News Do you support legalisation of marijuana?

[russ_watters]

I don't think legalization would make more people smoke pot.
It would just stop putting innocent people in jail.

Innocent people are not being put in jail (generally), they are guilty under the current law. It would just make the activities that are now illegal, legal...converting guilty people to innocent.

 

[lisab]

Innocent people are not being put in jail (generally), they are guilty under the current law. It would just make the activities that are now illegal, legal...converting guilty people to innocent.

My thought also...the crime they're committing may be minor in the minds of most people, but it's still illegal. They are therefore breaking the law. And it's not like they don't realize it at the time.

I'm not saying I agree that it should be illegal. But people who partake must realize the risk that they're taking. I just find it hard to believe anyone thinks that it's worth the risk!

 

[ray b]

the cost of stupid law enforcement is very high
both in cash cost and other effects
wastes time and efforts of the cops that should be chasing real harmful crime
people get killed by cops in drug raids,
property stolen by legal BS
and high legal fees can result
not to mention high cost of jail prison and probation systems
and those systems are over taxed so work very less as well as they could
it also put pot smokers in contact with other drugs
and people outside the laws
it also leads to contempt for unjust laws
and that leads to contempt for the system and other laws

end the war on drugs
like all war nobody wins
many get hurt
some die

give peace a chance
it can't be worse then the current drug war

 

[robertm]

I would be much more willing to take part in an innocuous activity that I may or may not normally, precisely because it was made illegal.

Dissent is almost always worth the risk.

 

[Civilized]

Innocent people are not being put in jail (generally), they are guilty under the current law. It would just make the activities that are now illegal, legal...converting guilty people to innocent.

My thought also...the crime they're committing may be minor in the minds of most people, but it's still illegal. They are therefore breaking the law. And it's not like they don't realize it at the time.

For those of us who support moving closer to legalization, these kind of opinions just drive home the arbitrary non-ethical nature of laws in a democracy, and make us lose faith in the government, both it's particular incarnation and the general form (e.g. I believe democracy is a terrible form of government, and our drug laws are one of the contributing reasons why I feel no gratitude or obligations to the government of the USA).

 

[Martini]

Innocent people are not being put in jail (generally), they are guilty under the current law. It would just make the activities that are now illegal, legal...converting guilty people to innocent.

Yes, and the current law is completely bogus.
So they are being put in jail for a no reason.

 

[russ_watters]

I would be much more willing to take part in an innocuous activity that I may or may not normally, precisely because it was made illegal.

Dissent is almost always worth the risk.

That's basically a nutshell definition of "immature" and it usually goes away as a person passes through their 20s.

 

[russ_watters]

For those of us who support moving closer to legalization, these kind of opinions...

You need to learn the difference between opinion and fact. I expressed no opinion on the subject. My post was a factual description of how law works and an explanation of the definition of the words "innocent" and "guilty". The poster I was responding to misused the word "innocent". You and Martini seem to have a problem dealing with objective reality. Calling someone "innocent" doesn't make it so.

...e.g. I believe democracy is a terrible form of government, and our drug laws are one of the contributing reasons why I feel no gratitude or obligations to the government of the USA.

I gathered that, but it is good to see it in plain English.

Yes, and the current law is completely bogus.

You are certainly entitled to that opinion, but it doesn't have anything to do with the word "innocent".

So they are being put in jail for a no reason.

No reason? C'mon. No reason that you agree with maybe, but certainly I can think of two obvious reasons! Just because you don't agree with the reasons, that doesn't mean the reasons don't exist!

Guys, this is excruciatingly simple logical thought that you are failing at!

 

[Martini]

Yeah, I'm sorry.
This argument makes me very mad, and I have trouble typing it :p.
This is something I strongly believe in, and it is hard to type what i am trying to say.

 

[robertm]

...it usually goes away as a person passes through their 20s.

Which is probably a contributing factor to the passage and tolerance (not to mention support) of such laws.

Not being willing to submit to arbitrary authority, especially when it is propped up with major often brutal and organized force, is not "a nutshell definition of immature".

 

[maverick_starstrider]

My thought also...the crime they're committing may be minor in the minds of most people, but it's still illegal. They are therefore breaking the law. And it's not like they don't realize it at the time.

I'm not saying I agree that it should be illegal. But people who partake must realize the risk that they're taking. I just find it hard to believe anyone thinks that it's worth the risk!

How much risk is there really in smoking pot (I mean legality wise). Dealing, yes, but using? Weed is everywhere and in general law enforcement has zero interest in tracking down users.

 

[russ_watters]

Which is probably a contributing factor to the passage and tolerance (not to mention support) of such laws.

Not being willing to submit to arbitrary authority, especially when it is propped up with major often brutal and organized force, is not "a nutshell definition of immature".

That is much different from what you said in your previous post. You said you would break a law just for the purpose of disobeying authority. The urge to disobey authority for no other purpose than to disobey authority is how a teenager deals with the desire for freedom/leaving the nest.

 

[Evo]

It always kills me when people try to compare marijuana with alcohol. You can drink alcohol just for the taste and enjoyment without getting drunk. That is how the majority of people drink. If you drink to get drunk, then you have a problem. Marijuana is smoked just to get stoned. And the effect is immediate. No one smokes with the intention of not getting stoned.

I spent many years in the late 60's through the 70's around a bunch of pot smokers that would just lay around all day smoking and eating and not able to do anything else, they would be nodding off most of the time. I learned quickly that being drugged up all day was not appealing, was counter productive, and pretty stupid, IMO.

So I am not for legalization because it's something too many people would abuse just to get wasted and too many people would do just that if they could just pick some up at the store any time they want. I guess I'd like to see people try to cope with life and not avoid it through drugs.

 

[IMP]

It is just a plant. It has been around for millions of years. Humans put each other in jail if you are in possession of said plant. That is crazy. If you have to make some plants illegal, how about poison ivy or poison oak, maybe grass burrs too.

Illegal does not mean wrong. Just because some guys signed some piece of paper making someone a criminal for possessing said plant does not mean the person is a criminal. Breaking the law and committing a crime are two different things. Committing a crime requires a victim, breaking a law does not…

 

[Evo]

Illegal does not mean wrong. Just because some guys signed some piece of paper making someone a criminal for possessing said plant does not mean the person is a criminal. Breaking the law and committing a crime are two different things. Committing a crime requires a victim, breaking a law does not…

Merriam Webster dictionary definition of crime

1: an act or the commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law ; especially : a gross violation of law

So, a crime is breaking a law. If you break the law, that's comitting a crime and you are a criminal.

 

[mgb_phys]

II spent many years in the late 60's through the 70's around a bunch of pot smokers that would just lay around all day smoking and eating and not able to do anything else, they would be nodding off most of the time. I learned quickly that being drugged up all day was not appealing, was counter productive, and pretty stupid, IMO.

The same could be said for arts/humanities students.

I guess I'd like to see people try to cope with life and not avoid it through drugs.

So cigs, coffee, prozac, ritalin, sleeping tablets, antihistamines, NSAIDs are going on the list as well then?

 

[Evo]

So cigs, coffee, prozac, ritalin, sleeping tablets, antihistamines, NSAIDs are going on the list as well then?

When I used the term drugs, I was using the word as it is commonly used when referring to the dictionary definition "3: often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness. If you didn't understand my use of the word, now you know.

So, no to your question.

Are you saying that most arts/humanities students are drug abusers? My oldest daughter is a gifted artist and she doesn't do any drugs, can't stand them. She rarely drinks. I know many professional people in arts/humanities, some very famous, and they don't use drugs.

 

[Astronuc]

So cigs, coffee, prozac, ritalin, sleeping tablets, antihistamines, NSAIDs are going on the list as well then?

Cigarettes probably should be illegal given the adverse health effects and tremendous cost due to illness and lost time. Cigarettes are regulated.

Coffee doesn't prevent someone from being productive and may actually be beneficial. So it should not be on the list.

Prozac and ritalin are controlled substances to be taken by prescription only. They can certainly be abused, and obtaining without a prescription is illegal. Many (most?) sleeping tablets are available only by prescription.

I don't know about antihistimine or NSAIDS abuse.


I think Evo was referring to recreational drugs anyway.

Alcohol is regulated.

 

[Martini]

I spent many years in the late 60's through the 70's around a bunch of pot smokers that would just lay around all day smoking and eating and not able to do anything else, they would be nodding off most of the time. I learned quickly that being drugged up all day was not appealing, was counter productive, and pretty stupid, IMO.

I have already stated that this is bad. But the majority of people smoking pot, aren't sitting around all day, doing nothing.
They come home, and smoke a bowl. I mean, I don't know this for sure, but I don't think the 15 million Americans who smoke pot habitually, are sitting around all day.

 

[Martini]

Cigarettes probably should be illegal given the adverse health effects and tremendous cost due to illness and lost time. Cigarettes are regulated.
Alcohol is regulated.

We are talking about regulating marijuana, just like alcohol is.
Selling it in stores, for an adult to buy.

It would be a much safer product, and the price would go much, MUCH, down.
The price of pot per pound is not $5,000, it is about $10.
We are currently giving $4,990 to illegal drug cartels.

 

[Evo]

Cigarettes probably should be illegal given the adverse health effects and tremendous cost due to illness and lost time. Cigarettes are regulated.

Tobacco is another thing that should not be allowed. There is just no reason for it and there are no health benefits to smoking it. I can't think of anything positive you can say in it's defense.

Which is why I find people that try to give a credible reason for smoking pot so humorous. Like getting stoned is not the sole reason they do it.

 

[Astronuc]

Which is why I find people that try to give a credible reason for smoking pot so humorous. Like getting stoned is not the sole reason they do it.

You don't think they do it because "it tastes great!" and is "less filling"?

 

[Civilized]

For those of us who support moving closer to legalization, these kind of opinions...

You need to learn the difference between opinion and fact. I expressed no opinion on the subject. My post was a factual description of how law works and an explanation of the definition of the words "innocent" and "guilty". The poster I was responding to misused the word "innocent". You and Martini seem to have a problem dealing with objective reality. Calling someone "innocent" doesn't make it so.

You're right Russ, the word "opinion" was the wrong word for me to use. It is certainly a fact that Cannabis is illegal. The point I was trying to make is that whenever someone points this out without calling for the prohibition to end, it is like rubbing in a bad situation that you are not willing to do anything about. It alienates people, it is not a neutral statement.

You can drink alcohol just for the taste and enjoyment without getting drunk.

I completely disagree. The threshold dose of ethanol for a particular person is determined partially by their attunement with their body. From the first sip of wine or beer I already begin to feel poisoned. My stream of speech is slowed tremendously before the end of the first beer (I don't drive anymore, but I am sure my driving safety level would decrease as well). And I am not even allergic to alcohol, but I have met many people who are, and they can become "drunk by the end of one beer."

That is how the majority of people drink.

That might be true in certain age groups, but I promise you that college students do not drink "for the taste and enjoyment without getting drunk." And if "that is how the majority of people drink" then why is the majority of the beer and booze in the store made of such cheap low quality ingredients? You can't tell me that Natural Ice Beer or Carlo Rossi wine have anything to do with anything other than people poisoning themselves to feel drunk, and judging by shelf space, these kind of bargain brands are the most popular.

Marijuana is smoked just to get stoned.

This is your biggest misunderstanding. Many people who support the legalization of cannabis dislike referring to it as a drug (this is why I avoid the term marijuana, which has become associated with drug culture) partly because of the connotation that drugs are used to "get wasted." Just as some people eat to the point of gluttony, and some people drink to the point of drunkness, some cannabis users smoke to the point of being stoned. But that is not the only reason to use cannabis, to get stoned. Many connoisseur's take a foremost interest in the taste of the plant, aesthetics of the plant, the enjoyment of the act of smoking, the art of cultivation --- these are not my opinions or personal experiences, these are all categories for the judges to consider at events like the Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam.

No one smokes with the intention of not getting stoned.

This is completely falsed, and based on your admittedly limited personal experiences. Notice that in genral, cannabis uses inhale the smoke more deeply than tobacco users do, and some people just enjoy the taste and activity of smoking (this explains tobacco pipe smoking, for example, where users do not inhale and the nicotine dose is low, they are doing it for the enjoyment of the act of smoking, the same thing is possible with cannabis). Sure, if cannabis is sold as an illegal street drug for outrageous prices than no one is going to puff away at it for fun like pipe tobacco, but in places where it is decriminalized and it grows in the ground for free, it can and is used as just another plant to generate smoke with.

I spent many years in the late 60's through the 70's around a bunch of pot smokers that would just lay around all day smoking and eating and not able to do anything else, they would be nodding off most of the time. I learned quickly that being drugged up all day was not appealing, was counter productive, and pretty stupid, IMO.

Why can you share negative personal experiences such as this one, but when I try to share positive experiences about brilliant and successful cannabis users you threaten to lock the thread? The people you describe sound like druggies, and I don't condone that lifestyle. It is just as unfair as hanging around people who drink liquor all day and saying that liquor should be illegal because everybody always uses it to get drunk.

I guess I'd like to see people try to cope with life and not avoid it through drugs.

I would like people to cope through life and not avoid it with religion, illogical emotions, television, youtube, fiction stories, and I think they should take several years of mathematics and philosophy training so that they can face the world with enhanced clarity. I do not, however, think that the government should enforce my personal preferences on other people.

Coffee doesn't prevent someone from being productive and may actually be beneficial. So it should not be on the list.

There is a myth about such highs: the user has an illusion of great insight, but it does not survive scrutiny in the morning. I am convinced that this is an error, and that the devastating insights achieved when high are real insights; the main problem is putting these insights in a form acceptable to the quite different self that we are when we're down the next day. Some of the hardest work I've ever done has been to put such insights down on tape or in writing...

My high is always reflective, peaceable, intellectually exciting, and sociable, unlike most alcohol highs, and there is never a hangover. Through the years I find that slightly smaller amounts of cannabis suffice to produce the same degree of high, and in one movie theater recently I found I could get high just by inhaling the cannabis smoke which permeated the theater...

There is a very nice self-titering aspect to cannabis. Each puff is a very small dose; the time lag between inhaling a puff and sensing its effect is small; and there is no desire for more after the high is there...

I can understand why people who had bad experiences with cannabis, or saw immature people using it as a drug, might favor prohibition. But as soon as they see how strongly some responsible, successful members of society feel about using cannabis they should admit that these people are capable of using it responsibly and allow them to do so legally. Fortunately, medical marijuana initiatives already allows this to go on in practice, but the situation is not ideal because (1) doctors cannot supply their patients with cannabis and (2) not all states allow medical marijuana and (3) the federal government does not recognize medical marijuana laws and has cracked down on the retailers who sell cannabis to licensed medical patients in most states other than california.

Tobacco is another thing that should not be allowed. There is just no reason for it and there are no health benefits to smoking it. I can't think of anything positive you can say in it's defense.

Here is a simple thing you have failed to consider: some people find tobacco smoking to be fun and enjoyable. I don't know what moral system you use to justify your dictatorial pronouncements that item X which millions of people enjoy should be illegal. Seeing this kind of attitude makes me nauseated at the idea of democracy, and it makes me want forgo morality altogether. I am probably not allowed to condone misogyny on these forums, but for me their is no moral distinction between politically endorsed misogyny and the political prohibitions that Evo recommends.

 

[Evo]

I completely disagree. The threshold dose of ethanol for a particular person is determined partially by their attunement with their body. From the first sip of wine or beer I already begin to feel poisoned. My stream of speech is slowed tremendously before the end of the first beer (I don't drive anymore, but I am sure my driving safety level would decrease as well). And I am not even allergic to alcohol, but I have met many people who are, and they can become "drunk by the end of one beer."

That would be a very small percent of people, one glass of wine simply does not contain enough alcohol.

That might be true in certain age groups, but I promise you that college students do not drink "for the taste and enjoyment without getting drunk."

As someone earlier pointed out, that is the age group that tends to go crazy and use a lot of poor judgement due to college being the first time they are out of their parents control.

And if "that is how the majority of people drink" then why is the majority of the beer and booze in the store made of such cheap low quality ingredients?

Do you have anything to back this claim up? I seriously doubt that "the majority" of alcohol made is of low quality. Maybe that's what you find at the liquor store near a college campus. Where I shop, the cheap stuff is in the back of the store collecting dust.

You can't tell me that Natural Ice Beer or Carlo Rossi wine have anything to do with anything other than people poisoning themselves to feel drunk, and judging by shelf space, these kind of bargain brands are the most popular.

Of course there are people that drink just to get drunk. But you don't have to get drunk when you drink. Smoking a joint is about getting stoned.

This is your biggest misunderstanding. Many people who support the legalization of cannabis dislike referring to it as a drug (this is why I avoid the term marijuana, which has become associated with drug culture) partly because of the connotation that drugs are used to "get wasted." Just as some people eat to the point of gluttony, and some people drink to the point of drunkness, some cannabis users smoke to the point of being stoned. But that is not the only reason to use cannabis, to get stoned. Many connoisseur's take a foremost interest in the taste of the plant, aesthetics of the plant, the enjoyment of the act of smoking, the art of cultivation --- these are not my opinions or personal experiences, these are all categories for the judges to consider at events like the Cannabis Cup in Amsterdam.

So you would advocate pot bred to remove it's ability to get people stoned, so, let's say we legalize marijuana that is extremely weak but has a "fine flavor of burning hemp".

This is completely falsed, and based on your admittedly limited personal experiences.

No, I said that I was surrounded by pot heads for 20 years. I've been around pot for more years than you've been alive, most likely.

Notice that in genral, cannabis uses inhale the smoke more deeply than tobacco users do, and some people just enjoy the taste and activity of smoking

I have yet to meet a single person that fits this description, on the contrary, they are always looking for more and more potent weed.

Why can you share negative personal experiences such as this one, but when I try to share positive experiences about brilliant and successful cannabis users you threaten to lock the thread?

Because this is an educational forum and we don't promote the use of illegal drugs or harmful behavior.

I can understand why people who had bad experiences with cannabis, or saw immature people using it as a drug, might favor prohibition. But as soon as they see how strongly some responsible, successful members of society feel about using cannabis they should admit that these people are capable of using it responsibly and allow them to do so legally.

That's funny. I don't see that as an argument in favor of legalizing something like marijuana. I can drink 5 times more than most people wihout appearing drunk too. Doesn't mean it is a smart thing to do. I do need to stop drinking.

Here is a simple thing you have failed to consider: some people find tobacco smoking to be fun and enjoyable. I don't know what moral system you use to justify your dictatorial pronouncements that item X which millions of people enjoy should be illegal.

Of course it is reasonable to make certain harmful substances illegal. It has nothing to do with morality.

 

[turbo]

For some conservative (not religious-right neo-con) views on the War on Drugs, legalization, related crime, etc, please review this symposium hosted by the National Review.

http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html

 

[Civilized]

So you would advocate pot bred to remove it's ability to get people stoned, so, let's say we legalize marijuana that is extremely weak but has a "fine flavor of burning hemp".

Absolutely, this would be much better than the current situation of prohibition. I know lots of people who would pay at least as much for de-THC-ed cannabis as they do for the premium pipe tobacco that they consider to be a poor substitute. And for the sake of consistency, you surely advocate removing the ethanol from beer , wine, and liquor, as long as it does not effect the taste?

No, I said that I was surrounded by pot heads for 20 years. I've been around pot for more years than you've been alive, most likely.

Imagine someone who wanted to ban books based on having hung around a trashy magazine rack all their life! This person could even argue that the majority of written works that get sold and consumed are trashy tabloids, etc. But by banning all books this person would be harming some of the most important members of society, just because the masses of stupid people make stupid decisions.

Alcohol is a scourge on the earth. It directly kills dozens of young people every year, and in the long-term it ruins millions of families, careers, and lives. Fact: ethanol is a poison, THC is not. I cannot participate in this illogical discussion in which THC is consider by some participants to be more harmful than ethanol. This goes against basic science and common sense. Calling something "illegal" is not a logical argument, at one point is was illegal for women or colored men to disobey white men. The prohibition against cannabis is just as grave an injustice as slavery and the subjagation of women. Many people at the time thought that controlling negroes and females was the logically correct thing to do. This is exactly how tragically mistaken the prohibitionist are.

 

[IMP]

Illegal is not the same as criminal, even if the dictionary implies it is. An unlawful act means you broke a law. A criminal act means you victimized someone: hurt them, damaged their property, killed them, stole their property, etc. Just because a piece of paper was signed by someone we "elected" stating that wearing a blue shirt is illegal does not mean you are a criminal if you wear a blue shirt, you have simply broken a law.

 

[mgb_phys]

When I used the term drugs, I was using the word as it is commonly used when referring to the dictionary definition "3: often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness. If you didn't understand my use of the word, now you know.

Wether a drug is illegal or not is generally an accident. Tobacco is legal, cocaine isn't mainly because cocaine leaves didn't survive the long voyage to England. MDMA is ranked as a class A illegal drug while ritalin is handed out to every kid that speaks up in class. In most developed countries a large percentage of the rich (ie. access to doctors) population is on some form of 'lifestyle' medication (sleeping pills, anti-depressants etc).
These are legal because they are prescribed - in the same way that a Wall St version of stealing someone's wallet is legal.

Are you saying that most arts/humanities students are drug abusers?

No offence intended - I was making a joke about the picture of drug users lying around all day in their own little world contributing nothing to society. In contrast to say, philosophy graduates.

 

[Evo]

I was making a joke about the picture of drug users lying around all ay in their own little world contributing nothing to society. In contrast to say, philosophy graduates.

Someone sent me a hsyterical youtube video of a song about getting high, but it has an inappropriate part, that even bleeped, is too suggestive, so I can't post it here. Too bad, it's pretty good.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tobacco is another thing that should not be allowed. There is just no reason for it and there are no health benefits to smoking it. I can't think of anything positive you can say in it's defense.

Which is why I find people that try to give a credible reason for smoking pot so humorous. Like getting stoned is not the sole reason they do it.

People don't need a good reason to do anything provided they don't infringe on the rights of others. I find it amazing that the notion of liberty is completely lost on some. Why do you think you have the right to take away the rights of others?

Alcohol has probably destroyed more lives than any other single drug, so I assume that you would support banning its use as well. It certainly has no redeeming qualities.

The same is true for soft drinks and junk food - no redeeming qualities. In fact I found it rather amusing this morning to see the soft drink companies running a commercial against taxing soft drinks to help support the health plan. The chickens are coming home to roost! Next, we will be going after salt and fat. Just watch. Maybe the government can issue a pamphlet of approved habbits.