Should Marijuana be legalized?

[Dak]

As soon as drugs are made available to them they no longer own their body, the drug does and the person selling the drug.

So in that sense, everything we use "owns us". Weak arguement. Especially since we are talking about Marijuana, which is not highly addicting.

Then I suppoe everyone would want to deny that there is a growing problem in this country now with prescribed medicines, its like everyone thinks they need a pill for everything. It just shows the direction society would go.

I won't deny it at all, I have been saying this for a while, and the bullshit "Big Pharma" sells is way worse for you than marijuana. Not to mention the reason society is going that way is because of DOCTORS pushing pills as the cure for everything, not because people originally want to be taking pills for everything.Tens of thousands die from medical malpractice every year, or miss-prescriptions, yet no one is calling for the banning of "legal ******.

Nobody has put up one decent counterpoint to any of the problems I bring up.

You haven't listed any legitimate problems. Talking down to people ("idealistic youth") and making stupid statements like "lern govrnmnt!" only make you look less credible. To jump into alchoholism when my statement concerning current laws was clearly in reference to current laws regarding marijuana also makes you look less than credible, since you either lack comprehension or were attempting to throw out a red herring.

 

[razoredge]

All those things I mentioned are legitimate problems. Someone address them, tell me how we're going to make it work if you want credibility. Claims have been made about law enforcement saving money, its not going to happen, they will still be chasing people around for all the other things I mentioned, and it will be so complicated. Claims have been made that gov should have no control. This opens the doors for more than weed. Thats why I took it further, as did others. Address these issues or all the demeaning tongue at me is but looking in the mirror. Is employment drug testing going to go to blood samples/tests. Everyone want to submit to that twice a year ? Records of purchase... put it on the credit card ?

Glad to see you recogonize the pharm industry problem. Imagine them getting their hands on "recreational" drug trade. Then knowing how people are with their need for "help". The stuff is going to be legal, so it has to be sold. So its going to have to be sold commercially so it can be taxed and controlled, hows all that going to work? At least now people have to head to the dredges to get drugs, which at least gives pause for thought to some

 

[Fenrisúlfr]

This is why cockroaches need to be crushed, not argued with. Five minute of my life gone because of his stupidity...

Crushing cockroaches is what the drug laws do. You little boy bring nothing to the table. [1]

We shall see.

Suppose someone owns their body ? [2, etc.]

I do, do you?

As soon as drugs are made available to them they no longer own their body, the drug does and the person selling the drug.

Property rights do not diminish if the owner is intoxicated.

Then I suppoe everyone would want to deny that there is a growing problem in this country now with prescribed medicines, its like everyone thinks they need a pill for everything. It just shows the direction society would go.

To the willing there is no injury; if one willingly takes a medicine, the voluntary nature of the act disclaims liability except in the case of fraud or blatant misrepresentation by the physician in which case it is an issue of malpractice, not property rights. There is no one saying 'take this medicine or I will shoot you', one is perfectly in control of the situation.

Nobody has put up one decent counterpoint to any of the problems I bring up. They just avoid confronting them and lay out some idealistic blanket statement thats so far from reality its pathetic.

Rendering your ill-formulated arguments as moot is a form of addressing. In addition, your continuing appeal to reality is merely a redictio-ad-adsurdeum in disguise, since the reality to which you refer is defined by your skewed viewpoints. Thus, any disagreement is immediately labelled absurd.

Ya all cry like little bitches because someone opposes your half focused views, reminds me of the Jesus Freak I had crying in some Boston park back in the 70's when after 3 hours he still hadnt converted me to become reborn with his half baked logic

Is there an argument in there?

 

[razoredge]

This is why cockroaches need to be crushed, not argued with. Five minute of my life gone because of his stupidity...

Show the stupidity pencil legged varmint

We shall see.

have seen

I do, do you?

reckon this makes you special

Property rights do not diminish if the owner is intoxicated.

They do if the person is addicted and your well rehearsed babbling promotes free for all mentality

To the willing there is no injury; if one willingly takes a medicine, the voluntary nature of the act disclaims liability except in the case of fraud or blatant misrepresentation by the physician in which case it is an issue of malpractice, not property rights. There is no one saying 'take this medicine or I will shoot you', one is perfectly in control of the situation.

Again, no one plans on becoming an addict so this law book speal of yours is pointless here

Nobody has put up one decent counterpoint to any of the problems I bring up. They just avoid confronting them and lay out some idealistic blanket statement thats so far from reality its pathetic.

Rendering your ill-formulated arguments as moot is a form of addressing. In addition, your continuing appeal to reality is merely a redictio-ad-adsurdeum in disguise, since the reality to which you refer is defined by your skewed viewpoints. Thus, any disagreement is immediately labelled absurd.

Not buying, its becasue no one can address the problems. The rest is simply more moronic spew thus proving my point because your willing to waste time being demeaning but cant answer a problem. Very obvious

Ya all cry like little bitches because someone opposes your half focused views, reminds me of the Jesus Freak I had crying in some Boston park back in the 70's when after 3 hours he still hadnt converted me to become reborn with his half baked logic

Is there an argument in there?

I would not doubt everything is about an arguement to you, yet again you have said nothing regarding the complications I mentioned involved with legalization, just a bunch of mouse squeak

 

[Dak]

All those things I mentioned are legitimate problems. Someone address them, tell me how we're going to make it work if you want credibility. Claims have been made about law enforcement saving money, its not going to happen, they will still be chasing people around for all the other things I mentioned, and it will be so complicated. Claims have been made that gov should have no control. This opens the doors for more than weed. Thats why I took it further, as did others. Address these issues or all the demeaning tongue at me is but looking in the mirror. Is employment drug testing going to go to blood samples/tests. Everyone want to submit to that twice a year ? Records of purchase... put it on the credit card ?

Glad to see you recogonize the pharm industry problem. Imagine them getting their hands on "recreational" drug trade. Then knowing how people are with their need for "help". The stuff is going to be legal, so it has to be sold. So its going to have to be sold commercially so it can be taxed and controlled, hows all that going to work? At least now people have to head to the dredges to get drugs, which at least gives pause for thought to some

The continued ignorance displayed in your first paragraph is mind blowing and I am just going to ignore it, since we have already been round and round on that and you still don't get it.

As far as your statement on "big pharma" getting their hands on marijuana, one little problem: people can grow it themselves. Pharma makes money because you can't make aspirin yourself. Huge difference.

 

[razoredge]

The continued ignorance displayed in your first paragraph is mind blowing and I am just going to ignore it, since we have already been round and round on that and you still don't get it.

As far as your statement on "big pharma" getting their hands on marijuana, one little problem: people can grow it themselves. Pharma makes money because you can't make aspirin yourself. Huge difference.

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.

I dont know why you went into growing your own. I already went through that multiple times. So I dont know why you felt the need to tell me people grow it ?

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"

I think everything is good the way it is now, like I said I have 35 years and not a single problem. The random drug testing that went into effect mid/late 90's is the first real problem most were confronted with and I dont see companies being ready to stop doing this. In fact its recent development is indication that the anti-drug movement is stronger than ever. Zero tolerance laws are another indication. The increased focus on drinking and driveing is another. The lowering of the blood alcohol level to drive is another. Its now nearly to the point where you cant even have it on your breath. Makes me wonder how its going to work for weed. Is everyone with bloodshit eyes going to get harassed ? Then how are they going to figure out if your stoned or not ? Not one answer to that question. If theres technology out there I dont know about fine, tell me about it.

The drug testing is the only thing I have problems with. It needs to stop but that is not being adressed. Its not the business of an employer what a person does off the job... legal or illegal. The illegal part is only the business of law enforcement.

 

[Dak]

Just on a quick Wiki check, 872,720 people went to jail for marijuana possession. So nearly a million people arrested and taken through the justice system, wasting multi millions of taxpayer money and civil servant time, and you think that eliminating that won't save money?

There will not need to be a completely seperate beaurocracy for "controlling" marijuana, we already have enoguh and they are called the FDA, or the ATF.

Businesses usually drug test to A: Cut down on the chance of losing employees to arrests, and B: To discourage being high at work. Whether it serves either purpose is doubtful but that never does seem to matter. Even if marijuana was legalized, other drugs would probably still be tested for, so oh well.

 

[razoredge]

Just on a quick Wiki check, 872,720 people went to jail for marijuana possession.

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. I recently had a friend busted for lighting a pipe at a stop sign in front of a cop, she had a pound of homegrown in the trunk, dont recall if she did an overnight but did get probation, lost her license and had to go to rehab. I know this person well, she was once my girlfriend.... She needed help, weed was the least of it and her past record of DWI's and druggie reputation didnt help her either.

So nearly a million people arrested and taken through the justice system, wasting multi millions of taxpayer money and civil servant time, and you think that eliminating that won't save money?

I already mentioned that I believe many would still be arrested for the other reasons you still refuse to address

There will not need to be a completely seperate beaurocracy for "controlling" marijuana, we already have enoguh and they are called the FDA, or the ATF.

I might be crazy but I thought I already brought up the ATF to get peoples mind clicking about how alcohol is dealt with, which is another thing everyone is refusing to address. Regardless if it were legal and controled by FDA they would need to put a new department in place within to focus on how its all handled. Why I said, learn something about the government, or just think about how the government functions, it would be a HUGE "to do", make no mistake.

Businesses usually drug test to A: Cut down on the chance of losing employees to arrests, and B: To discourage being high at work. Whether it serves either purpose is doubtful but that never does seem to matter. Even if marijuana was legalized, other drugs would probably still be tested for, so oh well.

I dont know what to think about this. It begs the question about your age and what you actually know, but that seems an insult. "losing employees to arrest" ??? you have got to be kidding me, who fed you that line of crap ? You fail the drug test and they lose you real quick, that is the point, to get rid of people that do drugs.

The bottom line on drug testing is -
A: Its a mechanism of culling set up by shakers and rollers to further classify people. Any brand that can be placed on a persons forehead (SS#) is a recent fad of the past 2 decades and the powers that be are sucking it up and loving every minute of it, they aint going to change or lay down easy, they want to do this
B: It created a giant cash cow for the ever fattening health care system
C: The insurance companies are behind it big time. Perhaps the strongest lobby in the States. They have pushed so many regulations through in the past 18 years it makes me sick.
D: There is a small interest in the idea that "people need help". So if your found to use drugs, you get sent to "theropy" and well lets think about that.... Is there money involved for another ever fattening mental health care industry ? Please dont think too long.... or you may actually need theropy

"To discourage being high at work" this is another reason for my first question about age and what you actually know. Do you know anything about the "drug test" ? Did you comprehend anything I said repetedly during this topic about the "drug test" and how it works. You piss in a cup, it comes back positve or negative.... sometime "inconclusive". It does NOT tell what drug or when it was used. Weed sticks in the system for up to a month. People that are light occasional smokers that have low body fat can pass if clean for 11-14 days. An alcoholic can get drunk as a skunk Sat night, beat the old lady and children, show up Monday morning and pass the test. A coke or crack user can pass after a few days, I forget the actually amount of time because it doesnt concern me. The test is totally discriminate against weed. Outside of drawing blood from all employee or drivers and doing extensive EXPENSIVE lab tests(shove that up your "save money" nose) there is no other way at this time to determine if someone is "high at work" or high while driving and WHAT drug they are on.

GAWD !

 

[Balkanisches_Schwein]

Legalize. Let the people do what they want. It's a drug? not healthy? it is written on cigarette package "smoking kills", and people do it- are allowed to do it. But i guess that lung cancer ain't a big deal. And when talking about kids- we all know that something allowed isn't so interesting as something that's forbidden.

 

[TempleOfBlood]

Yes, because we should have the maximum liberty to live life the way we want ... even if it means ruining our own lives. We never have the right to hurt others though, only ourselves.

 

[razoredge]

problem there is that those that sell drugs are liable for bringing harm

 

[derek]

Legalisation overcomes that problem to an extent.

 

[CradleOfDreams]

I say yes.

It doesn't kill anyone, now does it? To my knowledge Marijuana doesn't do permanent damage to your brain.

Personally I'd never do it, but I wouldn't stop anyone.

So I say yes. Legalize it. It's not as bad for you as say LSD or Crack, and some tribes use it for religious purposes.

 

[razoredge]

Legalisation overcomes that problem to an extent.

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.

 

[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