Should Cannabis Remain Illegal Amid Growing Debate?

[nitsuj]

So, in some cultures today's date has meaning, 4-20. A reference to marijuana.

In ottawa, each year on this date a few "protesters" get together to, well "protest" the laws that make possession of pot illegal I guess.

Alot pot smoking goes on along with police watching making sure it doesn't "get out of hand", and tourists looking on in wonderment. (speaks volumes of tolerance for "free speech" even in grey areas, like protesting a law by breaking the law during the protest)Anyways, should pot be illegal?

 

[nitsuj]

It's Earth Day.

Yes, the two on the same day seems fitting from a culture perspective

just joking, all environmentalists aren't hippies, but all hippies are environmentalists.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think they should try making it legal for a while so it can be taxed. Being illegal hasn't stopped people from smoking it, so I think they should at least be able to tax it.

Having said that, I don't think anyone should smoke it, and DUI laws should apply to it just as they do to alcohol.

 

[leroyjenkens]

At this point it seems like marijuana is illegal simply to keep the status quo. Either the government is too lazy to make any significant changes, or they don't think we can handle immediate changes, and they instead just let the changes happen gradually over the course of decades.
It's one of those things that everyone who is sane knows is going to happen eventually, but they just choose to slowly go down with the sinking ship.

 

[Evo]

I think they should try making it legal for a while so it can be taxed. Being illegal hasn't stopped people from smoking it, so I think they should at least be able to tax it.

Having said that, I don't think anyone should smoke it, and DUI laws should apply to it just as they do to alcohol.

My feelings as well. I wouldn't smoke due to health concerns. I like my lungs.

 

[nitsuj]

I could retort with ingest it instead. But in either case I get your point. Health concerns.

I like to avoid alcohol for the same reasons, it's brutal the next morning. Enough incentive to keep such "episodes" few & far between.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Personally I've always thought Portugal is heading in the right direction in terms of drug laws. Whilst possession is still illegal it is no longer a criminal offence, rather offenders found with a small amount of drugs usually face a mandatory interview with a social worker, psychiatrist and attorney to talk about whether or not they have a drug problem and what free harm reduction and rehabilitation programs they can join (heroin users are offered prescription sterile needles for example). For larger amounts community service and fines are given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

This approach is far more humane IMO and effective. It essentially reduces drug use to a medical problems and ensures that no one will go to prison for it. The importance of the latter is that it saves money holding someone who doesn't really need to be held separate from public and fosters an environment where drug addicts are seen as people in need of treatment rather than punishment. This is in line with my personal views on how many crimes unnecessarily demand prison sentences in the UK. The only reason someone should be put in a prison is because they are a threat to society and people should be protected from them (rapists, murderers, thugs etc). For other crimes restrictions on freedom (e.g. curfews via electronic tag), fines and community services would act as punishment, deterrent and give back to society rather than costing society. Combine that with a number of schemes to reduce the causes of the criminals actions (e.g. offer rehabilitation for drug addicts, internships and training schemes for petty thieves caused by poverty etc) and we would hopefully move away from the overcrowded, criminal breeding grounds that the prison industrial complex currently offers. On top of that reforms to the current "large brick building with bars" model of a prison would be good so that we don't just store the worst of the worst in a place where they spend all day associating with like minds.

 

[nitsuj]

The only reason someone should be put in a prison is because they are a threat to society and people should be protected from them (rapists, murderers, thugs etc). For other crimes restrictions on freedom (e.g. curfews via electronic tag), fines and community services would act as punishment, deterrent and give back to society rather than costing society.

I think that's a very good take on it. Well said!

Pretty sure in the states prisoners are a business, like old people in Canada (that could get me trouble ).

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I think that's a very good take on it. Well said!

Thank you I've never been one to think that locking people away is a judicial panacea. Always good to see like minded people on that subject.

Pretty sure in the states prisoners are a business.

I don't really know enough to comment on the situation though I have been to talks on drug use where the War on Drugs has been referred to as a keynesian stimulus for the American policing and prison system.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I could retort with ingest it instead. But in either case I get your point. Health concerns.

I like to avoid alcohol for the same reasons, it's brutal the next morning. Enough incentive to keep such "episodes" few & far between.

I don't think people should smoke it because of the immediate intoxicating properties, therefore, I'd be against eating pot brownies as well.

Alcohol, as you say, has the additional disadvantage of the hangover which interferes with your ability to function as much as being high does.

Regardless, laws against pot aren't working any more than prohibition worked. Trying to kill cigarettes with uber-high taxes isn't working either: now there's a huge black market in cheap cigarettes with the Russian mob getting involved. Here in San Diego the streets are crawling with smuggled cigarette vendors. The government should learn a lesson: pot taxes must be kept low enough that drug cartels don't just shift to the untaxed pot business.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Personally I've always thought Portugal is heading in the right direction in terms of drug laws. Whilst possession is still illegal it is no longer a criminal offence, rather offenders found with a small amount of drugs usually face a mandatory interview with a social worker, psychiatrist and attorney to talk about whether or not they have a drug problem and what free harm reduction and rehabilitation programs they can join (heroin users are offered prescription sterile needles for example). For larger amounts community service and fines are given.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

This approach is far more humane IMO and effective. It essentially reduces drug use to a medical problems and ensures that no one will go to prison for it. The importance of the latter is that it saves money holding someone who doesn't really need to be held separate from public and fosters an environment where drug addicts are seen as people in need of treatment rather than punishment. This is in line with my personal views on how many crimes unnecessarily demand prison sentences in the UK. The only reason someone should be put in a prison is because they are a threat to society and people should be protected from them (rapists, murderers, thugs etc). For other crimes restrictions on freedom (e.g. curfews via electronic tag), fines and community services would act as punishment, deterrent and give back to society rather than costing society. Combine that with a number of schemes to reduce the causes of the criminals actions (e.g. offer rehabilitation for drug addicts, internships and training schemes for petty thieves caused by poverty etc) and we would hopefully move away from the overcrowded, criminal breeding grounds that the prison industrial complex currently offers. On top of that reforms to the current "large brick building with bars" model of a prison would be good so that we don't just store the worst of the worst in a place where they spend all day associating with like minds.

I, too, agree with all this, and don't have anything to add. You pretty much covered it.

 

[nitsuj]

Alcohol, as you say, has the additional disadvantage of the hangover which interferes with your ability to function as much as being high does.

The government should learn a lesson:.

Just changing the perspective, the hangover is a good thing in as much as making a good deterrent from getting drunk.

I've hugged porcelain, promising myself not to drink so much again (it take a few lessons for some ).

One of the bad things I see with pot is it has too few inert deterrents. I'm sure cocaine & heroin give amazing "highs"; the criminal risk, the risk of violence, the cost, the culture, the physical addictions are all good deterrents.

I guess to say it different, "cheating" life by getting high has too have some consequence greater than the "high" itself, as weighed by the general population.

All that being said, generally speaking imho, the high from pot does not dissolve ambition towards meaningful goals, as is typically the case from "stronger" drugs; including alcohol, rarely but still.


Would like to point out a tiny flaw in the "controlled substance like alcohol" option. Weed grows like a weed, and can have a shelf life measured in years. Option one seems inclusive of option two; for the most part. However, there is absolutely a market willing to pay X amount for something that can be grown very easily, macro-economically similar to the scenario below.
[STRIKE]
Regardless of[/STRIKE] Including laws, the greatest factor in curbing consumption is societies perception of the substance.
Cigarettes are a good example of this; those who buy illegal cigarettes are the percentage of the whole who smoke that are willing to break the law under circumstances xyz. I would guess the percentage of illegal cigg buyers is linearly proportionate to the population of smokers (ignoring price variances i.e. incentive to buy illegal ciggs / "circumstances xyz").

 

[wuliheron]

People can debate the issue all they want but, bottom line, most people do not want it legalized. A large percentage of the population have tried marijuana and decided it is too powerful a drug to be allowed to become widely available. In particular people don't children exposed to the drug. Hence the few successful attempts to decriminalize the drug are ones that strictly regulate it such as requiring a prescription or only allowing it to be consumed in bars and tea houses.

I'd say the biggest problem at this point is the dysfunctional manner in which the US has dealt with the issue. Nearly one in eight incarcerated in the US today are nonviolent pot offenders despite overwhelming evidence that parole is a significantly cheaper and more effective solution. One poll of US law enforcement officers indicated as many as 80% of them believe the drug should be decriminalized or legalized. While some states have legalized medical marijuana the federal government still insists it is illegal. This schizophrenic approach to law enforcement needs to change and the sooner the better. Not only for the US, but all the other western countries including places like Jamaica where pot is part of the culture, yet the US insists it remain illegal.

 

[zoobyshoe]

While some states have legalized medical marijuana the federal government still insists it is illegal. This schizophrenic approach to law enforcement needs to change and the sooner the better.

Spending huge amounts of money to try and suppress it is, I'm now convinced, a gross waste since, despite any Federal efforts, anyone who wants it seems to be able to get hold of it. (Every now and then I walk by groups of kids smoking it openly on the street.) Better to stop wasting money trying to stop it and make money taxing it.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Would like to point out a tiny flaw in the "controlled substance like alcohol" option. Weed grows like a weed, and can have a shelf life measured in years.

Spending huge amounts of money to try and suppress it is, I'm now convinced, a gross waste since, despite any Federal efforts, anyone who wants it seems to be able to get hold of it. (Every now and then I walk by groups of kids smoking it openly on the street.) Better to stop wasting money trying to stop it and make money taxing it.

You've both hit on something quite key here. It's not just that there's a lot of drug X that should be taken into account but the ease in which drug X can be made and the ease in which the method to make it can be proliferated.

This is why alcohol prohibition fails, it's one of the easiest recreational drugs to make (we've been doing it for thousands of years). For negligible amounts of money one can buy a home brew kit and the same could be said for cannabis. A concerning matter is how the internet and globalisation is making it easier for other drugs. I'm not sure of the situation in the United States but in the United Kingdom we've got an ongoing problem with "legal highs" that entered the public arena about four years ago (thus existed long before). Essentially a group of people take the chemical formula for a known drug like MDMA, modify it slightly, email their design to a chemical company in China, import several kilos and then sell them for several times the amount. The reason this is legal is because they are labelled and marketed as plant fertilizer when in actual fact they are nothing but and the shops/websites that sell them rely on word of mouth from users in the know. From then on it takes months for anyone in a position of authority to realize that a specific product is being used recreationally and months more for it to work it's way through government as a ban. By that time new slightly tweaked molecules have been designed and shipped in.

I really feel that the current US/UK model to drug legislation is not only bad now but will get worse in the future as things like this get easier. The dangerous thing about legal highs are that every few months you get another recreational drug for which there has been no medical testing at all, can't be stopped and is banned too late.

 

[leroyjenkens]

People can debate the issue all they want but, bottom line, most people do not want it legalized.

Why should those people be allowed to dictate what other people are allowed to do? It's a rights issue. People have the right to smoke, just like they have the right to drink.

A large percentage of the population have tried marijuana and decided it is too powerful a drug to be allowed to become widely available.

I doubt very many of the people who have tried marijuana are the ones who don't want it to be widely available. I'm betting that people's opposition to marijuana is proportional to their ignorance of marijuana. That's usually how it goes. People fear what they don't understand.

I don't smoke anything and I don't even drink alcohol, so my opinion isn't influenced by habit.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Why should those people be allowed to dictate what other people are allowed to do? It's a rights issue. People have the right to smoke, just like they have the right to drink.

Hmmm rights are something that society protects because they have been legally codified as rights (due to political and public will). So no people do not have a right to smoke. It's also a bit more complex than simply "what right do you have to tell me what drugs I can take?" when the knock-on effects of legalisation could have negative effects on society. I'm not advocating that this is necessarily the case (I've stated my opinions already) but highlighting that the issue is more complex than one of individual rights.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Hmmm rights are something that society protects because they have been legally codified as rights (due to political and public will). So no people do not have a right to smoke. It's also a bit more complex than simply "what right do you have to tell me what drugs I can take?" when the knock-on effects of legalisation could have negative effects on society. I'm not advocating that this is necessarily the case (I've stated my opinions already) but highlighting that the issue is more complex than one of individual rights.

Everyone has a right to do what they want with their body. Isn't that what the basis for abortion rights is?

Should we no longer have the right to eat mayonnaise if, for some reason, society says we can't?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Everyone has a right to do what they want with their body. Isn't that what the basis for abortion rights is?

Should we no longer have the right to eat mayonnaise if, for some reason, society says we can't?

I think we have a semantic issue here. When you say "everyone has a right" you seem to be saying that you think "everyone should have a right" whereas when I say it I mean that "currently X is legally recognised as a right" So you're speaking in "ought" and I'm speaking in "is"

Also I don't think there is a good argument that everyone should have a total right to do what they want with their body because of two reasons:

1) Unfortunately not all people are perfectly rational actors who are in possession of enough facts so as to make a fully informed decision.

2) People are not islands and what they do, even in private, can have effects on other people.

In the context of drugs an example of point 1 could be that people are tricked/convinced into getting onto hard drugs. I'm thinking of the classic "fell into the wrong crowed" situation. If total freedom in private was in effect then the only tool society is left with at this point is education which is good but not enough IMO. An example of point 2 is easy to see; even if heroin users did only do it in the comfort of their own homes the damage they are doing to their bodies will cost in healthcare (resulting in raised taxes in some countries and raised insurance premiums in others). I mentioned Portugal earlier in the thread which is a great example of a problem with point 2 as they had a huge number of people with HIV much of which was spread via needles.

Hopefully I've made my point clearer here; whilst "if my actions don't harm anyone I should have a right to do them" sounds brilliant like most moral platitudes it is extremely hard to find a common situation in real life to which it applies. Inevitably what people do in private has an effect on others. I don't want to sound draconian, I'm not advocating against personal freedoms (I'm all for far more than we currently have) but the role of laws is to regulate the effects of individual freedom on other individuals and on the collective society at large.

 

[wuliheron]

Spending huge amounts of money to try and suppress it is, I'm now convinced, a gross waste since, despite any Federal efforts, anyone who wants it seems to be able to get hold of it. (Every now and then I walk by groups of kids smoking it openly on the street.) Better to stop wasting money trying to stop it and make money taxing it.

Society wastes money on any number of things. I'm much more concerned with state and federal laws contradicting each other and people's lives being pointlessly ruined.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I think we have a semantic issue here. When you say "everyone has a right" you seem to be saying that you think "everyone should have a right" whereas when I say it I mean that "currently X is legally recognised as a right" So you're speaking in "ought" and I'm speaking in "is"

Well, marijuana is currently illegal, so you're right to say that people don't currently have the legal right to smoke marijuana.
Just like the government shouldn't have the right to put "in god we trust" on our currency. But they do it anyway.

And if you don't think people should have complete freedom to do as they choose to their own bodies, then do you think the laws will really save people from themselves? Isn't suicide illegal? How many times do you think the illegality of suicide has been the only reason someone didn't kill themselves?

 

[Pythagorean]

Everyone has a right to do what they want with their body...?

Like cover it in explosives and blow themselves up in a public area? Your initial reaction will be to argue that they're doing harm to others person/property so it's an exception. To which I will retort, the effects of drug use transcend your body. Usage is coupled to the black market and interpersonal relationships and second hand health issues.

While marijauna is one of those with less impact, it still has some impact and there are users who don't care about those impacts. For instance, marijuana can have negative effects on developing brains, but some users will smoke around their children anyway (the same people who would smoke cigarettes around their children... and are still allowed to under current laws!)

So I am with the majority voters here: marijuana should be legal, but it should be controlled because every person isn't responsible enough to manage safe use themselves.

 

[Hobin]

Well, marijuana is currently illegal, so you're right to say that people don't currently have the legal right to smoke marijuana.
Just like the government shouldn't have the right to put "in god we trust" on our currency. But they do it anyway.

I hate to have to say this, but can people stop pretending that everyone's from the same country?

 

[Evo]

I hate to have to say this, but can people stop pretending that everyone's from the same country?

This is, after all, an American website and the majority of members are in the US, so it is the "default" so to speak.

 

[256bits]

Legalization of marijauna seems to some to be the panacea. Although, the four choices are not as exclusive as one would think.

Tobacco has how many fines associated with its use? Perhaps the retail market has limitations on its accessability to minors and the display of the product in certain jurisdictions, and of course smoking in enclosed areas such as elvators and cinemas is prohibited.
Alcohol has more stringent limitations - DUI, intoxicated in public areas, for example - one of which could land you in prison and criminal record and the other being subject to a day in jail, court case and a fine.

So if legal, the problem for legistators is how to control it. Is there an immediate test for police officers to determine that a person is intoxicated with marijauna while driving or on public property such as a breathalizer test for alcohol?

One cannot drink alcohol on a public street so why shhould marijauna users be let to do the same with no repercussions. Most people become rather uneasy walking past a group consuming alcohol openly and that would be said for marijauna users openly smoking in the street.

At present until such simple items as that are presented with solutions by legistalors and that marijauna users accept the controls to be placed upon its usage, my vote is no, it stays illegal with fines for users and jail time for sellers.

 

[OmCheeto]

Never much cared for the stuff, nor had any use for it(knocks on wood), but as Zooby stated, it's readily available to nearly everyone. Might as well regulate and tax it.

Anyone know how to get a hold of Andre?

Drug policy of the Netherlands
The drug policy of the Netherlands officially has four major objectives:

1. To prevent recreational drug use and to treat and rehabilitate recreational drug users.
2. To reduce harm to users.
3. To diminish public nuisance by drug users (the disturbance of public order and safety in the neighbourhood).
4. To combat the production and trafficking of recreational drugs.

I trust his judgment.

 

[skeptic2]

I think they should try making it legal for a while so it can be taxed. Being illegal hasn't stopped people from smoking it, so I think they should at least be able to tax it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

 

[zoobyshoe]

You've both hit on something quite key here. It's not just that there's a lot of drug X that should be taken into account but the ease in which drug X can be made and the ease in which the method to make it can be proliferated.

This is why alcohol prohibition fails, it's one of the easiest recreational drugs to make (we've been doing it for thousands of years). For negligible amounts of money one can buy a home brew kit and the same could be said for cannabis.

Alcohol is very easy, yes. When I was in high school ( a Catholic boarding school) some of the kids used to buy jugs of apple cider and let it ferment a couple weeks. In the same way, some small percentage of pot people grow their own pot supply.

The majority don't do this because the quality of commercial alcohol products is so much better, and it's so much less trouble to buy pot from a dealer than grow it yourself. Government approved, commercially grown and packaged pot would surely be every pot smoker's preferred source.

Your info about the drugs being made in China was very interesting. It was the first I'd heard of this. Humans are infinitely clever in getting around obstacles.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I think the real issue behind drugs in the USA is the the fact that there is so much drug related crime in places like Mexico. Because these drugs are illegal, the people who want to make money off of them must be illegal too, and since they are illegal, why not just go all-out and kill people, etc.

I think if we made better marijuana regulation here in the USA, it would have a good impact on places where there is a lot of drug trafficking. Which would include places in the USA, ofc.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Society wastes money on any number of things. I'm much more concerned with state and federal laws contradicting each other and people's lives being pointlessly ruined.

I'm not content about those aspects either, I just don't know enough about how state vs federal works to say anything of interest.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, marijuana is currently illegal, so you're right to say that people don't currently have the legal right to smoke marijuana.
Just like the government shouldn't have the right to put "in god we trust" on our currency. But they do it anyway.

I kind of agree with Hobin here, even though I appreciate Evo's point that this is an American forum with predominantly American users sometimes (especially when you are directly responding to someone) it would at least be polite to acknowledge the country specificity of your comment.

And if you don't think people should have complete freedom to do as they choose to their own bodies, then do you think the laws will really save people from themselves?

Yes. Not in all cases obviously, but in many I do think that having the law in place saves people from the consequences of their actions. Some obvious examples would be making it illegal to climb electric pylons or speed at 200mph down a country lane etc.

Isn't suicide illegal? How many times do you think the illegality of suicide has been the only reason someone didn't kill themselves?

In the UK and the US suicide is no longer a crime (historically it was in the UK because it was seen as a crime against god). Regardless we seem to be talking cross purposes here, I'm not being absolutist and saying that all laws against what people do with their own lives are good and I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of what laws are, what aren't and what now-legal acts need laws. My point is that it is not good to allow total personal freedom in private.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Why should those people be allowed to dictate what other people are allowed to do? It's a rights issue. People have the right to smoke, just like they have the right to drink.

Do they also have the right to infringe on my rights?

So I am with the majority voters here: marijuana should be legal, but it should be controlled because every person isn't responsible enough to manage safe use themselves.

I am in the minority then, because people will still have access to marijuana, possibly even more than they do now, and just because safeguards are in place, doesn't mean those irresponsible people won't break them. Happens with cigarettes and children, alcohol, prescription pills, etc...

 

[turbo]

Legalize and regulate pot to save billions of dollars a year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rijuana-could-save-137-billion_n_1441194.html

 

[JonDE]

I'm not sure of the situation in the United States but in the United Kingdom we've got an ongoing problem with "legal highs" that entered the public arena about four years ago (thus existed long before). Essentially a group of people take the chemical formula for a known drug like MDMA, modify it slightly, email their design to a chemical company in China, import several kilos and then sell them for several times the amount. The reason this is legal is because they are labelled and marketed as plant fertilizer when in actual fact they are nothing but and the shops/websites that sell them rely on word of mouth from users in the know. From then on it takes months for anyone in a position of authority to realize that a specific product is being used recreationally and months more for it to work it's way through government as a ban. By that time new slightly tweaked molecules have been designed and shipped in.

We have the same problem here in the US, only it is marketed as incense. It also (here at least) does not only rely on word of mouth, it is sold in smoke shops, with this information you could easily walk in and figure out what it is being sold for, even if the name has changed.

 

[phoenix:\\]

Legalize and regulate pot to save billions of dollars a year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rijuana-could-save-137-billion_n_1441194.html

We could do the same with other drugs such as cocaine.

I highly disagree with making this stuff legal to save a nickle and dime.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071217110328.htm

http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana-abuse/marijuana-addictive

 

[turbo]

We could do the same with other drugs such as cocaine.

I highly disagree with making this stuff legal to save a nickle and dime.

How about to stifle profits enjoyed by the Mexican drug cartels and greatly reduce violence on our border?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It will be interesting to see which choice society makes here - personal choice vs control. For example, there is definitely movement towards full legalization of pot. At the same time, trans fats have been banned in some cities. And arguments are already being made that sugar should be regulated like a drug. In this and other ways I see opposing idealogies building momentum. And ultimately I think this will all boil down to the cost of health care.

Based on what I see, I think there is a fundamental choice that we will be making on various fronts over time: Does society have a right to demand that we live a so-called healthy lifestyle - due to the cost of health care and the burden it places on society - or do we have the right to make our own choices, be they good or bad ones?

I've seen this coming for a very long time and firmly believe that legalization of all drugs, with heavy taxation according to the real financial cost to society for poor lifestyle choices, is the only acceptable solution that preserves liberty fundamentally. The taxes should apply to all "unhealthy" lifestyle choices where possible; for example, for the purchase of alcohol and other drugs, sugary products and other unhealthy foods, equipment for dangerous activies, and even dangerous choices of transportation, like motorcycles. Otherwise, I think we will find ourselves being told how to live right down to our choice of foods for dinner; all based on the "cost to society". I'll even predict that your smart toilet will one day be reporting to your employer and insurance company, and they in turn will effectively dictate how you live, if we choose control over personal choice.

It doesn't really matter to me. By the time this all plays out I'll probably be dead. But I suspect that many of our younger members will find that our choices here will have a huge impact on their lives.

 

[zoobyshoe]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marihuana_Tax_Act_of_1937

Interesting history!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Legalize and regulate pot to save billions of dollars a year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...rijuana-could-save-137-billion_n_1441194.html

From your link:

WASHINGTON -- The federal government could save as much $13.7 billion annually if it were to legalize marijuana, according to a paper by Harvard economist Jeffrey Miron.

More than half of the savings, $7.7 billion, would come from not having to enforce the current prohibitions against the drug, while an additional $6 billion per year would come from taxing marijuana at rates similar to tobacco and alcohol. Since the paper was first published in 2005, more than 300 economists, including three Nobel laureates, have signed a petition to call attention to the work and initiate a debate among people on both sides of the issue.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It will be interesting to see which choice society makes here - personal choice vs control. For example, there is definitely movement towards full legalization of pot. At the same time, trans fats have been banned in some cities. And arguments are already being made that sugar should be regulated like a drug. In this and other ways I see opposing idealogies building momentum. And ultimately I think this will all boil down to the cost of health care.

Based on what I see, I think there is a fundamental choice that we will be making on various fronts over time: Does society have a right to demand that we live a so-called healthy lifestyle - due to the cost of health care and the burden it places on society - or do we have the right to make our own choices, be they good or bad ones?

I've seen this coming for a very long time and firmly believe that legalization of all drugs, with heavy taxation according to the real financial cost to society for poor lifestyle choices, is the only acceptable solution that preserves liberty fundamentally. The taxes should apply to all "unhealthy" lifestyle choices where possible; for example, for the purchase of alcohol and other drugs, sugary products and other unhealthy foods, equipment for dangerous activies, and even dangerous choices of transportation, like motorcycles. Otherwise, I think we will find ourselves being told how to live right down to our choice of foods for dinner; all based on the "cost to society". I'll even predict that your smart toilet will one day be reporting to your employer and insurance company, and they in turn will effectively dictate how you live, if we choose control over personal choice.

It doesn't really matter to me. By the time this all plays out I'll probably be dead. But I suspect that many of our younger members will find that our choices here will have a huge impact on their lives.

I'm skeptical that healthy lifestyles end up costing society less. My grandmother (mother's side) didn't smoke or drink or do anything more risky than driving. She lived to be 103. The last ten years of her life, though, she required constant care. She broke both hips in her early 90's and the hip replacements and therapy, and her in home caregivers, were all paid for by Medicare, etc. At the same time, she was receiving Social Security for being retired.

Everyone wears out in the end and the healthier their lifestyle the longer they last and the longer social programs must take care of them after they retire. Being generally healthier they are more likely to survive things that would kill others, but, having survived, require a lot of care. No matter how long you live in good health your death will be preceded by a long period of decline during which you need more and more care.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm skeptical that healthy lifestyles end up costing society less.

Typically, lost productivity, fewer productive years, and greater health care costs at a younger age, are the issues cited.

I think it depends on the specific sin in question. For example, if you choose to ride motorcycles and end up a paraplegic as a result, you are definitely a burden on society.

 

[leroyjenkens]

Like cover it in explosives and blow themselves up in a public area? Your initial reaction will be to argue that they're doing harm to others person/property so it's an exception. To which I will retort, the effects of drug use transcend your body. Usage is coupled to the black market and interpersonal relationships and second hand health issues.

The black market isn't an intrinsic problem with marijuana. The black market is only a problem because of the illegality of marijuana. That's a problem caused by the illegality of marijuana, not solved by it.

Interpersonal relationships could be affected by marijuana use, but in what way? The same way cigarette use affects interpersonal relationships? Or is this another problem caused by the illegality of marijuana?

Second hand health issues are only a problem if you smoke it around other people. Just like swinging my arms out to the side is only a second hand health issue if I do it near other people. Neither of those activities are necessarily done in the presence of other people.

While marijauna is one of those with less impact, it still has some impact and there are users who don't care about those impacts. For instance, marijuana can have negative effects on developing brains, but some users will smoke around their children anyway (the same people who would smoke cigarettes around their children... and are still allowed to under current laws!)

And playing Wii Bowling near children can be harmful too, but that's no reason to say Wii Bowling infringes on other people's rights.

So I am with the majority voters here: marijuana should be legal, but it should be controlled because every person isn't responsible enough to manage safe use themselves.

I agree, but just like alcohol, we just have to trust people won't do it around children. People are allowed to drink in their homes and we trust that they won't let their children drink it. So with marijuana, we just have to trust that they won't smoke it around their children.
So regulated in that you should probably be a certain age to buy it, and you shouldn't be allowed to smoke it while operating machinery, but other than that, it should be treated like alcohol.

I kind of agree with Hobin here, even though I appreciate Evo's point that this is an American forum with predominantly American users sometimes (especially when you are directly responding to someone) it would at least be polite to acknowledge the country specificity of your comment.

I don't think it's necessary. Realistically, most will know which country I'm talking about, but even if they don't, it's an irrelevant fact to the point that I'm making. A country is putting "in god we trust" on currency. I just used it as an analogy, so whichever country is doing it is irrelevant to the point.

In the UK and the US suicide is no longer a crime (historically it was in the UK because it was seen as a crime against god). Regardless we seem to be talking cross purposes here, I'm not being absolutist and saying that all laws against what people do with their own lives are good and I'm not interested in getting into a discussion of what laws are, what aren't and what now-legal acts need laws. My point is that it is not good to allow total personal freedom in private.

Why is your opinion that we shouldn't allow total personal freedom in private?

Do they also have the right to infringe on my rights?

No. People have a right to do as they please as long as it doesn't infringe on other people's rights, within reason.

 

[D H]

I think it depends on the specific sin in question. For example, if you choose to ride motorcycles and end up a paraplegic as a result, you are definitely a burden on society.

It depends on how one rides a motorcycle. A person who rides responsibly by wearing a helmet is quite likely to end up a paraplegic as a result of an accident. Those who love that feel of the wind flowing past their unhelmeted head are more likely to die from an accident than they are to survive. Cost to society: Lots of money for a helmeted rider, one casket for an unhelmeted rider. (There is a slight risk to society that an unhelmeted rider will survive and cost a bundle, but this is more than compensated by the drastically increased likelihood of immediate death.) Helmets save lives, but they don't save money. Contrast that to seatbelts. Seatbelts save lives and save money. The insurance industry hasn't been nearly as aggressive with regard to pursuing helmet laws compared to seatbelt laws.

 

[Alfi]

Yes, the two on the same day seems fitting from a culture perspective

just joking, all environmentalists aren't hippies, but all hippies are environmentalists.

Earth Day ? Wrong date. afaik.

April 22 2012


Happy Earth day. :)

 

[Evo]

Earth Day ? Wrong date. afaik.

April 22 2012


Happy Earth day. :)

That was my error, he was responding to me.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Why is your opinion that we shouldn't allow total personal freedom in private?

I thought I'd already explained this: just because something happens in private doesn't mean it stays "in private." I've given examples above regarding drug use, I'm not sure what you aren't understanding.

 

[Pythagorean]

The black market isn't an intrinsic problem with marijuana. The black market is only a problem because of the illegality of marijuana. That's a problem caused by the illegality of marijuana, not solved by it.

The point was that there are irresponsible users so it should be regulated. Some users don't care where their money is going. Some people, in general, aren't aware of the far-reaching consequence of their own actions. And then there's also those that just don't care. These are the two reasons for criminal law.

Interpersonal relationships could be affected by marijuana use, but in what way? The same way cigarette use affects interpersonal relationships? Or is this another problem caused by the illegality of marijuana?

Yes; for instance, illegal activities puts family in danger and takes time away from them. That people are willing to take this risk is another indicator that people are irresponsible.

Second hand health issues are only a problem if you smoke it around other people. Just like swinging my arms out to the side is only a second hand health issue if I do it near other people. Neither of those activities are necessarily done in the presence of other people.

Smoke is more elusive than rigid bodies. When you smoke a lot in the same place, ash and residue builds up. In the case of cigarettes, for instance, even if you don't smoke in your house, your children could have up to about 4x the nicotine levels in their blood as children of non-smoking households.

Whether such low nicotine levels (or alleged thc levels) cause significant effects is still an open question. Either way, it's definitely a respiratory hazard. Part of the regulation would be making people aware of this.

And playing Wii Bowling near children can be harmful too, but that's no reason to say Wii Bowling infringes on other people's rights.

that's your second non-sequitor...

I agree, but just like alcohol, we just have to trust people won't do it around children.

With alcohol, we have laws that strictly forbid watching your children drunk or giving your children alcohol. These laws are enforced! We don't just trust people (but we can't violate their privacy either). In Alaska, we make whole village go dry for too many domestic alcohol violations. The impact isn't taken lightly.

 

[leroyjenkens]

I thought I'd already explained this: just because something happens in private doesn't mean it stays "in private." I've given examples above regarding drug use, I'm not sure what you aren't understanding.

Your examples described a situation that wasn't private. Like smoking around children. If other people are around, that's not really private.

Yes; for instance, illegal activities puts family in danger and takes time away from them. That people are willing to take this risk is another indicator that people are irresponsible.

True, but again, that's not an intrinsic problem with marijuana itself.

Smoke is more elusive than rigid bodies. When you smoke a lot in the same place, ash and residue builds up. In the case of cigarettes, for instance, even if you don't smoke in your house, your children could have up to about 4x the nicotine levels in their blood as children of non-smoking households.

Whether such low nicotine levels (or alleged thc levels) cause significant effects is still an open question. Either way, it's definitely a respiratory hazard. Part of the regulation would be making people aware of this.

That's true, but if people smoked outside, like my parents did, then I never had to breathe cigarette smoke.

that's your second non-sequitor...

I don't know how it's a non-sequitor, or why it's the second one. Could you elaborate?

With alcohol, we have laws that strictly forbid watching your children drunk or giving your children alcohol. These laws are enforced! We don't just trust people (but we can't violate their privacy either). In Alaska, we make whole village go dry for too many domestic alcohol violations. The impact isn't taken lightly.

We trust them when they're in private, otherwise the law wouldn't allow them to even have alcohol in their house.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Your examples described a situation that wasn't private. Like smoking around children. If other people are around, that's not really private.

I don't think being solely alone is a reasonable definition of private, it certainly isn't a legal one. If I and a select group of friends are in my private property then we are "in private." If we were outside then we would be on public property.

Regardless that doesn't really alter the point of what I was saying. We can modify the example to be a person who faces peer-pressure in their life and goes back to their private property alone to make a poor decision (because they are not necessarily in full possession of the facts). This poor decision made and conducted alone on private property then still has far reaching effects. Just because something happens in private doesn't mean the effects remain private.

I think their is a contradicton in your beliefs leroy. On the one hand you agree that people should have freedom up until they infringe others (with reasonable argument as to whether or not certain infringements are justified e.g. freedom of speech vs freedom from offence) yet on the other you seem to think that anything in private is justified without acknowledging that the effects of things that happen in private aren't necessarily contained.

 

[nitsuj]

For example, if you choose to ride motorcycles and end up a paraplegic as a result, you are definitely a burden on society.

In ottawa, a couple years ago, some fairly renowned "brain" doctor/surgeon was seriously injured in a motorcycle accident.

An employee at my work found this out, through networks developed while caring for her son who has a sever brain injury.

Her concern was losing this local doctor with remarkable abilities in the "brain" field.

For me it raises the question; The doctor being so important to society, was he being irresponsible engaging in dangerous activities? (probably better asked as; Is the doctor responsible for the care of others.)

Just one of those neat food for thought moral dilemmas. Eastern / Western points of view on this "moral dilemma" would maybe be split, the individual or the whole.But my point, there is nothing to base an argument for "healthy lifestyle choices" reduce the tax burden on society. the context is far to dynamic to argue strictly for one side (money/tax).

I think "culture" is the only way to try & "curb" these morally grey areas, not black 'n white laws.

EDIT: just want to clarify, I am in favor of higher tax on unhealthy products. This is independent of the choice to buy them, similar to the brain surgeon & his motorcycle; I imagine his motor vehicle insurance reflected the added risk of commuting with a motorcycle..