I haven't posted in this thread for days, but when I pointed out that 70% of people support de-criminalization of marijuana, that means they don't believe that people should be jailed for mariujauna offenses. Fined yes, severely punished no.
I didn't say over 70 % supported legalization. The two are completely different matters. Jailing people for a marijuana offense is another waste of tax money in my book.
Weed isn't my thing, I simply have sights on life set too high to give into such a worthless thing such as "getting high," but I'm also sick of watching people get fired from jobs, arrested, and other things, for being high or having been high recently.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Arguably, it causes short term memory loss, concentration problems, crime, it fries your brain, and does a list of equally dangerous and potentially bad side effects that don't even come to mind this second. So what are the reasons FOR legalizing marijuana? "Cause it feels good"? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marijuana, if you really look at most of the anti-drug arguments, doesn't actually cause crime increases, doesn't actually fry your brain, and is not nearly as harmful as cigarettes. The main arguments against marijuana is that it supposedly causes "a lack of motivation" and other "side effects" that have more to do with the person's personality and lack of direction than his/her smoking weed.
Claiming the terrible effects that weed has on people is a fairly weak argument, but it is the only argument that the government has against it unless it attacks the stereotypical stoner who is filling a spiritual hole or trying to deal with emotional pain by smoking up. Alcoholism is caused by the same thing: trying to fill a spiritual or emotional feeling of "lacking" with a physical, mind altering substance.
Not everyone smokes up because of those and related reasons, but the "stoners" we spend all of our time talking about typically do.
<!--QuoteBegin-illuminex+Sep 20 2004, 12:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (illuminex @ Sep 20 2004, 12:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Marijuana, if you really look at most of the anti-drug arguments, doesn't actually cause crime increases, doesn't actually fry your brain, and is not nearly as harmful as cigarettes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Uh, actually your typical joint is the equivilent to a pack of cigs or half a pack of cigs.
considering the drug in question is legal in some countries perhaps someone would like to drag up the crime and addiction numbers for them and compare to more iron-clad places like the US?
I'd just be curious to see the difference =3
oh and hawk, I take it you've been ignoring the arguements of those who don't smoke it but think making it illegal is rather daft? Sci-net sums it all ever so eloquently ^^
Actually Gem, I did read that post, but my post was regarding the smoker individually. He wants to have marijuana legalized. What benefit does this have for the individual, other than allowing him to do it more often (without fear of getting caught).
Perhaps this isn't as beneficial to him as he thinks. Or perhaps he knows this, but doesn't care for the feeling it gives him. Sure, fine for the government. I give you that. Fine for the individuals? No, I don't think it is.
"considering the drug in question is legal in some countries perhaps someone would like to drag up the crime and addiction numbers for them and compare to more iron-clad places like the US?"
I'm pretty sure both numbers are lower back here (the Netherlands)
hmm, I can only seem to find the number of 'users' <a href='http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/table.asp?PA=03799&D1=215,221&D2=0&D3=0&D4=(l-11)-l&DM=SLNL&LA=nl&TT=2' target='_blank'>-Click me-</a> Heeft ooit marihuana of hasj gebruikt = Has ever used marihuana or hashies In de afgelopen 4 weken gebruikt = Used it in the past 4 weeks
ah okies hawk... well I agree with you from that side of the arguement, but then again I take the same stance against smokers and drinkers. I geniunely feel a sense of sorrow for people who do either =/
<b>edit:</b> thankies bo! now we just need some US stats <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 20 2004, 12:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 20 2004, 12:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-taboofires+Sep 20 2004, 04:54 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (taboofires @ Sep 20 2004, 04:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Conversely, without freedom my life is worthless. I would rather die than live under a system like that. Fortunately I don't have to go so far to influence policy.
Tell me: why should the government care whether I have a beer or smoke a joint, in my own house and on my own time, to relax on the weekend? Or grow my own, in my basement, to facilitate said use? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your kidding. You'd rather be dead than live in a society that deals comprehensively with a drug problem? Put bluntly - you're willing to bleed for your weed? You still have freedom - freedom to leave the country, freedom to get a job, freedom to not get a job, freedom to worship, raise kids, do whatever you like, so long as you do it within the confines of the law. You are not free to sell drugs, you are not free to use them. Its almost comical to think of all the causes people have fought and died for over the years, yet you'd be willing to do it for a high.
I'll tell you why the government cares. Because weed screws people up. Not everyone, but some. So you weed smokers are like a cancer. Not only do you light one up for yourselves, killing your own braincells, hurting your lungs etc (which in my country means eventually my taxes will be paying your medical bills), but you keep suppliers in business, and in a profitable business no less. So they can offer that filth to someone else, who might not be as tolerant of the effects of weed as you - their life down the tube so you can experience some immediate gratification.
That "growing your own" is a complete smokescreen - if you are legally allowed to grow something, then it automatically follows that you should be allow to distribute it. You cant have one without the other.
But you dont just keep it in the house - pot does wierd things to your mind, especially if you're addicted to it. So you come to work and set a chair on fire near some gas cylinders - and that is an event taken from personal experience while I was working in an optical lab. Stoned out of his mind, tried to light up AT WORK, dropped his match and set the chair alight. Leaps up - pushes the chair away from him towards the cylinders. Completely stupid, completely drug addled.
We have pokies to **** people up. We have alcohol to **** people up. We have cigarettes to **** people up. All of them have a much higher societal saturation rate than weed and will take longer to deal with - so why add another?
But hey, you dont care, you're having a great time, you got the munchies, you feel relaxed, you feel good. Every time I smell weed, hear about weed, watch people take it, I take it as a personal affront and extremely selfish and irresponsible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> [I'll leave it quoted in full, since it's on another page.]
That's incredibly full of unfounded stereotyping and more examples of removing the freedoms of some because of the folly of the few.
First off, I do not intend to use marijuana regardless of whether or not it is legal. I also do not smoke or drink, despite being free to do so. However, I would still object in the same way to having either of those freedoms removed. Freedom is not in the implementation, or having <i>specific</i> rights, it's about being able to live your own life without negative interference from other citizens or the government, so long as I give the same respect. A single step against that ideal is a step too far. Having freedoms slowly whittled away is just as bad as having no freedoms to start with, and I'm not going to stand for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You still have freedom - freedom to leave the country...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Tell that to all the Black, Asian, Arabic, homosexual, or whatever people who have (or have had) their freedoms imposed upon. To say that if I don't like it then leave does not come anywhere close to making it right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll tell you why the government cares. Because weed screws people up. Not everyone, but some.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Great. Care. That doesn't mean you have to act upon people who are able to live productive lives while using any drug recreationally. I've said it before, and here it is again: If someone is ruining another person's life, or even just harming it a bit (via intoxicated driving, second hand smoke, come to work intoxicated, whatever), then do something about <i>them</i>. Those people are stupid regardless of whether or not they have intoxicating substances available to them.
If you're going to punish everyone just because somebody's an idiot, then we're not going to have any freedoms left. The world is stuffed full of them.
Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.
And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.
I really don't care whether or not you have had bad experiences with people who use intoxicants. It does nothing to prove that all experiences are negative.
Meh, I'd be against it, if only due to my own experiences. Alot of folks around here use it for the "hightened experience", and I basically can't stand the way they act when using it, the way they smell, and if it's around, having to breathe the crap in. If I had to run into people acting like these people act everyday in all sorts of places, smelling like these people do, I couldn't stand it. I'm not going to trust that some people are going to be able to use it in a responsible manner when the majority of people around here who are otherwise fine can't.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom is not in the implementation, or having specific rights, it's about being able to live your own life without negative interference from other citizens or the government, so long as I give the same respect<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Total freedom is anarchy. No freedom is a tyranny. Some freedom is just fine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He shouldn't be comming home from "half a day of work" as that implies he has went home earlier then he was supposed to have done, thus putting his job at risk; mainly him losing it. Otherwise, yes, that's perfectly [fine]... But you dont really need a beer to relax. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, it wouldn't. He'd be spaced out, and become a vegetable. Memory loss, short attention span... He wouldn't be able to do his job right, and by that i mean raising his children.
Decrimilization people. Decriminalization. Smoking weed should not make you a criminal. If the risks of making it legal outway the freedom it gives, at least decriminalize it.
What that means is that smoking weed is a finable offense, like jay walking or speeding. So, instead of being charged with "possession" and risk screwing up your entire future for something that stupid, you can smoke and risk a $100 fine or something.
Prohibition didn't work in the 1930's, and it certainly is not working now. The surveys that the government uses to convey that its programs are working are typically flawed and vague.
I see no reason why the government should be spending so man resources trying to stop people from smoking up. We should be spending our time and money helping people become better people, so they don't feel the need to smoke up to fill the hole in their lives. That's what most people are doing when they get stoned. Perhaps there are some larger issues that American Society needs to work out to solve this problem.
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Sep 20 2004, 10:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Sep 20 2004, 10:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hawkeye wins. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sidestepping for a second: Whatever the subject, whatever the forum, comments like "you win, thread over" are simply stupid. Discuss, or just read, but don't post no-content no-value remarks like you were running the show.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Sep 20 2004, 09:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Sep 20 2004, 09:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay sure, we have plenty of counterarguments <b>AGAINST</b> the legalization for marijuana, but what I want to know is, where are the <b>FOR</b> arguments to legalize marijuana? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> First off, you might want to read my previous, rather long-winded post about the pros of decriminalizing the entire drug trade. After that, here's some pointers on why cannabis should be legal:
1) Because there are no non-fictious reasons to keep hemp farming illegal. Hemp provides not only a recreational drug, but also fibers for paper, rope and clothing. The for-criminalization arguments are primarily based on the core thought of "it is illegal, therefore someone must prove its usefulness for it to be legalized". This is a classic example of circular logic, where the actual problem - criminalization without any basis in facts - is taken as word of god and followed until proven otherwise, which is impossible since it hasn't been proved harmful or society-endangering in the first place.
2) Cannabis is a recreational drug with no actual harmful side-effects if used correctly. Incorrect uses are for example DUI or use while working. The use of any kind of mind-altering chemicals during work hours should be restricted, and this applies also to the overuse of caffein and similar substances for the purposes of staying awake. The primary chemical agent behind the cannabis experience - THC - causes no long-term effects or damage on the user. "Overuse of cannabis is dangerous and blahblahblah", as usual, but just about anything from salt to cooking utensils falls in the same category if excessively ingested.
3) Naturally those vouching for its decriminalization want to smoke it. This shouldn't come as a shock or a surprise to anyone. For this to be somehow wrong while getting absolutely smashed on fridays is right implies flaws in logic.
4) What exactly would anyone have against me farming my own crop? Granted, I don't exactly care what the law says about it, but I really would like to do it somewhere else than in a closed, artificially ventilated closet. For my want of a good pipeful or a joint on a saturday night while preparing to watch a movie and mixing a dip for my chips am I to be branded a menace to society and summarily jailed? Is it impossible for me to hold a job if I smoke twice a month? Do I have a drug problem? Is the law doing the right thing deciding what's best for me?
The clever anti-drug activist always remembers to liken the movement for the legalisation of drugs to murder: "Hey, some people seem to think murder is a-okay, so why not grant them the right." However, the analogy goes down like a two-dollar red light district professional because while murder does indeed affect my fellow man , and usually in a very bad way, my joint only affects me, unless someone nearby is really desperate for a smoke. For me to have my saturday night roll, nobody needs to be harmed, and the only thing that suffers in the process is my bank account when I have to dish out $200 for lights, fertilizer and good seeds for a new minifarm.
[edit] I forgot to beat you with the educational stick for using the words "marihuana" and "junkies" in the same sentence.
Stop being a moron. Seriously, you completely averted Hawkeye's post.
Instead of arguing against our argument that is in NOT in favor of marijuana, why don't you post an argument FOR marijuana.
You just want to smoke the damn thing without legal consequence!
We already have tobacco and alcohol, and let's remember that cannabis is known as the gateway drug. What's to prevent cocaine or heroin or any other hard drug from being legalized if this is to be the first step?
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Sep 20 2004, 04:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Sep 20 2004, 04:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> We already have tobacco and alcohol, and let's remember that cannabis is known as the gateway drug. What's to prevent cocaine or heroin or any other hard drug from being legalized if this is to be the first step? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> *First paragraph edited out. It did not conform to the discussion forum rules. Better for me to clip it now than someone else to do it for me. Responding to inflammatory comments with inflammatory responses should not be done.*
Cannabis as a gateway drug? Hey, most people who smoke cannabis have smoked tobacco before that. Is tobacco now the gateway drug? The gateway theory has been disproved, ridiculed and trod on for the last twenty years. I fail to understand how some people still can uphold its fictious basic tenets.
And yes, I bloody well want to smoke the stuff without legal consequence. I never said any different, did I? I merely was trying to understand why I should get some prison time for doing it. If you'd actually bothered to read the thread you'd find a screen's lenght of text from me dealing and, in fact, endorsing the legalization of <b>all</b> recreational drugs. Go read that as an answer to your question.
If you have failed to construct an argument for cannabis from my post, I'll do it for you: There exist no satisfactory arguments for the illegal status of cannabis. Therefore, the status should be subject to change. With my homegrown plant I am not harming anyone, not endorsing international drug cartels, not endangering anyone's life nor funneling funds for the genocidal "war on drugs". What am I doing so evil that I should do time for?
Once more to make sure it got through: I am doing no wrong to any man or beast with my little bush in the closet. Therefore the law is the issue, not me as the subject of the law.
And for the future: <a href='http://www.antiprohibitionist.org/documents/documents11/WHO%20Cannabis.pdf' target='_blank'>Read</a>, <a href='http://www.antiprohibitionist.org/documents/documents03/AT%20review%20of%202000%20WDR.doc' target='_blank'>comprehend</a>, post.
Evil_bOb1Join Date: 2002-07-13Member: 938Members, Squad Five Blue
<!--QuoteBegin-Rapier7+Sep 20 2004, 11:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Rapier7 @ Sep 20 2004, 11:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> let's remember that cannabis is known as the gateway drug. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This is just untrue and is the main government's argument against decriminalization. It is in fact a simplistic logical error.
It is true that a person who goes on hard drugs will most surely have passed through canabis first.
But it doesn't mean that a person who smokes cannabis will surely go on hard drugs after.
Im trying to find the figures to support this, they surely are somewhere...
But the proportion of cannabis smokers that pass on to harder drugs is extremly small (less than 5% im sure).
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Dangers and Effects</b> Smoking marijuana may impair short-term memory while people are using the drug. This happens because all forms of marijuana contain THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the main active chemical in marijuana, which alters the way the brain works. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Cancer causing? No. Addictive? No. Possible to overdose? No.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 20 2004, 05:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 20 2004, 05:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> well, i suppose if you find that 'altering how your brain works' is an acceptable risk to you... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> List of other items that alter the way your brain works:
Alcohol Coffee Tea Glue Paint Thinner Hormones (you produce these pesky things constantly in your body) Food Gases The Government HAARP Project
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>The last one is a nod to the tinfoil hat crowd...</span>
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+Sep 20 2004, 09:26 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye @ Sep 20 2004, 09:26 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Okay sure, we have plenty of counterarguments <b>AGAINST</b> the legalization for marijuana, but what I want to know is, where are the <b>FOR</b> arguments to legalize marijuana?
Do you guys really have more motive than "Cause it feels good"? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Suppose the government had banned Counterstrike. What could you say in its defense other than "it feels good"?
In a free society, you err on the side of freedom. This means that if there is no good reason for something to be illegal, then it should be legal by default.
(Not that there aren't good reasons for legalizing marijuana, I just wanted to dispose of this particular viewpoint and let someone more involved make the case.)
<!--QuoteBegin-Maveric+Sep 20 2004, 02:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Maveric @ Sep 20 2004, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Freedom is not in the implementation, or having specific rights, it's about being able to live your own life without negative interference from other citizens or the government, so long as I give the same respect<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Total freedom is anarchy. No freedom is a tyranny. Some freedom is just fine. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Right, and I did qualify my statement. I eliminated anything that involves harming another, for starters. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> He shouldn't be comming home from "half a day of work" as that implies he has went home earlier then he was supposed to have done, thus putting his job at risk; mainly him losing it. Otherwise, yes, that's perfectly [fine]... But you dont really need a beer to relax. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Half a day = four hours, which is more than many people put in on a Saturday.
No you don't need it, but it helps. Goes faster. Same way you don't need a pain killer to get rid of a headache. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually, it wouldn't. He'd be spaced out, and become a vegetable. Memory loss, short attention span... He wouldn't be able to do his job right, and by that i mean raising his children. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You clearly have little concept of how the drug works. There is a huge difference between a heavy and weekly user as far as side effects go. And it's nothing like those "responsibility is my anti-drug" commercials, as it requires someone to be an idiot to start with to smoke up while babysitting or whatever. You'll have to support what you say, not just skip to your "false" conclusion.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, I do not intend to use marijuana regardless of whether or not it is legal. I also do not smoke or drink, despite being free to do so. However, I would still object in the same way to having either of those freedoms removed. Freedom is not in the implementation, or having <i>specific</i> rights, it's about being able to live your own life without negative interference from other citizens or the government, so long as I give the same respect. A single step against that ideal is a step too far. Having freedoms slowly whittled away is just as bad as having no freedoms to start with, and I'm not going to stand for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting use of the word negative interference - thats exactly how the government views drugs upon its population. Having freedoms whittled down? You havent lost a single one. Cannibis has been illegal in both our countries for a long time now, and punishments are still dished out - the Singaporean solution was to up the ante, and its been remarkably effective. This sort of crackdown doesnt cut in in Iran, because Iran is situated next to poppy country, also known as Afghanistan, and unfortunately its police forces competency is not directly proportional to their brutality.
Freedom and Law are a balance, certain freedoms are sacrificed in the name of maintaning law and order. I suspect that heroin wasnt illegal in the US from the word go, yet the Government stepped over that boundary of freedom and you dont complain. So clearly loss of freedom is only a huge issue if you happen to disagree with the freedom being taken away, if you dont care then its all fine. Sounds like your opinion is more important here than freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell that to all the Black, Asian, Arabic, homosexual, or whatever people who have (or have had) their freedoms imposed upon. To say that if I don't like it then leave does not come anywhere close to making it right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That wasnt what I meant - its not a "put up or shut up" suggestion. What I meant was that you are enjoying a whole stack of other freedoms, such as the one listed above. Leaving totalitarian dictatorships isnt as easy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Great. Care. That doesn't mean you have to act upon people who are able to live productive lives while using any drug recreationally. I've said it before, and here it is again: If someone is ruining another person's life, or even just harming it a bit (via intoxicated driving, second hand smoke, come to work intoxicated, whatever), then do something about <i>them</i>. Those people are stupid regardless of whether or not they have intoxicating substances available to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how am I supposed to protect them when all their friends are trying it and think its great, with easy access to the stuff and the numbers to pressure the unwilling in to at least taking one puff? Am I to apply darwinian surivival of the fittest to them? Weed smokers, at least those that purchase it, are by supporting the drug trade directly aiding its continuation and extension to other members of society. Some of those members wont be able to handle it. So you are willing, so that your freedom to puff on a bong isnt infringed, to sacrifice several members of society in order that the masses enjoy your completely superfluous recreation?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.
And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, the alcohol problem is too far gone to control. Why shouldnt he be able to do that? Because chances are that beer isnt doing his body any favours, and in my country that means we'll all be shelling out for him to have a new liver. He might also then take himself upon the road, and with slightly delayed reflexes and a reduced ability to concentrate, be a few seconds to late to avert disaster and get either himself or someone else killed. No one starts life needing alcohol, and there would be a sight more lives still continuing if we didnt have it. But its too late now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I really don't care whether or not you have had bad experiences with people who use intoxicants. It does nothing to prove that all experiences are negative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is true that multiple bad experiences with intoxicants leaves one with a slightly skewed opinion, but it just goes to show that despite heaps of neutral experiences every day (ie you just smoke it, relax, and everythings fine), weed has a very ugly side that cannot be ignored. If the decision was up to me, I'd sacrifice your paltry and ultimately insignificant luxury for the lives of hundreds in a second.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 21 2004, 12:30 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 21 2004, 12:30 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, I do not intend to use marijuana regardless of whether or not it is legal. I also do not smoke or drink, despite being free to do so. However, I would still object in the same way to having either of those freedoms removed. Freedom is not in the implementation, or having <i>specific</i> rights, it's about being able to live your own life without negative interference from other citizens or the government, so long as I give the same respect. A single step against that ideal is a step too far. Having freedoms slowly whittled away is just as bad as having no freedoms to start with, and I'm not going to stand for it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Interesting use of the word negative interference - thats exactly how the government views drugs upon its population. Having freedoms whittled down? You havent lost a single one. Cannibis has been illegal in both our countries for a long time now, and punishments are still dished out - the Singaporean solution was to up the ante, and its been remarkably effective. This sort of crackdown doesnt cut in in Iran, because Iran is situated next to poppy country, also known as Afghanistan, and unfortunately its police forces competency is not directly proportional to their brutality.
Freedom and Law are a balance, certain freedoms are sacrificed in the name of maintaning law and order. I suspect that heroin wasnt illegal in the US from the word go, yet the Government stepped over that boundary of freedom and you dont complain. So clearly loss of freedom is only a huge issue if you happen to disagree with the freedom being taken away, if you dont care then its all fine. Sounds like your opinion is more important here than freedom. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> But does marijuana, or any drug, <i>need</i> to be a negative interference? Much of damage is done because it is unregulated, in the hands of the black market. I maintain that the damage caused by the draconian measures to otherwise functional and productive citizens is <i>at least</i> comparable to the problems associated with deregulation or legalization.
Again, whether or not a program is successful has little to do with whether it is right or the best answer. Removing all live from the planet would also solve the drug problem.
And you put words in my mouth. I would have made the same arguments for heroin, as they apply. The only real differences are in the severity of the side effects. Any action or object that can benefit a single person without damaging the liberties of others should be legal. Ban the harmful actions, not every action.
I speak of marijuana only because it is the topic, and it's complicated enough without expanding further.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell that to all the Black, Asian, Arabic, homosexual, or whatever people who have (or have had) their freedoms imposed upon. To say that if I don't like it then leave does not come anywhere close to making it right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That wasnt what I meant - its not a "put up or shut up" suggestion. What I meant was that you are enjoying a whole stack of other freedoms, such as the one listed above. Leaving totalitarian dictatorships isnt as easy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to be satisfied by merely less totalitarian. If we will pursue an ideal, then we should pursue it to the fullest!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Great. Care. That doesn't mean you have to act upon people who are able to live productive lives while using any drug recreationally. I've said it before, and here it is again: If someone is ruining another person's life, or even just harming it a bit (via intoxicated driving, second hand smoke, come to work intoxicated, whatever), then do something about <i>them</i>. Those people are stupid regardless of whether or not they have intoxicating substances available to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how am I supposed to protect them when all their friends are trying it and think its great, with easy access to the stuff and the numbers to pressure the unwilling in to at least taking one puff? Am I to apply darwinian surivival of the fittest to them? Weed smokers, at least those that purchase it, are by supporting the drug trade directly aiding its continuation and extension to other members of society. Some of those members wont be able to handle it. So you are willing, so that your freedom to puff on a bong isnt infringed, to sacrifice several members of society in order that the masses enjoy your completely superfluous recreation? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Educate them. Give them the facts. Real facts, not the crap that gets published on the DEA website or whatever. People see right through it, and then stop listening. That's not a sustainable situation. Allow the people with at least half a brain to make a smart decision.
Does anyone need to be sacrificed in the production and distribution of a <i>plant</i>? Of course not, that's ridiculous. But it's also wrong to assume that the plant itself is the reason that people die producing it. If it were grown on a government-regulated farm, and the other portions of the supply chain were managed as well, then where will the money people spend on it go to? The farmers, the middlemen, the government (taxes), but most importantly not some criminals or terrorists or whatever.
The fact of the matter is that idiots apply "darwinian surivival of the fittest" to themselves. They will find their own methods to end themselves, or end up imprisoned. You could ban anything sharper than a circle of paper, and they'd go jump off a cliff for the fun of it. Worry over what they would do with drugs is misplaced. Make the immediately stupid or otherwise destructive actions illegal and leave it at that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.
And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, the alcohol problem is too far gone to control. Why shouldnt he be able to do that? Because chances are that beer isnt doing his body any favours, and in my country that means we'll all be shelling out for him to have a new liver. He might also then take himself upon the road, and with slightly delayed reflexes and a reduced ability to concentrate, be a few seconds to late to avert disaster and get either himself or someone else killed. No one starts life needing alcohol, and there would be a sight more lives still continuing if we didnt have it. But its too late now.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then don't pay for the liver transplant. And if you looked carefully, I eliminated drunk driving. There is such a thing as an intelligent decision. Neither alcohol nor any other intoxicant forces you to hurt people.
Nobody starts life needing TV or the internet or video games either. Any of those plus drugs can be potentially rewarding or damaging, and for any of them to cause damage there is a prerequisite state of brainlessness. <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I really don't care whether or not you have had bad experiences with people who use intoxicants. It does nothing to prove that all experiences are negative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is true that multiple bad experiences with intoxicants leaves one with a slightly skewed opinion, but it just goes to show that despite heaps of neutral experiences every day (ie you just smoke it, relax, and everythings fine), weed has a very ugly side that cannot be ignored. If the decision was up to me, I'd sacrifice your paltry and ultimately insignificant luxury for the lives of hundreds in a second.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Everything people do has an ugly side. Speech, religion, whatever. It's an unfortunate consequence of humanity.
If anything has a beneficial side, no matter how slight or to how few people, and it doesn't have to harm others in the process (see regulation), then it should be legal. And that last sentence is where you and I fundamentally disagree.
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Interesting use of the word negative interference - thats exactly how the government views drugs upon its population. Having freedoms whittled down? You havent lost a single one. Cannibis has been illegal in both our countries for a long time now, and punishments are still dished out - the Singaporean solution was to up the ante, and its been remarkably effective. This sort of crackdown doesnt cut in in Iran, because Iran is situated next to poppy country, also known as Afghanistan, and unfortunately its police forces competency is not directly proportional to their brutality.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That something has been illegal for x amount of time is no argument at all. It wasn't a long ago that the government viewed homosexuality as a crime worse than rape. Did that make homosexuality evil and wrong? By your example it would, which proves the example non-functional.
As for the illegal status of cannabis, care to elaborate how exactly does it effect you that I grow and smoke pot? Do you get all hot and bothered? Do I call you in the early morning hours and interrupt your sleep? Am I out there in the bushes waiting for an opportunity to sell it to your children? What exactly am I doing so wrong I should do time for?
What is the singaporean solution? Didn't you know that despite its strict laws Singapore is a passthrough point for Golden Triangle drugs and also used as a money laundering point by the cartels that control the said drugs? Even the United States has alleged that Singapore has close ties to heroin traffic from Burma (Myanmar these days, I believe). The only reason the singaporean laws seem to work if one only looks at the facade is that it is geographically a very limited market area. This doesn't mean that Singapore is a drug free paradise, though. Quite contrary, actually. The number of addicts is on the rise there, and its use as a passthrough point is also because the traffickers know that parcels going through Singapore are in fact less likely to be checked than elsewhere. Remember too, that these laws are in place because Singapore is not a democratic state. Their chosen mode of government is parliamentary democracy, but what kind of democracy is it when there is only one real party? Police states simply do not work, because in the long run they become corrupted entities and the citizens will get fed up and refuse to cooperate. You seem to believe that total control and limited freedom are the way to a safer society. Yet, at this very moment even the police are complaining that the prisons are full of people doing time for possession, and resources are wasted on cracking down on small-time dealers while the financers of the smuggling operations remain unknown and at large. If the laws were to be tightened even more, even more population would be behind the bars and the whole judicial system would be bogged down by minor offenders who are not in any way a threat to the society. Just because someone says "NO" in a harsher tone than yesterday people are not going to give up on substance abuse.
You say that the iranian model does not work because officials are corruptible and it is situated next to Afghanistan. Doesn't this mean that the same goes for the United States as well? You are situated next to Mexico, the passthrough point for South American drugs. Your officials are also corruptible. How is the situation different from Iran? Is it just because they are not the good ol' US of A that they don't know a damn about law enforcement?
And yes, I do care that heroin is illegal even though I do not and will never use it. This is simply because it really does seem that keeping it illegal is worse than legalizing it. The body count and numbers of heroin addicts after legalization would be a small price to pay for the end of drug business-related suffering in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Colombia, Mexico...
And as for protection: You are not supposed to protect anyone. Let others make their decisions and, if they turn out to be bad for them, suffer the consequences. That is life.
Your reply on the "beer on a saturday" example was also bizarre. You were treating the poster's father like an alcoholic, which he does not appear to be. Instead he seems to be having a good time. There is a major difference between recreational use and manic abuse. I should know, I use cannabis recreationally but can admit I am addicted to nicotine. I am trying to quit cigarettes however.
Finally, please tell me what is the "ugly side" of cannabis you speak of.
<span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:orange'>Decriminalization and legalization are two different topics.</span></span>
Please note in each of your threads your feelings about both decriminalization and legalization.
Please note that for the majority of people, getting high does not alter the mind as much as anti-drug activists try to imply, and that there are not enough positive effects of the drug for the pro-drug activists.
Are you seeing my point here? Most people aren't seeing this from a balanced perspective. Even I, as a Libertarian, see the potential problems of marijuana legalization, particularly involving parents who smoke pot. My dad pointed out that the parents could potentially be in serious trouble for child abuse or negligence for anything happened while they were high.
Most parents, I imagine, would not smoke weed. But my dad brings up a valid point. Where do you draw the line once it is legal? Drinking a beer or three and watching the game is not going to impair your judgement like a bowl or two will.
Thanks to Marine01's logic, I can now formulate what I see as the overall problem, and until this is solved, I won't support legalization.
Everyone wants to be free - free to choose thier own lot in life, and mess with their own mind if they want to. The argument goes that smoking marry jane doesn't affect anyone else, it is harmless, we should be allowed to do it ~ look at alcohol and cigaretts for an example.
And I truely would be for legalization 100%, except that people aren't responsible. The people who are trying to push the hardest for legalization are the same people that want National Health Care, and a strong welfare system, and more socialization, less religious influence, etc. etc.
In my mind, those are warning flags. It is telling me that people want the opportunity to toke responsibly, and when they fail, they want the government/society/someone else to bail them out.
Honestly, for those of you who partake in this, if prices were 3x cheaper wouldn't you partake 3x as much? Is it really your moral system that holds you in check - or is it your wallet? What happens if you can toke 3x as much - will you be able to hold down your job, keep your house/appartment? Raise a family? Will you be going to the government for a handout, for medical health when your health begins to fail?
Those are the trends that I see just over the horrison of the legalization legislation, and until those trends can be "proven" to be non-existant, I will not support it.
"And I truely would be for legalization 100%, except that people aren't responsible. The people who are trying to push the hardest for legalization are the same people that want National Health Care, and a strong welfare system, and more socialization, less religious influence, etc. etc."
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 21 2004, 11:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 21 2004, 11:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And I truely would be for legalization 100%, except that people aren't responsible. The people who are trying to push the hardest for legalization are the same people that want National Health Care, and a strong welfare system, and more socialization, less religious influence, etc. etc.
In my mind, those are warning flags. It is telling me that people want the opportunity to toke responsibly, and when they fail, they want the government/society/someone else to bail them out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Actually I want the government to give those people a swift kick in the ****, not bail them out. The problem is that we are currently giving everyone said kick.
Freedom comes with responsibility. Definately. But that doesn't mean removing freedoms is an acceptable method of reducing personal responsibility for the people who can't handle it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Bo Selecta+Sep 21 2004, 11:37 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Bo Selecta @ Sep 21 2004, 11:37 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "And I truely would be for legalization 100%, except that people aren't responsible. The people who are trying to push the hardest for legalization are the same people that want National Health Care, and a strong welfare system, and more socialization, less religious influence, etc. etc."
empathy is evil? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> This has nothing to do with empathy - I hope you recognize that. It has to do with responsibility.
Go back and re-read my argument. A short sum up is this:
The government should not bail out irresponsible people (welfare, free health care, socialization) Smoking drugs is a sign of irresponsibility - doing so illegially now is even more irresponsible. Until you (as a legalization proponent) prove otherwise, I will not support giving irresponsible people another tool (drugs) to be more irresponsible.
Comments
I didn't say over 70 % supported legalization. The two are completely different matters. Jailing people for a marijuana offense is another waste of tax money in my book.
Weed isn't my thing, I simply have sights on life set too high to give into such a worthless thing such as "getting high," but I'm also sick of watching people get fired from jobs, arrested, and other things, for being high or having been high recently.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Arguably, it causes short term memory loss, concentration problems, crime, it fries your brain, and does a list of equally dangerous and potentially bad side effects that don't even come to mind this second. So what are the reasons FOR legalizing marijuana? "Cause it feels good"? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Marijuana, if you really look at most of the anti-drug arguments, doesn't actually cause crime increases, doesn't actually fry your brain, and is not nearly as harmful as cigarettes. The main arguments against marijuana is that it supposedly causes "a lack of motivation" and other "side effects" that have more to do with the person's personality and lack of direction than his/her smoking weed.
Claiming the terrible effects that weed has on people is a fairly weak argument, but it is the only argument that the government has against it unless it attacks the stereotypical stoner who is filling a spiritual hole or trying to deal with emotional pain by smoking up. Alcoholism is caused by the same thing: trying to fill a spiritual or emotional feeling of "lacking" with a physical, mind altering substance.
Not everyone smokes up because of those and related reasons, but the "stoners" we spend all of our time talking about typically do.
Uh, actually your typical joint is the equivilent to a pack of cigs or half a pack of cigs.
I'd just be curious to see the difference =3
oh and hawk, I take it you've been ignoring the arguements of those who don't smoke it but think making it illegal is rather daft? Sci-net sums it all ever so eloquently ^^
Perhaps this isn't as beneficial to him as he thinks. Or perhaps he knows this, but doesn't care for the feeling it gives him. Sure, fine for the government. I give you that. Fine for the individuals? No, I don't think it is.
I'm pretty sure both numbers are lower back here (the Netherlands)
hmm, I can only seem to find the number of 'users'
<a href='http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/table.asp?PA=03799&D1=215,221&D2=0&D3=0&D4=(l-11)-l&DM=SLNL&LA=nl&TT=2' target='_blank'>-Click me-</a>
Heeft ooit marihuana of hasj gebruikt = Has ever used marihuana or hashies
In de afgelopen 4 weken gebruikt = Used it in the past 4 weeks
<a href='http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/lif_can_use' target='_blank'>Global stats</a>
<b>edit:</b> thankies bo! now we just need some US stats <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Tell me: why should the government care whether I have a beer or smoke a joint, in my own house and on my own time, to relax on the weekend? Or grow my own, in my basement, to facilitate said use? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your kidding. You'd rather be dead than live in a society that deals comprehensively with a drug problem? Put bluntly - you're willing to bleed for your weed? You still have freedom - freedom to leave the country, freedom to get a job, freedom to not get a job, freedom to worship, raise kids, do whatever you like, so long as you do it within the confines of the law. You are not free to sell drugs, you are not free to use them. Its almost comical to think of all the causes people have fought and died for over the years, yet you'd be willing to do it for a high.
I'll tell you why the government cares. Because weed screws people up. Not everyone, but some. So you weed smokers are like a cancer. Not only do you light one up for yourselves, killing your own braincells, hurting your lungs etc (which in my country means eventually my taxes will be paying your medical bills), but you keep suppliers in business, and in a profitable business no less. So they can offer that filth to someone else, who might not be as tolerant of the effects of weed as you - their life down the tube so you can experience some immediate gratification.
That "growing your own" is a complete smokescreen - if you are legally allowed to grow something, then it automatically follows that you should be allow to distribute it. You cant have one without the other.
But you dont just keep it in the house - pot does wierd things to your mind, especially if you're addicted to it. So you come to work and set a chair on fire near some gas cylinders - and that is an event taken from personal experience while I was working in an optical lab. Stoned out of his mind, tried to light up AT WORK, dropped his match and set the chair alight. Leaps up - pushes the chair away from him towards the cylinders. Completely stupid, completely drug addled.
We have pokies to **** people up. We have alcohol to **** people up. We have cigarettes to **** people up. All of them have a much higher societal saturation rate than weed and will take longer to deal with - so why add another?
But hey, you dont care, you're having a great time, you got the munchies, you feel relaxed, you feel good. Every time I smell weed, hear about weed, watch people take it, I take it as a personal affront and extremely selfish and irresponsible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
[I'll leave it quoted in full, since it's on another page.]
That's incredibly full of unfounded stereotyping and more examples of removing the freedoms of some because of the folly of the few.
First off, I do not intend to use marijuana regardless of whether or not it is legal. I also do not smoke or drink, despite being free to do so. However, I would still object in the same way to having either of those freedoms removed. Freedom is not in the implementation, or having <i>specific</i> rights, it's about being able to live your own life without negative interference from other citizens or the government, so long as I give the same respect. A single step against that ideal is a step too far. Having freedoms slowly whittled away is just as bad as having no freedoms to start with, and I'm not going to stand for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You still have freedom - freedom to leave the country...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Tell that to all the Black, Asian, Arabic, homosexual, or whatever people who have (or have had) their freedoms imposed upon. To say that if I don't like it then leave does not come anywhere close to making it right.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll tell you why the government cares. Because weed screws people up. Not everyone, but some.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Great. Care. That doesn't mean you have to act upon people who are able to live productive lives while using any drug recreationally. I've said it before, and here it is again: If someone is ruining another person's life, or even just harming it a bit (via intoxicated driving, second hand smoke, come to work intoxicated, whatever), then do something about <i>them</i>. Those people are stupid regardless of whether or not they have intoxicating substances available to them.
If you're going to punish everyone just because somebody's an idiot, then we're not going to have any freedoms left. The world is stuffed full of them.
Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.
And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.
I really don't care whether or not you have had bad experiences with people who use intoxicants. It does nothing to prove that all experiences are negative.
Total freedom is anarchy.
No freedom is a tyranny.
Some freedom is just fine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He shouldn't be comming home from "half a day of work" as that implies he has went home earlier then he was supposed to have done, thus putting his job at risk; mainly him losing it. Otherwise, yes, that's perfectly [fine]...
But you dont really need a beer to relax. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it wouldn't. He'd be spaced out, and become a vegetable. Memory loss, short attention span... He wouldn't be able to do his job right, and by that i mean raising his children.
[edit - typo]
What that means is that smoking weed is a finable offense, like jay walking or speeding. So, instead of being charged with "possession" and risk screwing up your entire future for something that stupid, you can smoke and risk a $100 fine or something.
Prohibition didn't work in the 1930's, and it certainly is not working now. The surveys that the government uses to convey that its programs are working are typically flawed and vague.
I see no reason why the government should be spending so man resources trying to stop people from smoking up. We should be spending our time and money helping people become better people, so they don't feel the need to smoke up to fill the hole in their lives. That's what most people are doing when they get stoned. Perhaps there are some larger issues that American Society needs to work out to solve this problem.
Sidestepping for a second: Whatever the subject, whatever the forum, comments like "you win, thread over" are simply stupid. Discuss, or just read, but don't post no-content no-value remarks like you were running the show.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First off, you might want to read my previous, rather long-winded post about the pros of decriminalizing the entire drug trade. After that, here's some pointers on why cannabis should be legal:
1) Because there are no non-fictious reasons to keep hemp farming illegal. Hemp provides not only a recreational drug, but also fibers for paper, rope and clothing. The for-criminalization arguments are primarily based on the core thought of "it is illegal, therefore someone must prove its usefulness for it to be legalized". This is a classic example of circular logic, where the actual problem - criminalization without any basis in facts - is taken as word of god and followed until proven otherwise, which is impossible since it hasn't been proved harmful or society-endangering in the first place.
2) Cannabis is a recreational drug with no actual harmful side-effects if used correctly. Incorrect uses are for example DUI or use while working. The use of any kind of mind-altering chemicals during work hours should be restricted, and this applies also to the overuse of caffein and similar substances for the purposes of staying awake. The primary chemical agent behind the cannabis experience - THC - causes no long-term effects or damage on the user. "Overuse of cannabis is dangerous and blahblahblah", as usual, but just about anything from salt to cooking utensils falls in the same category if excessively ingested.
3) Naturally those vouching for its decriminalization want to smoke it. This shouldn't come as a shock or a surprise to anyone. For this to be somehow wrong while getting absolutely smashed on fridays is right implies flaws in logic.
4) What exactly would anyone have against me farming my own crop? Granted, I don't exactly care what the law says about it, but I really would like to do it somewhere else than in a closed, artificially ventilated closet. For my want of a good pipeful or a joint on a saturday night while preparing to watch a movie and mixing a dip for my chips am I to be branded a menace to society and summarily jailed? Is it impossible for me to hold a job if I smoke twice a month? Do I have a drug problem? Is the law doing the right thing deciding what's best for me?
The clever anti-drug activist always remembers to liken the movement for the legalisation of drugs to murder: "Hey, some people seem to think murder is a-okay, so why not grant them the right." However, the analogy goes down like a two-dollar red light district professional because while murder does indeed affect my fellow man , and usually in a very bad way, my joint only affects me, unless someone nearby is really desperate for a smoke. For me to have my saturday night roll, nobody needs to be harmed, and the only thing that suffers in the process is my bank account when I have to dish out $200 for lights, fertilizer and good seeds for a new minifarm.
[edit]
I forgot to beat you with the educational stick for using the words "marihuana" and "junkies" in the same sentence.
Stop being a moron. Seriously, you completely averted Hawkeye's post.
Instead of arguing against our argument that is in NOT in favor of marijuana, why don't you post an argument FOR marijuana.
You just want to smoke the damn thing without legal consequence!
We already have tobacco and alcohol, and let's remember that cannabis is known as the gateway drug. What's to prevent cocaine or heroin or any other hard drug from being legalized if this is to be the first step?
*First paragraph edited out. It did not conform to the discussion forum rules. Better for me to clip it now than someone else to do it for me. Responding to inflammatory comments with inflammatory responses should not be done.*
Cannabis as a gateway drug? Hey, most people who smoke cannabis have smoked tobacco before that. Is tobacco now the gateway drug? The gateway theory has been disproved, ridiculed and trod on for the last twenty years. I fail to understand how some people still can uphold its fictious basic tenets.
And yes, I bloody well want to smoke the stuff without legal consequence. I never said any different, did I? I merely was trying to understand why I should get some prison time for doing it. If you'd actually bothered to read the thread you'd find a screen's lenght of text from me dealing and, in fact, endorsing the legalization of <b>all</b> recreational drugs. Go read that as an answer to your question.
If you have failed to construct an argument for cannabis from my post, I'll do it for you:
There exist no satisfactory arguments for the illegal status of cannabis. Therefore, the status should be subject to change. With my homegrown plant I am not harming anyone, not endorsing international drug cartels, not endangering anyone's life nor funneling funds for the genocidal "war on drugs". What am I doing so evil that I should do time for?
Once more to make sure it got through: I am doing no wrong to any man or beast with my little bush in the closet. Therefore the law is the issue, not me as the subject of the law.
And for the future: <a href='http://www.antiprohibitionist.org/documents/documents11/WHO%20Cannabis.pdf' target='_blank'>Read</a>, <a href='http://www.antiprohibitionist.org/documents/documents03/AT%20review%20of%202000%20WDR.doc' target='_blank'>comprehend</a>, post.
This is just untrue and is the main government's argument against decriminalization. It is in fact a simplistic logical error.
It is true that a person who goes on hard drugs will most surely have passed through canabis first.
But it doesn't mean that a person who smokes cannabis will surely go on hard drugs after.
Im trying to find the figures to support this, they surely are somewhere...
But the proportion of cannabis smokers that pass on to harder drugs is extremly small (less than 5% im sure).
<a href='http://dare.com/home/DrugInformation/Storya78c.asp?N=DrugInformation&M=11&S=24' target='_blank'>D.A.R.E.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Dangers and Effects</b>
Smoking marijuana may impair short-term memory while people are using the drug. This happens because all forms of marijuana contain THC (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol), the main active chemical in marijuana, which alters the way the brain works.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Cancer causing? No. Addictive? No. Possible to overdose? No.
Short Term Memory Loss? Yes.
Big deal!
be my guest. but i'd rather not have it be something that is sanctioned by the government.
p.s. apologies for the short post, I don't have a lot of time >_>
List of other items that alter the way your brain works:
Alcohol
Coffee
Tea
Glue
Paint Thinner
Hormones (you produce these pesky things constantly in your body)
Food
Gases
The Government HAARP Project
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'>The last one is a nod to the tinfoil hat crowd...</span>
Do you guys really have more motive than "Cause it feels good"? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Suppose the government had banned Counterstrike. What could you say in its defense other than "it feels good"?
In a free society, you err on the side of freedom. This means that if there is no good reason for something to be illegal, then it should be legal by default.
(Not that there aren't good reasons for legalizing marijuana, I just wanted to dispose of this particular viewpoint and let someone more involved make the case.)
Total freedom is anarchy.
No freedom is a tyranny.
Some freedom is just fine.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, and I did qualify my statement. I eliminated anything that involves harming another, for starters.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
He shouldn't be comming home from "half a day of work" as that implies he has went home earlier then he was supposed to have done, thus putting his job at risk; mainly him losing it. Otherwise, yes, that's perfectly [fine]...
But you dont really need a beer to relax. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Half a day = four hours, which is more than many people put in on a Saturday.
No you don't need it, but it helps. Goes faster. Same way you don't need a pain killer to get rid of a headache.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, it wouldn't. He'd be spaced out, and become a vegetable. Memory loss, short attention span... He wouldn't be able to do his job right, and by that i mean raising his children.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You clearly have little concept of how the drug works. There is a huge difference between a heavy and weekly user as far as side effects go. And it's nothing like those "responsibility is my anti-drug" commercials, as it requires someone to be an idiot to start with to smoke up while babysitting or whatever. You'll have to support what you say, not just skip to your "false" conclusion.
Interesting use of the word negative interference - thats exactly how the government views drugs upon its population. Having freedoms whittled down? You havent lost a single one. Cannibis has been illegal in both our countries for a long time now, and punishments are still dished out - the Singaporean solution was to up the ante, and its been remarkably effective. This sort of crackdown doesnt cut in in Iran, because Iran is situated next to poppy country, also known as Afghanistan, and unfortunately its police forces competency is not directly proportional to their brutality.
Freedom and Law are a balance, certain freedoms are sacrificed in the name of maintaning law and order. I suspect that heroin wasnt illegal in the US from the word go, yet the Government stepped over that boundary of freedom and you dont complain. So clearly loss of freedom is only a huge issue if you happen to disagree with the freedom being taken away, if you dont care then its all fine. Sounds like your opinion is more important here than freedom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell that to all the Black, Asian, Arabic, homosexual, or whatever people who have (or have had) their freedoms imposed upon. To say that if I don't like it then leave does not come anywhere close to making it right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That wasnt what I meant - its not a "put up or shut up" suggestion. What I meant was that you are enjoying a whole stack of other freedoms, such as the one listed above. Leaving totalitarian dictatorships isnt as easy.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Great. Care. That doesn't mean you have to act upon people who are able to live productive lives while using any drug recreationally. I've said it before, and here it is again: If someone is ruining another person's life, or even just harming it a bit (via intoxicated driving, second hand smoke, come to work intoxicated, whatever), then do something about <i>them</i>. Those people are stupid regardless of whether or not they have intoxicating substances available to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how am I supposed to protect them when all their friends are trying it and think its great, with easy access to the stuff and the numbers to pressure the unwilling in to at least taking one puff? Am I to apply darwinian surivival of the fittest to them? Weed smokers, at least those that purchase it, are by supporting the drug trade directly aiding its continuation and extension to other members of society. Some of those members wont be able to handle it. So you are willing, so that your freedom to puff on a bong isnt infringed, to sacrifice several members of society in order that the masses enjoy your completely superfluous recreation?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.
And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, the alcohol problem is too far gone to control. Why shouldnt he be able to do that? Because chances are that beer isnt doing his body any favours, and in my country that means we'll all be shelling out for him to have a new liver. He might also then take himself upon the road, and with slightly delayed reflexes and a reduced ability to concentrate, be a few seconds to late to avert disaster and get either himself or someone else killed. No one starts life needing alcohol, and there would be a sight more lives still continuing if we didnt have it. But its too late now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I really don't care whether or not you have had bad experiences with people who use intoxicants. It does nothing to prove that all experiences are negative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is true that multiple bad experiences with intoxicants leaves one with a slightly skewed opinion, but it just goes to show that despite heaps of neutral experiences every day (ie you just smoke it, relax, and everythings fine), weed has a very ugly side that cannot be ignored. If the decision was up to me, I'd sacrifice your paltry and ultimately insignificant luxury for the lives of hundreds in a second.
Interesting use of the word negative interference - thats exactly how the government views drugs upon its population. Having freedoms whittled down? You havent lost a single one. Cannibis has been illegal in both our countries for a long time now, and punishments are still dished out - the Singaporean solution was to up the ante, and its been remarkably effective. This sort of crackdown doesnt cut in in Iran, because Iran is situated next to poppy country, also known as Afghanistan, and unfortunately its police forces competency is not directly proportional to their brutality.
Freedom and Law are a balance, certain freedoms are sacrificed in the name of maintaning law and order. I suspect that heroin wasnt illegal in the US from the word go, yet the Government stepped over that boundary of freedom and you dont complain. So clearly loss of freedom is only a huge issue if you happen to disagree with the freedom being taken away, if you dont care then its all fine. Sounds like your opinion is more important here than freedom.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But does marijuana, or any drug, <i>need</i> to be a negative interference? Much of damage is done because it is unregulated, in the hands of the black market. I maintain that the damage caused by the draconian measures to otherwise functional and productive citizens is <i>at least</i> comparable to the problems associated with deregulation or legalization.
Again, whether or not a program is successful has little to do with whether it is right or the best answer. Removing all live from the planet would also solve the drug problem.
And you put words in my mouth. I would have made the same arguments for heroin, as they apply. The only real differences are in the severity of the side effects. Any action or object that can benefit a single person without damaging the liberties of others should be legal. Ban the harmful actions, not every action.
I speak of marijuana only because it is the topic, and it's complicated enough without expanding further.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Tell that to all the Black, Asian, Arabic, homosexual, or whatever people who have (or have had) their freedoms imposed upon. To say that if I don't like it then leave does not come anywhere close to making it right.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That wasnt what I meant - its not a "put up or shut up" suggestion. What I meant was that you are enjoying a whole stack of other freedoms, such as the one listed above. Leaving totalitarian dictatorships isnt as easy.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not going to be satisfied by merely less totalitarian. If we will pursue an ideal, then we should pursue it to the fullest!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Great. Care. That doesn't mean you have to act upon people who are able to live productive lives while using any drug recreationally. I've said it before, and here it is again: If someone is ruining another person's life, or even just harming it a bit (via intoxicated driving, second hand smoke, come to work intoxicated, whatever), then do something about <i>them</i>. Those people are stupid regardless of whether or not they have intoxicating substances available to them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And how am I supposed to protect them when all their friends are trying it and think its great, with easy access to the stuff and the numbers to pressure the unwilling in to at least taking one puff? Am I to apply darwinian surivival of the fittest to them? Weed smokers, at least those that purchase it, are by supporting the drug trade directly aiding its continuation and extension to other members of society. Some of those members wont be able to handle it. So you are willing, so that your freedom to puff on a bong isnt infringed, to sacrifice several members of society in order that the masses enjoy your completely superfluous recreation? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Educate them. Give them the facts. Real facts, not the crap that gets published on the DEA website or whatever. People see right through it, and then stop listening. That's not a sustainable situation. Allow the people with at least half a brain to make a smart decision.
Does anyone need to be sacrificed in the production and distribution of a <i>plant</i>? Of course not, that's ridiculous. But it's also wrong to assume that the plant itself is the reason that people die producing it. If it were grown on a government-regulated farm, and the other portions of the supply chain were managed as well, then where will the money people spend on it go to? The farmers, the middlemen, the government (taxes), but most importantly not some criminals or terrorists or whatever.
The fact of the matter is that idiots apply "darwinian surivival of the fittest" to themselves. They will find their own methods to end themselves, or end up imprisoned. You could ban anything sharper than a circle of paper, and they'd go jump off a cliff for the fun of it. Worry over what they would do with drugs is misplaced. Make the immediately stupid or otherwise destructive actions illegal and leave it at that.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Take a look at my father: he comes home from half a day of work on a Saturday, drinks a beer, and watches TV to relax. He doesn't beat anyone, start yelling, or run people over. Nor does he burn the house down. Tell me one good reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.
And the situation should be exactly the same if he had a "special" brownie in his hand instead of a beer.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unfortunately, the alcohol problem is too far gone to control. Why shouldnt he be able to do that? Because chances are that beer isnt doing his body any favours, and in my country that means we'll all be shelling out for him to have a new liver. He might also then take himself upon the road, and with slightly delayed reflexes and a reduced ability to concentrate, be a few seconds to late to avert disaster and get either himself or someone else killed. No one starts life needing alcohol, and there would be a sight more lives still continuing if we didnt have it. But its too late now.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then don't pay for the liver transplant. And if you looked carefully, I eliminated drunk driving. There is such a thing as an intelligent decision. Neither alcohol nor any other intoxicant forces you to hurt people.
Nobody starts life needing TV or the internet or video games either. Any of those plus drugs can be potentially rewarding or damaging, and for any of them to cause damage there is a prerequisite state of brainlessness.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
I really don't care whether or not you have had bad experiences with people who use intoxicants. It does nothing to prove that all experiences are negative.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is true that multiple bad experiences with intoxicants leaves one with a slightly skewed opinion, but it just goes to show that despite heaps of neutral experiences every day (ie you just smoke it, relax, and everythings fine), weed has a very ugly side that cannot be ignored. If the decision was up to me, I'd sacrifice your paltry and ultimately insignificant luxury for the lives of hundreds in a second.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Everything people do has an ugly side. Speech, religion, whatever. It's an unfortunate consequence of humanity.
If anything has a beneficial side, no matter how slight or to how few people, and it doesn't have to harm others in the process (see regulation), then it should be legal. And that last sentence is where you and I fundamentally disagree.
That something has been illegal for x amount of time is no argument at all. It wasn't a long ago that the government viewed homosexuality as a crime worse than rape. Did that make homosexuality evil and wrong? By your example it would, which proves the example non-functional.
As for the illegal status of cannabis, care to elaborate how exactly does it effect you that I grow and smoke pot? Do you get all hot and bothered? Do I call you in the early morning hours and interrupt your sleep? Am I out there in the bushes waiting for an opportunity to sell it to your children? What exactly am I doing so wrong I should do time for?
What is the singaporean solution? Didn't you know that despite its strict laws Singapore is a passthrough point for Golden Triangle drugs and also used as a money laundering point by the cartels that control the said drugs? Even the United States has alleged that Singapore has close ties to heroin traffic from Burma (Myanmar these days, I believe). The only reason the singaporean laws seem to work if one only looks at the facade is that it is geographically a very limited market area. This doesn't mean that Singapore is a drug free paradise, though. Quite contrary, actually. The number of addicts is on the rise there, and its use as a passthrough point is also because the traffickers know that parcels going through Singapore are in fact less likely to be checked than elsewhere. Remember too, that these laws are in place because Singapore is not a democratic state. Their chosen mode of government is parliamentary democracy, but what kind of democracy is it when there is only one real party? Police states simply do not work, because in the long run they become corrupted entities and the citizens will get fed up and refuse to cooperate. You seem to believe that total control and limited freedom are the way to a safer society. Yet, at this very moment even the police are complaining that the prisons are full of people doing time for possession, and resources are wasted on cracking down on small-time dealers while the financers of the smuggling operations remain unknown and at large. If the laws were to be tightened even more, even more population would be behind the bars and the whole judicial system would be bogged down by minor offenders who are not in any way a threat to the society. Just because someone says "NO" in a harsher tone than yesterday people are not going to give up on substance abuse.
You say that the iranian model does not work because officials are corruptible and it is situated next to Afghanistan. Doesn't this mean that the same goes for the United States as well? You are situated next to Mexico, the passthrough point for South American drugs. Your officials are also corruptible. How is the situation different from Iran? Is it just because they are not the good ol' US of A that they don't know a damn about law enforcement?
And yes, I do care that heroin is illegal even though I do not and will never use it. This is simply because it really does seem that keeping it illegal is worse than legalizing it. The body count and numbers of heroin addicts after legalization would be a small price to pay for the end of drug business-related suffering in Afghanistan, Myanmar, Thailand, Laos, Vietnam, Colombia, Mexico...
And as for protection: You are not supposed to protect anyone. Let others make their decisions and, if they turn out to be bad for them, suffer the consequences. That is life.
Your reply on the "beer on a saturday" example was also bizarre. You were treating the poster's father like an alcoholic, which he does not appear to be. Instead he seems to be having a good time. There is a major difference between recreational use and manic abuse. I should know, I use cannabis recreationally but can admit I am addicted to nicotine. I am trying to quit cigarettes however.
Finally, please tell me what is the "ugly side" of cannabis you speak of.
Please note in each of your threads your feelings about both decriminalization and legalization.
Please note that for the majority of people, getting high does not alter the mind as much as anti-drug activists try to imply, and that there are not enough positive effects of the drug for the pro-drug activists.
Are you seeing my point here? Most people aren't seeing this from a balanced perspective. Even I, as a Libertarian, see the potential problems of marijuana legalization, particularly involving parents who smoke pot. My dad pointed out that the parents could potentially be in serious trouble for child abuse or negligence for anything happened while they were high.
Most parents, I imagine, would not smoke weed. But my dad brings up a valid point. Where do you draw the line once it is legal? Drinking a beer or three and watching the game is not going to impair your judgement like a bowl or two will.
Everyone wants to be free - free to choose thier own lot in life, and mess with their own mind if they want to. The argument goes that smoking marry jane doesn't affect anyone else, it is harmless, we should be allowed to do it ~ look at alcohol and cigaretts for an example.
And I truely would be for legalization 100%, except that people aren't responsible. The people who are trying to push the hardest for legalization are the same people that want National Health Care, and a strong welfare system, and more socialization, less religious influence, etc. etc.
In my mind, those are warning flags. It is telling me that people want the opportunity to toke responsibly, and when they fail, they want the government/society/someone else to bail them out.
Honestly, for those of you who partake in this, if prices were 3x cheaper wouldn't you partake 3x as much? Is it really your moral system that holds you in check - or is it your wallet? What happens if you can toke 3x as much - will you be able to hold down your job, keep your house/appartment? Raise a family? Will you be going to the government for a handout, for medical health when your health begins to fail?
Those are the trends that I see just over the horrison of the legalization legislation, and until those trends can be "proven" to be non-existant, I will not support it.
empathy is evil?
In my mind, those are warning flags. It is telling me that people want the opportunity to toke responsibly, and when they fail, they want the government/society/someone else to bail them out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually I want the government to give those people a swift kick in the ****, not bail them out. The problem is that we are currently giving everyone said kick.
Freedom comes with responsibility. Definately. But that doesn't mean removing freedoms is an acceptable method of reducing personal responsibility for the people who can't handle it.
empathy is evil? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This has nothing to do with empathy - I hope you recognize that. It has to do with responsibility.
Go back and re-read my argument. A short sum up is this:
The government should not bail out irresponsible people (welfare, free health care, socialization)
Smoking drugs is a sign of irresponsibility - doing so illegially now is even more irresponsible.
Until you (as a legalization proponent) prove otherwise, I will not support giving irresponsible people another tool (drugs) to be more irresponsible.