News Do you support legalisation of marijuana?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Support
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the legalization of marijuana, highlighting that educated individuals are more likely to support it due to their reflective understanding of drug policies. Participants argue that age plays a significant role, with younger generations more inclined to favor legalization compared to those over 60. The conversation also touches on the societal impacts of habitual marijuana use, with some asserting it detracts from ambition and professional success, while others cite examples of successful individuals who use cannabis. Ultimately, the discussion emphasizes the need for a cultural shift regarding drug perceptions and the potential benefits of legalization.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of drug policy and legalization debates
  • Knowledge of the social implications of substance use
  • Familiarity with generational attitudes towards marijuana
  • Awareness of the historical context of drug prohibition
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the impact of marijuana legalization on crime rates and public health
  • Examine case studies from states with legalized marijuana, such as California
  • Explore the relationship between drug use and creativity in artistic fields
  • Investigate the effects of marijuana on ambition and professional development
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for policymakers, sociologists, educators, and anyone interested in the cultural and economic implications of marijuana legalization.

  • #61
Exactly my point. Marijuana is not poisionous, not physically addictive, and is practically impossible to overdose on. Alchohol is all these things. Cigaretes fall into two of the catagories. Caffiene falls into two.

Society at large can not control an individuals private personal consuption of a substance, especially when it is almost entirely innocuous.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #63
Ivan Seeking said:
Why do you think you have the right to take away the rights of others?
Because some day I intend to rule the universe.

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.
Except for flavoring food. Oh and there appear to be proven heart benefits for wine. Alcohol also thins the blood. But alcohol also destroys the liver, among other bad things. I'm thinking of cutting alcohol out for health reasons anyway. The Evo Child is against alcohol, she sees no reason to drink, and she's right. I keep asking her if she's ever seen me drunk, and she admitted she's never seen me drunk (I have a very high tolerance to alcohol), but she says that just because I am a "high functioning drinker", that it's still not good. I also will not drink and drive and I won't drink during the day. I believe in being as responsible as possible.

Maybe the government can issue a pamphlet of approved habbits.
What, you didn't get yours?

Oh, and I am against putting anything that is on fire into your mouth and breathing in. I grew up with a dad that smoked cigars and pipes . UGH.

I would support legalization of marijuana in pill or liquid form only. I just don't agree that we need yet another thing to be smoked when we are working on eliminating tobacco as a public nuisance.
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Evo said:
Except for flavoring food. Oh and there appear to be proven heart benefits for wine. Alcohol also thins the blood. But alcohol also destroys the liver, among other bad things. I'm thinking of cutting alcohol out for health reasons anyway. The Evo Child is against alcohol, she sees no reason to drink, and she's right. I keep asking her if she's ever seen me drunk, and she admitted she's never seen me drunk (I have a very high tolerance to alcohol), but she says that just because I am a "high functioning drinker", that it's still not good. I also will not drink and drive and I won't drink during the day. I believe in being as responsible as possible.

At least you are the one making the decision whether or not to drink, it is not being made for you by someone else for your own good. I think this is the whole point of this thread. Shouldn't people decide for themselves?
 
  • #65
the history channel did a series of shows on why drug laws were first enacted
common thread to all were racial discrimination

the drug laws are used by the white power structure to repress other groups
even their own kids in the case of current pot laws

social and religion based groups out side the christian church power base
are also a target of selective drug law enforcement
but that is no less then pure religious discremination

so in fact drug laws are far less about law or crime
and more a tool to repress certain groups deemed to be non main stream
chinese blacks mexicans hippies rock&rollers ravers and others have been victims
of the mis use of drug laws
 
  • #66
Evo said:
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. :-p

Holy fascism batman.

Evo said:
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.

Self-rightous police, pull over. Do you really think that everytime you get hungry, feel good after exercising or making "love" you're not riding some chemical high? In addition, people, in general are complex individuals, what you're presenting is a characiture from some 1960's mental hygiene video. I've talked about this in a previous post but what exactly is the criteria you're applying when dictating that smoking a joint is an unwholesome waste of time and curling up to a nice game of boggle is a wholesome waste of time? And for what reason do you think your oppressive inclinations should be heeded by the federal government?

Now it's certainly true that the notion that we live in a "free" society is a bit of a joke. In the immortal words of the Vandals "People talk about freedom, but if you think you're free, try walking into a deli, and urinating on the cheese". However, a society rests on a balance between freedom and legistlation and the western world likes to think it's more on the freedom side than most. And part of this is that it's not the government's job to enforce healthy living on its populace. We set up our governments this way, in part, because we knew they'd be absolutely terrible at it if they did. Now I'm on board with the argument that goods with direct negative externalities (good with externalities are good who have an effect on those outside the buyer/seller relationship, like second hand smoke) and to me that means stricter regulating of PUBLIC tobacco smoking (however, if you want to kill your lungs in the privacy of a properly ventilated room be my guest). And I also agree with the regulation of substances, such as pesticides and certain preservatives, that, quite simply, corporations would try to sneak into products unless there were direct regulations.

However, it is not the governments purvue (wow I sound like a liberitarian here when I'm REALLY not) to mandate leisure activities. You may find bad hollywood movies, porn, and american idol to be harmful to the average american intellect or disposition but the beauty of the system is your prejudices are just that, YOUR prejudices.

Now of course, this is the real world, and silly knee-jerk fascist mothers and corporate lobbyists have real pull in terms of regulation but let's recognize that for exactly what it is. A corruption of our governmental system. It may often be necessary for smooth operation (and to fill senator's war chest's) however let's not call it anything else.

P.S . And god help us if people who live the quiet family life and can't stand those damn teenagers and their drugs,sex and loud music become the moral center of our culture.
 
  • #67
Civilized said:
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."
Obviously. Do you think that that might somehow be related to the reason drinking is illegal for people under 21 in the US...?
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.
You're just going to have to trust me on this one: the biggest, most important change you'll notice in your life when you get out of college and get a real job is you'll stop drinking Natural Ice.
 
  • #68
russ_watters said:
You're just going to have to trust me on this one: the biggest, most important change you'll notice in your life when you get out of college and get a real job is you'll stop drinking Natural Ice.

"Colt 45 and 3 zig-zag's, baby that's all we need..."
 
  • #69
Yes I think I've seen the in between stage of this (and obviously the after stage) when everyone in your research group becomes obsessed with bloody microbrews.
 
  • #70
maverick_starstrider said:
P.S . And god help us if people who live the quiet family life and can't stand those damn teenagers and their drugs,sex and loud music become the moral center of our culture.
Ahaha, if that's directed at me, you have no clue.

I had a radio show on Pacifica radio in the early 70's. (think hippy pacifist, drug users that shaped society and politics in the early 70's). Our radio station tower was bombed by the KKK and I was next to Arlo Guthrie in the PBS documentary about it. I dated the VP of the Students for a Democratic Society. I am the most non-mainstream, non-religious, immoral :-p, person that has more illegal drug experience than anyone here, except perhaps for Rayb. I also have a functioning brain and can make mature decisions.
Oh, and that's because I learned from each "test" of each drug that losing control is not something to be desired. I know people that died from drug overdoses, I have high school friends still in prison for dealing heroin, I've seen people murdered in front of me in bad neighborhoods. I've pretty much seen it all, and learned a lot from it.
 
  • #71
Evo said:
Ahaha, if that's directed at me, you have no clue.

No, just a generalization of the average anti-marijuana proponent. Helluva story though (not sarcasm).
 
  • #72
Evo said:
Ahaha, if that's directed at me, you have no clue.

I had a radio show on Pacifica radio in the early 70's. (think hippy pacifist, drug users that shaped society and politics in the early 70's). Our radio station tower was bombed by the KKK and I was next to Arlo Guthrie in the PBS documentary about it. I dated the VP of the Students for a Democratic Society. I am the most non-mainstream, non-religious, immoral :-p, person that has more illegal drug experience than anyone here, except perhaps for Rayb. I also have a functioning brain and can make mature decisions.
Oh, and that's because I learned from each "test" of each drug that losing control is not something to be desired. I know people that died from drug overdoses, I have high school friends still in prison for dealing heroin, I've seen people murdered in front of me in bad neighborhoods. I've pretty much seen it all, and learned a lot from it.
Most of the really bad results (killings, prison sentences, accidental overdose, etc) could be mitigated or eliminated by legalizing and controlling drugs, much as prescription drugs are controlled. Prohibition creates an organized criminal class that uses obscene profits on otherwise-cheap drugs to fuel violence, eliminate rivals and control territory. The price of prohibiting and criminalizing recreational drugs is huge, both in economic and social damages. The DEA and the drug-dealers agree - "keep drugs illegal".
 
  • #73
Ya, I was reading an article the other day that an obscene percentage (I can't actually remember the number) of the american penal system is filled with people who have commited what the article called "consentual crimes" including dealing and possession of drugs. Consensual crimes are ones in which every one involved was a willing participant (so not violent or theft or the like). That seems rather silly to me. Like making suicide illegal
 
  • #74
maverick_starstrider said:
called "consentual crimes" including dealing and possession of drugs. ... That seems rather silly to me.
By the rather odd logic of macro-economics this is the argument for making drugs illegal.
All the costs of policing, imprisonment, the proceeds of crimes and the costs of replacing stolen goods all add to the GDP.
 
  • #75
mgb_phys said:
By the rather odd logic of macro-economics this is the argument for making drugs illegal.
All the costs of policing, imprisonment, the proceeds of crimes and the costs of replacing stolen goods all add to the GDP.

That's a kin to the silly argument that in a green economy people are wealthier. We have the exact same size pie, we're just cutting it up differently.
 
  • #76
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
Ivan, I'm shocked to read one of your posts that I agree with entirely! Too many people believe that the legitimate role of government is to control or change society, instead of being a necessary evil for the purpose of protecting liberty from criminals/invaders.
 
  • #77
Evo said:
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. :-p
It seems to me that most here are not trying to give a credible reason to smoke pot, they're trying to give a credible reason not to use force against and imprison people for smoking pot.

Although, if you really don't know other reasons to smoke pot than to get stoned, I'd suggest a little research. It clearly relieves pain, anxiety, nausea, lack of appetite, etc. Sure there are other drugs that have similar effects, but they are usually a lot harder to get.
 
  • #78
IMP said:
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.
This is a very good point, and the converse is true as well, making and enforcing a law can be a criminal act by that definition.
 
  • #79
Evo:
I would support legalization of marijuana in pill or liquid form only. I just don't agree that we need yet another thing to be smoked when we are working on eliminating tobacco as a public nuisance.

I guess you didn't read my earlier post, Check the link.

Vaporization of cannabis material effectively cuts out all carcinogens without any appreciable effect on the delivery of THC. I'm surprised you are not aware of this technique with all your past experience.

In any case, you can't ruin peoples lives and throw them in jail for something that is considered a 'public nuisance'. And how is it 'public' if the consumption is done in private?
 
  • #80
Quick question: what are people's opinions of seat belt laws? Mandatory health/car insurance?
 
  • #81
There is currently a fairly big movement pushing legalization here in California. The rationale that they are putting up is that pot smokers want to have their habit legalized so they can pay taxes on it and help out the economy. I think that there is some rather significant support for it at the moment particularly with the current economic situation and our budget shortfall.

Just a few monthes ago there was a story about marijuana sales supposedly accounting for approximately two third's of Mendocino County's local economy (That's where Humboldt is for those that don't know).
 
  • #82
russ_watters said:
Quick question: what are people's opinions of seat belt laws?
As a cyclist, not only should seal belts be banned, but all SUVs should have a 6inch spike sticking out of the middle of the steering wheel.
 
  • #83
russ_watters said:
Quick question: what are people's opinions of seat belt laws? Mandatory health/car insurance?

By law all manufacturers should have to put them in. I don't know if I'm really on the same page when the law mandates that you MUST wear them. If you want to get yourself killed be my guest. I don't get extreme sports but I wouldn't suggest banning them. However, it seems to mainly be a ticketable offence so maybe it's just a cash grab.
 
  • #84
This thread is so sad. Yes, what the world needs is better access to recreational drugs, because it is so important that everyone gets stoned on the drug of their choice. How about fighting for quicker approval of new drugs that help with serious illness or geting research funded for orphan illnesses? No. We need to get up in arms about being able to get stoned. Unreal.
 
  • #85
Evo said:
This thread is so sad. Yes, what the world needs is better access to recreational drugs, because it is so important that everyone gets stoned on the drug of their choice. How about fighting for quicker approval of new drugs that help with serious illness or geting research funded for orphan illnesses? No. We need to get up in arms about being able to get stoned. Unreal.

That's one of the worst arguments ever. Is that what you say when you see a bunch of people having fun? "You people are so sad, you're here having fun and wasting time while millions of people are starving and dying, why don't you go and do something to help them?"
 
  • #86
dx said:
That's one of the worst arguments ever. Is that what you say when you see a bunch of people having fun? "You people are so sad, you're here having fun and wasting time while millions of people are starving and dying, why don't you go and do something to help them?"
Equating getting drugged to having normal fun, I don't know what to say to that. :bugeye: That's even sadder.
 
  • #87
Evo said:
Equating getting drugged to having normal fun, I don't know what to say to that. :bugeye: That's even sadder.

Well who's to say that getting drugged up isn't "normal fun"? I know I said earlier that I don't think marijuana shouldn't be legalized because that makes it socially acceptable... but that doesn't mean I think it's immoral. It's more about protecting young people from getting hooked before they're old enough to understand the consequences of their actions.

You seem to think recreational drug use is immoral, Evo. Why?
 
  • #88
tchitt said:
Well who's to say that getting drugged up isn't "normal fun"? I know I said earlier that I don't think marijuana shouldn't be legalized because that makes it socially acceptable... but that doesn't mean I think it's immoral. It's more about protecting young people from getting hooked before they're old enough to understand the consequences of their actions.

You seem to think recreational drug use is immoral, Evo. Why?

I think legalization would help prevent young people from smoking pot.
The "just say no" policy is completely ineffective.
We should be giving facts to people my age, not scare tactics.
 
  • #89
Evo said:
Equating getting drugged to having normal fun, I don't know what to say to that. :bugeye: That's even sadder.

So by that right drinking alcohol should be in that same boat for you. After all, it IS a drug that was legalized.. Correct? Am I right?

If not why do you differentiate between the two? Marijuana is PROVEN in COUNTLESS studies to be effectively harmless to your body, including the second-hand smoke from it, while alcohol is known to destroy your body.

Drinking alcohol is getting druged, but that is considered having normal fun, by pretty much all accounts.
 
  • #90
Martini said:
I think legalization would help prevent young people from smoking pot.
The "just say no" policy is completely ineffective.
We should be giving facts to people my age, not scare tactics.

Agreed, and that's a very good point.
 

Similar threads

News Will the New Internet Sales Tax Affect Online Shopping?
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
News Do You Know Why Trump is Popular?
  • · Replies 340 ·
12
Replies
340
Views
32K
News Support for American/Nato forces in Afghanistan
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
News Does 'pack journalism' shape the science news we read?
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
News BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?
  • · Replies 364 ·
13
Replies
364
Views
28K
News Why do USA people vote on republicans?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
How many steel profiles do I need to support a workshop roof in Santiago, Chile?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
News Is Net Neutrality Really Necessary?
  • · Replies 114 ·
4
Replies
114
Views
15K
News Smurf's Views on State Welfare Support
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
Honor student thrown in jail and fined
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K