read anything about how durgs are tested ? Its not as simple as blowing into some apparatus, THAT IS WHAT IM SAYING. Hows it going to work? you tell me. How it going to work and not be discriminate ? Just answer the fucking question already or get the fuck off my back

This may come as a shock to you, but some of us don't fucking care if the government makes money off of weed.

I dont give a fuck who gives a fuck.... I give a fuck... OK ? Can you read and comprehend and respond to what you read. I have been through it over and over agian and you just avoid it. If the government taxs drugs they become drug dealers. A businsess they do not belong in.

It's better that they make money off of it,

Can you read and comprehend and respond to what you read. I have been through it over and over agian and you just avoid it. Any money they "make" will be spend controling it, THERE WILL BE NO MONEY "MADE".

thus creating a chance that the money will be put to good use in other parts of our government, than that they shit money down the toilet on raids, crop burnings and arrests.

Can you read and comprehend and respond to what you read. The key word you used here is "a chance". Then think about our government and spending abit would you ? Let say they do "make" money dealing drugs, are you going to try to hope they dont squander the money on some other fools boondoggle ?

Not to mention that legalising it is a step to building popular support,

We need popular support for getting fucked up ? Alrighty then....

which could lead to pressure on the government to ease off of the taxes.

"Government easing off on taxes", that is rich and brings more about your responses to question. Do you know anything about the taxes that are on tobacco and alcohol and proposed further taxes on alcohol ?

You seem to be completely oblivious to how much legalisation could affect public opinion on cannabis.

You seem oblivious to how many decades we are into use of "cannabis" and that nearly all living today have already formed their opinion on first hand experience ?

Something to think about? How about leaving them the fuck alone because they're not doing anything wrong? Do you honestly think people who smoke pot are all scumbags and lowlives?

Oblivious ? "All", I try not to generalize. I have found most that deal weed to be of a dirtbag frame of mind. As for users, I still smoke fairly regular and yes... Im a dirtbag...

Way to narrow-mindedly lump all 'drugs' together as being "known to be harmful, addictive, and typically negatively life altering".

No my point was... what bounds do you want to use to leaglise one drug that wont be able to be applied to another. Read, comprehend !

There are plenty of regular pot-smokers and hallucinogen-takers who do absolutely no harm to anyone, have no addictions, and benefit emotionally, creatively or spiritually because of drug use.

There are plenty who smoke so much weed they are burnt to the core. There are plenty that have taken the bad trip and never got back ahold of their facilities. I've seen that first hand.... so whats your point ?

You can be a D.A.R.E. parrot all day long if you want,

is that what I am... OK... I hate DARE, they tell our children beginning in grade school to have thier parents arrested, but that whole elementary school/liberal bullshit is a whole nother topic.

That does not change the reality that there are responsible drug users everywhere.

Nor does it change the reality that there are irresponsible drug users and people prone to abuse/addiction

Take salvia for instance. It's been legal forever, and governments are only recently beginning to crack down on it, probably mainly because all the Youtube videos of people on it are frightening paranoid mothers. You never hear mentions of salvia users turning into bums and degenerates, getting hooked on it for life, or causing mayhem in the streets. Many people who do it, in fact, have no desire to use it again any time soon because it's so damn powerful.

Parents have every rite to be concerned if their kids are getting all fucked up, that is an inate fact of life. Its also quite possible that they know a bit about getting all fucked up. Gee I cant imagine why someone might not want to do stuff like that again anytime soon... its gotta be some kind of great getting psychotic... hell why should a parent be concerned ? Here have some more.....

Interesting that you talked about legistration being worked on for legalizing weed when at the same time salvia is being criminalized, I suspect this is very personal to you.

This is basically how it goes with all psychedelics - moralistic idiots with knee-jerk reactions to people "acting crazy" or looking "possessed by the devil" rush to ban something without bothering to understand the first thing about the drug or what it's like for the person on it.

Is that how it is ? OK

Drugs haven't destroyed our fucking society, and they aren't going to whether they're legal or illegal.

"Destroyed" deteriorated yes

The only real difference is whether governments decide to demonise and persecute people for drug use

Again, drug users are harressed to get to the dealers and to get them (users) into rehab and straightened out... ala Cronkites artical and the liberal bleeding hearts save the world attitude...btw.... if stuff does get legalized it will be those bleeding heart save the world types that do it, so then they can get real close and mammy you... the drug user back into shape.

or actually try to educate people on it and reduce the harm that's done by general ignorance

Are you suggesting that there is not enough information about drugs now ? Cause I've been around along time and the education has been out there during all that time, DIDNT MAKE A DIFFERENCE... hello

as well as the black market.

See here you are definantly not talking about weed or trippin

Drugs aren't fucking going away,

Nope but we can bash the hell out of scumbag dealers and producers all we want and that in itself is worth it

and they shouldn't go away either.

That is only your opinion and you are but one person

 

[PhantoMPhones]

Look Razor, look at your bloody responses to what people are trying to tell you... ALL YOU ARE DOING IS GOING 'NUH -UH, thats not how it would be' and 'la la la im not listening'. Sounds like one other particular member around here. You have given NO actual answers to people. 'look at alcoholism' are you effing kidding me mate? When I have time after my shift I will take your bait and discuss this alcoholism crap as it pertains to being an indicator regarding other substances, and even debunk your alcoholism theory to start with.


PROVIDE SOMETHING TO BACKUP WHAT YOU ARE SAYING! Saying 'look to alcoholism for an indicator' is absolutely asinine. Saying 'deal with it' means absolutely FUCK ALL. I specifically asked you, your little nice 3 word opinion aside, to provide me with data that can support your claims. You have since yet to provide a SINGLE SCRAP of support. For myself, I have almost come to the conclusion that you watch way too much TV, have far too much faith in the 'facts' that DARE and the government (who are no less corrupt or untrustworthy than any other organized crime syndicate) are spoon feeding you, that you seem to regurgitate automatically, and it is ABUNDANTLY clear that you are seriously lacking in the experience department when it comes to this issue, that would give you the necessary insight into this complex SOCIAL issue. And yes, experience is a crucial factor when it comes to something like this. If you are trying to nicely group all substances together for any reason regarding this issue, then you have failed miserably at tackling the issue from a logical and common sense point of view.

 

[razoredge]

Look Razor, look at your bloody responses to what people are trying to tell you... ALL YOU ARE DOING IS GOING 'NUH -UH, thats not how it would be' and 'la la la im not listening'. Sounds like one other particular member around here. You have given NO actual answers to people. 'look at alcoholism' are you effing kidding me mate? When I have time after my shift I will..............discuss this alcoholism crap as it pertains to being an indicator regarding other substances, and even debunk your alcoholism theory to start with.

That would be nice and quite a change from the norm around here

PROVIDE SOMETHING TO BACKUP WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!

My conclusions are my own from EXPERIENCE, I dont do the one sided research thing. Im not one that needs to see something in someone else writing to believe or draw my own conclusion. I find it odd that some people do.

Saying 'look to alcoholism for an indicator' is absolutely asinine.

Alcohol is legal, addictive and highly abused, what is assinine about that example ?

Saying 'deal with it' means absolutely FUCK ALL.

Saying deal with it is FUCK ALL, its my conclusion about making drugs legal and having corporations and the government capitalize off it. It is my rite to this conclusion.... DEAL WITH IT

I specifically asked you, your little nice 3 word opinion aside, to provide me with data that can support your claims.

The only data for drugs being legal in the states is what transpired prior to its illegalization, the over view of alcoholism and abuse in the states. Your fixation on "data" is yours, I have no such fixation.

You have since yet to provide a SINGLE SCRAP of support.

I have explained how random drug testing works, I have explained why its in place, I have explained the complications surrounding any legalization and the principles people want to use to promote legalization.... You on the other hand have not givin any statements as to any answers to these complications.

For myself, I have almost come to the conclusion that you watch way too much TV, have far too much faith in the 'facts' that DARE and the government (who are no less corrupt or untrustworthy than any other organized crime syndicate) are spoon feeding you, that you seem to regurgitate automatically,

You regurgitate bullshit, I just covered this, its as if you cant read and comprehend... let alone respond directly with any reasonable rebuttal

Interesing you just said what I have been saying all along, our government... in your words is "corrupt", in my words are fuckheads and will make a bigger mess of legalized drugs than the war on drugs is, but I guess your comprehension skills failed to obsorb that.

and it is ABUNDANTLY clear that you are seriously lacking in the experience department when it comes to this issue, that would give you the necessary insight into this complex SOCIAL issue.

Again failing with comprehension, Im saying it will be equally complex if legalized and of very little benefit because of "regulation" and all that would still be illegal. varis's "black market would still exist. The people involved in "crime" surrounding the drug trade would still need another crime for existance... being as there is no work in this country for the masses. Anything I've seen provided to condone legalization of DRUGS, is nothing more than a pipe dream of "the perfect world"

And yes, experience is a crucial factor when it comes to something like this.

Agree, but how come the onle "experience" I have seen you produce is the one sided propaganda of the promotion side. Nothing from within your own mind. Thats failure to me, failure to reason out all the aspects in your own head.

If you are trying to nicely group all substances together for any reason regarding this issue, then you have failed miserably at tackling the issue from a logical and common sense point of view.

I'm not "trying" to do anything. I have explained the complications I see, I have not gotten a single worthy direct rebuttal to debunk or answer the complications I see. You want to give me something ? Thats what I want, not what I have recieved for pages and pages, immature ranting "because its just not right". The "things shouldnt be this way" attitude is NOT an answer, nothing but blind idealism.

Your up, make the best of it (THE ISSUE... NOT ME), its what I've been waiting for.

 

[Dak]

I find it amusing that you are getting bent out of shape for people not showing any "proof" when you seem to preface most of what you say with "I think", "I believe", etc.

You can't prove that government income from marijuana tax is bad, you can't prove that it's a gateway drug just because it's a drug, you can't prove that any government profit would just be spent on regulation (which still be a profit, since right now we have no income from drugs and we spend money on the "war on ******, marijuana being one).

It is however, a fact that the War on Drugs is failing (based on rising drug use levels), that we spend way too much just on marijuana alone, and that marijuana isn't very addictive.

When you lay out any proof for any of your points instead of just spouting off your opinion on what is best,I will be all ears.

 

[razoredge]

I find it amusing that you are getting bent out of shape for people not showing any "proof" when you seem to preface most of what you say with "I think", "I believe", etc.

You can't prove that government income from marijuana tax is bad, you can't prove that it's a gateway drug just because it's a drug, you can't prove that any government profit would just be spent on regulation (which still be a profit, since right now we have no income from drugs and we spend money on the "war on ******, marijuana being one).

It is however, a fact that the War on Drugs is failing (based on rising drug use levels), that we spend way too much just on marijuana alone, and that marijuana isn't very addictive.

When you lay out any proof for any of your points instead of just spouting off your opinion on what is best,I will be all ears.

Not bent out of sahpe over that, bent for concentrating on "whats wrong with me" rather than addressing the issue and problems I bring up. Strange way of debating an issue... No ?

Of course I cant "prove".... there is NO direct MODEL... DUH ! I can only go by what our government has done with everything else in the past, you know... all the bureacratic bullshit. I can only say they have no right profiteering from drug trade. I know its a gateway drug for many, but I never even talked about that, only the two principles everyone wants to legalize it by as a "gateway"(not my word) to fight for legalization of other drugs. I know what I know about drugs and alcohol from first hand experience of living in the party generation for 3.5 decades... thats from the age of 16... I just turned 51... so make that since I was 14, that what 3.6/3.7... I have seen those brought down badly from it. i have seen those totally fried from it. I have seen those that squandered fortunes on it and been addicted (no not weed), and I have seen those that used their head as I did. Early on it seemd like only fun and games until life became more important and focus set in and then you get a chance to watch others slip off the deep end.

I have not spouted about "whats best", I have questioned the process and how far will it will be taken. As I said so many times... until random drug testing took place around the mid 90's, I never had a problem with it being illegal. I never once felt I wanted the government involved in my smoking affairs or have their measly little paws on the money, and I have had decades to think about it. As it stands if legalized, I would still be "illegal" for growing it... unless they allow up to a certain amount as it is for making alcohol, its kind of limited with alcohol and I dont care enough to look up the details. I would still live in fear of how they would deal with subriety tests... because if its piss in a cup and you smoked 5 days ago your DONE !

Frankly I dont understand what you guys dont get about these issues. Perhaps its just lack of insite as to how our government functions and how drug testing is currently done. As well as not having the experience of having one of your friends take the drug or alcohol plunge, or a girlfriend or relative. I have had all three and they were all people... decent people... I partied with. Some pulled through, some just arent right anymore. I consider myself both smart(or non addictive oriented) and lucky.

 

[Dak]

Your issues have already been addressed, and since you even admit that you can't prove your opinions on how it would be handled (merely guessing) then they are relativily null and void vs easily proven arguements about the failure of the current standard.

As far as "protecting people from themselves" which is what most of your second paragraph is, I really wish I could scream this again, but since it's the internet I can't so I will just type it (and not even in caps): It is not the government's job to protect you from yourself. If I want to throw myself off a proverbial cliff, that is my right. So what if someone has to sell me the drug? I chose to buy.

I still can't figure out your aversion to the gov't profitting off marijuana. They already profit off a million things and this is where you draw the line? We don't even have to get into crooked cops profitting from putting siezed shit back on the streets.

Fearing a "sobriety" test that, to me, looks pretty obvious won't be used if marijuana is legalised is also a weak arguement.

I have no personal interest in doing marijuana. Never have. But it isn't for the gov't to tell me I can't. Just like I believe in wearing seat belts but seat belt laws piss me off. None of the gov'ts god damn business whether I or anyone else wants to wear one or not.

 

[razoredge]

But you are somewhat misinformed and also want to easily overlook things.

Show me where my concerns have been directly addressed, you cant and its a safe bet that you will totally ignore my request to do so. You just keep running your mouth about bullshit rather than addressing the topic.

By simply looking at history, more recent in this case, its easy to find the indications I'm pointing out. Saying I cant prove something by producing a pie chart is silly because those in favor cant produce a model example of success or positive effects either. So anyone involved in this discussion can only speculate, its a matter of what you present and "because thats how it should be" doesnt cut it.

You want to interpret my diversion to the gov being in the drug business as that I support their other pandering and squandering. When what Im really doing is saying, yes, look at all the bullshit, this is what they will do either way.

I cant think of one instance when the gov. had new found money that didnt open the door for them to find more ways to spend the money and more.

If I want to throw myself off a proverbial cliff, that is my right.

Yes it is and more people should do so to help reduce the surface population. However no one is selling you that cliff and profiteering from it.

No one gets hooked on addictive drugs by intention, well there may be those of extreme dysfunction that glorify it enough but typically those that do just went too far, too frequently. I have known many already showing signs of having problems that will sit there in complete denial that they rounded the corner. If you dont want to address this issue then dont bring up the "war on drugs isnt working" line. I was not the one that brought up the "war on ****** issue, but I will respond to anything one wants to bring up as a distraction.

Fearing a "sobriety" test that, to me, looks pretty obvious won't be used if marijuana is legalised is also a weak arguement.

This is not worded very well and a bit incomplete for me to tell what you are talking about. Are you suggesting sobriety testing will be dropped ? Urine testing wont be used ? Sorry I dont see what you are offering here. If you have something to say say it, put some effort into it. Provide your well thought scenerio... if you have one.

No it isnt for the government to tell you you could not smoke weed and it hasnt even changed a thing for those that would, but it may have made it so those like you steer away from it. Where as say Varis wants to promote use of drugs by changing social acceptence. This is why I have brought up alcohol... do you drink ? What the government can do I make a stand against those that would sell weed and anything else potentially harmful. Here you have a second party involved, removeing any validity of the posed no liability crutch some of you are leaning on. {I now expect to hear about the A-T-F issue, as if anyone cant reason out the wall that exists for the ATF issue }

Just like I believe in wearing seat belts but seat belt laws piss me off. None of the gov'ts god damn business whether I or anyone else wants to wear one or not.

I'll be nice and simply ask you.... have you thought out the reason behind the seatbelt law ? If so why do you think we have it ? Who do you think is behind it ?

 

[Cythraul]

Yes it is and more people should do so to help reduce the surface population. However no one is selling you that cliff and profiteering from it.

How exactly is that relevant?