News Do you support legalisation of marijuana?

[mbisCool]

You ask for a cite-able source then provide anecdotal evidence for your claim. It is true that many support the legalization (or at least decriminalization) of marijuana, although I believe they are still the minority nation wide. Many of the major media outlets cite recent polls with approximately a 56% or so approval rating in California alone. The rest of the country is not quite as open to a liberal drug policy. I believe the numbers were in the lower 40%'s nation wide. These results are by no means definitive, however, I believe they provide a decent indication; I will search for the results a little later.

I am surrounded by pro marijuana individuals everyday as well. I am young and live in Washington however.

 

[Woody101]

drankin: Prohibition was supposed to stop the comsuptuon of alcohol by making it illegal to sell it. If you would care to crack a history book you might find that all it did was make a bunch of gangsters and politicians rich but it never put a dent in the consumption of alcohol. Some people seem to operate under the falicy that if you make something illegal it stops that particular behavior. Once again we are trying to legislate morality with drugs and in the process all we are doing is making a bunch of gangsters and politicians rich. I believe it was Einstein who said "it is stupid to do more of the same thing and expect different results". Those who want to use drugs will do so if it is legal or not, so I say let them fry their brains if the want. To me it seems senseless to throw away billions upon billions on programs that don't work when they could be better spent.

 

[ray b]

Someone a while back mentioned that Carl Sagan smoked pot and was of the opinion that he did his best thinking when high. Maybe that was true for him, but it isn't generally true. I'd been the only sober person in a circle of pot smokers a number of times and I wish I had a camcorder sometimes - not just because it was funny, but to show people the next day that no, those things they were saying last night were not profound, they were just dumb. They only sound profound because when you're high you can't understand your own ideas, which makes you think they are deep.

by your statement of at night the people you were around were not working
they were just relaxing or partying and not trying to do anything

a short list of known great things
by people who did do a few things while high on pot and other drugs

this little thing we call the internet and the home computer
and most of the hard and software used to make it work

much of the modern entertainment industry from movies to music
artists poets and many other creative people

to say all people get insights or develop new great ideas
is just as wrong as saying nobody does anything useful
while on drugs
but clearly some do
and everyone is better off from some of those ideas

 

[jreelawg]

I still don't see it fair to call pot a vice without the proper context. As a prescription drug is it a vice? Define vice.

 

[camilus]

drankin: Prohibition was supposed to stop the comsuptuon of alcohol by making it illegal to sell it. If you would care to crack a history book you might find that all it did was make a bunch of gangsters and politicians rich but it never put a dent in the consumption of alcohol. Some people seem to operate under the falicy that if you make something illegal it stops that particular behavior. Once again we are trying to legislate morality with drugs and in the process all we are doing is making a bunch of gangsters and politicians rich. I believe it was Einstein who said "it is stupid to do more of the same thing and expect different results". Those who want to use drugs will do so if it is legal or not, so I say let them fry their brains if the want. To me it seems senseless to throw away billions upon billions on programs that don't work when they could be better spent.

great point. I believe the war on drugs is a lost cause, we might as well just cut our losses. How you said, the money COULD be better spent. And legal or illegal I am still going to smoke weed. They build more prisons than schools, and waste billions of dollars to put me in jail for nothing.

 

[JRDunassigned]

I just want to see America start hemp farms and use the product for profit - it's an excellent alternative to cutting down trees for paper or using cotton for clothes. In fact, the Framers of the Constitution recognized it's utility nature; it was grown here in America in the 1700s.

 

[Hepth]

I still don't see it fair to call pot a vice without the proper context. As a prescription drug is it a vice? Define vice.

As a prescription, no its not a vice. As a recreational drug, yes it is and will be until they start diagnosing boredom as a medical condition.

vice
1  /vaɪs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [vahys] Show IPA ,
–noun
1. an immoral or evil habit or practice.
2. immoral conduct; depraved or degrading behavior: a life of vice.
3. sexual immorality, esp. prostitution.
4. a particular form of depravity.
5. a fault, defect, or shortcoming: a minor vice in his literary style.
6. a physical defect, flaw, or infirmity: a constitutional vice.
7. a bad habit, as in a horse.

I prefer #5, and #7. Especially the horse part.EDIT: And yes I would consider all of these vices:
Sweets, Fast Food, Soda, Alcohol, Weed, Taking Prescription drugs that aren't yours, caffeine, etc.

Basically anything unnecessary that is physically or mentally detrimental, done for the sole purpose of entertainment.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

I don't think I've ever ingested caffeine for the purpose of entertainment. Although maybe that's just me, maybe other people find drinking a coke a laugh riot.

 

[Hepth]

I don't think I've ever ingested caffeine for the purpose of entertainment. Although maybe that's just me, maybe other people find drinking a coke a laugh riot.

Eh, enjoying a beverage is entertainment in my book. Can't be so acute with your definitions.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Eh, enjoying a beverage is entertainment in my book. Can't be so acute with your definitions.

So's reading a good book. Is reading a vice?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So's reading a good book. Is reading a vice?

It can be. I've spent hundreds of dollars on books for entertainment in only a couple of days before. And I often even buy crappy newstand paperbacks just to have something to read.

Just about anything can be a vice really.

Edit: and there are in fact people (mostly young people) who drink large quantities of caffeine because its a legal means of getting spun.

 

[jgens]

drankin: Prohibition was supposed to stop the comsuptuon of alcohol by making it illegal to sell it. If you would care to crack a history book you might find that all it did was make a bunch of gangsters and politicians rich but it never put a dent in the consumption of alcohol.

Strictly speaking, this isn't true. Many modern historical studies have actually shown that net alcohol consumption in the United States dropped significantly because of the prohibition of alcohol. However, to your point, it did essentially spark the beginnings of organized crime and alcohol was still available for consumption in speakeasies.

 

[robertm]

Again, why do people think it should be up to society at large to decide what "vices" one can or can not partake? What ever happened to individual autonomy, maturity, conscious?

I side with Henry:

[1849, original title: Resistance to Civil Government]

I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have.

I do not and will not submit to micromanagement of my life such as this from government, and I wonder why so many feel as if I should? Given the opportunity, I myself would never attempt to wield such authority over thinking men and women. Why are there so many who would and do?

 

[Hepth]

So's reading a good book. Is reading a vice?

Really? Did you not even read my post?

"Basically anything unnecessary that is physically or mentally detrimental, done for the sole purpose of entertainment. "

I don't think a book falls under that category...

 

[Hepth]

What ever happened to individual autonomy, maturity, conscious?

A guy who had one too many beers in the privacy of his house, lost his ability to make smart decisions, and decided to do a quick run down to taco bell, veered into oncoming traffic and killed a family of 5.

If that would NEVER happen, i don't think the majority of people in the USA would care if people drank at home, or smoked, or partook in drugs. But it DOES happen, all too frequently with alcohol. So many have this reluctance, among other reasons, to introduce yet another perception impairing drug into the legal consumption market, regardless if it would actually increase the danger. Its the FEAR of the possible danger that would keep them from voting it.But regardless, my opinion is let the supreme court decide if we have a RIGHT to take any drug in our own homes. When they decide that we don't, let the states make up their own minds by popular vote.

 

[tchitt]

I love how no one arguing for legalization in here has responded to my one simple statement.

"The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do."

I know I said I wouldn't post in this topic again but I'd like to hear something from someone.

A guy who had one too many beers in the privacy of his house, lost his ability to make smart decisions, and decided to do a quick run down to taco bell, veered into oncoming traffic and killed a family of 5.

Exactly. It's not that hard a concept to grasp.

I already know you'll argue that keeping it illegal is not going to stop anyone. But you'd be wrong because most people do follow the law from fear of being caught. If nothing else the danger is reduced.

 

[jreelawg]

Really? Did you not even read my post?

"Basically anything unnecessary that is physically or mentally detrimental, done for the sole purpose of entertainment. "

I don't think a book falls under that category...

If it is a book of hate, or a book promoting immoral behavior, or if it is a deceptive book made to promote lies, or a romance novel, or something then it could very well be a vice.

 

[robertm]

A guy who had one too many beers in the privacy of his house, lost his ability to make smart decisions, and decided to do a quick run down to taco bell, veered into oncoming traffic and killed a family of 5.

Maybe you haven't followed the whole thread, but I have already stated my opinion of judicial action against those who put their fellow citizens in danger.

Anyone who would allow themselves to be in the position that you described in the first place, never had maturity to begin with. So should people be encouraged to grow up and educate themselves, or should the government hold our hands, cover our eyes, and save us from the big bad realities of being alive?

And more specifically what does this have to do with marijuana decriminalization? Seeing as unfortunate accidents such as this (and many others) happen quite often across the states yet alcohol remains (and will remain) legal?

 

[jreelawg]

"The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do."

This is a poor argument given that people on cannabis are less likely to harm another, except in the case of a car accident or something like that. But, it is illegal to drive drunk or high anyways. A similar scenario is that a 14 year old kid took is fathers sports car for a joy ride and ran into a minivan killing a family of 5. The same thing, someone broke the law, and someone got killed, but I wouldn't say this is a good argument for making cars illegal.

 

[tchitt]

This is a poor argument given that people on cannabis are less likely to harm another, except in the case of a car accident or something like that. But, it is illegal to drive drunk or high anyways. A similar scenario is that a 14 year old kid took is fathers sports car for a joy ride and ran into a minivan killing a family of 5. The same thing, someone broke the law, and someone got killed, but I wouldn't say this is a good argument to making cars illegal.

How do you enforce people not driving high?! Nothing short of a blood test would show that you had drugs in your system at the time, and it is therefore completely unenforceable.

Cars are a necessity in modern society, weed is not. Stop reaching just because you like to get high.

 

[jreelawg]

How do you enforce people not driving high?! Nothing short of a blood test would show that you had drugs in your system at the time, and it is therefore completely unenforceable.

Cars are a necessity in modern society, weed is not. Stop reaching just because you like to get high.

I think it is reaching to say that it is completely unenforcable. I personally know of people who got DUI's for smoking. They have tests, shining the flashlight in your eyes, etc, which are pretty accurate for a properly trained officer. If they suspect you, they can take you in a do a pee test. They also can do tests to see how impared you are in general. Perhaps if you were barely stoned, and still in total control, you wouldn't get a DUI. You would however be likely to smell like it.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

A guy who had one too many beers in the privacy of his house, lost his ability to make smart decisions, and decided to do a quick run down to taco bell, veered into oncoming traffic and killed a family of 5.

Well why don't we ban cars then, or taco bells for that matter. Wife cheats on husband, husband kills wife, should we ban adultery? Man gets obsessed with sudoku, neglects new born child which dies. Should we ban sudoku?

But regardless, my opinion is let the supreme court decide if we have a RIGHT to take any drug in our own homes. When they decide that we don't, let the states make up their own minds by popular vote.

Yes, that would almost make sense wouldn't it. Not that something like that would ever happen of course but even if it did it would probably be BS. Most western countries have constitutions set up with tenets that trump public referendum. Like america and its first amendment right to freedom of expression and religion.

 

[tchitt]

Well why don't we ban cars then, or taco bells for that matter. Wife cheats on husband, husband kills wife, should we ban adultery? Man gets obsessed with sudoku, neglects new born child which dies. Should we ban sudoku?.

By the same token, husband gets high on meth for three weeks and develops amphetamine psychosis and starts hallucinating from sleep deprivation. Man kills wife. Should we ban meth?

You only believe in common sense when it serves your own point of view? Or do you think people should be able to buy eight-balls at their local gas stations, too?

I think it is reaching to say that it is completely unenforcable. I personally know of people who got DUI's for smoking. They have tests, shining the flashlight in your eyes, etc, which are pretty accurate for a properly trained officer. If they suspect you, they can take you in a do a pee test. They also can do tests to see how impared you are in general. Perhaps if you were barely stoned, and still in total control, you wouldn't get a DUI. You would however be likely to smell like it.

Okay maybe it's not completely unenforceable but it's a hell of a lot less enforceable than alcohol. If you smoke at home then go for a spin you probably wouldn't smell it at all.

Books aren't physically addictive.

The fact that you are comparing drugs to basically any and every other activity is pretty telling.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

Cars are a necessity in modern society, weed is not. Stop reaching just because you like to get high.

Actually I really don't like weed and I tend to have negative opinions of users. That doesn't make me think I have the right to go Johnny Fascist on liberty. I don't want my government trying to exercise that kind of control over its population. I think it's in complete disregard of the fundamental principles of said governments creation. Although for a person who's icon has soviet iconography you may disagree.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

By the same token, husband gets high on meth for three weeks and develops amphetamine psychosis and starts hallucinating from sleep deprivation. Man kills wife. Should we ban meth?

You only believe in common sense when it serves your own point of view? Or do you think people should be able to buy eight-balls at their local gas stations?

Well let's also not forget that meth is a result of despirtation in the war on drugs. If drugs were legalized, they wouldn't be laced with other things and they're be a huge industry to make drugs that performed their recreational function while minimizing unwanted side-effects.

 

[jreelawg]

There are a very large number of substances ranging from painkillers, to flu medicine, to anti-depressants, which are both legal, and illegal to use while operating a vehicle. It wouldn't make sense to ban all of these things all together.

 

[jreelawg]

By the same token, husband gets high on meth for three weeks and develops amphetamine psychosis and starts hallucinating from sleep deprivation. Man kills wife. Should we ban meth?

You only believe in common sense when it serves your own point of view? Or do you think people should be able to buy eight-balls at their local gas stations?

Meth is another drug which is obviously very bad, and should be illegal, but there is no comparison between the two. You might as well compare meth to cough syrup. There aren't any stories I know of where the influence of pot made somebody kill someone.

In fact I bet there are instances where man paced around contemplated killing wife, then smoked a bowl, calmed down, and ate a cookie. I know my uncle in law is like this. He has anger management issues, likes to pace around in a rage and start trouble, but when he smokes some pot, he calms down is less threatening to himself and others.

Also, meth is not a natural substance while pot is. So there is a difference between a naturally occurring plant, and a chemical that requires sophisticated and very dangerous process involving very toxic and lethal chemicals.

 

[maverick_starstrider]

By the same token, husband gets high on meth for three weeks and develops amphetamine psychosis and starts hallucinating from sleep deprivation. Man kills wife. Should we ban meth?

You only believe in common sense when it serves your own point of view? Or do you think people should be able to buy eight-balls at their local gas stations, too?

Plus my whole point is that it would be SILLY to bad adultery or to ban sudoku. So by trying to repeat my speech pattern back it would follow that I'm suggesting it would be silly to ban meth which I think it is. Especially since things like meth exist not because people want all the potentially dangerous side effects but because they can't get their hand on other drugs because they're too expensive because of anti-drug laws.

 

[robertm]

"The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do."

Small personal use possession laws protect people? In what manner? Surely you don't mean to say 'protecting their sensibilities' from people who chose to have experiences that they don't understand? Consumption of a substance puts no one in danger but the person doing the consumption. You might as well say, " The government is protecting people who don't read books from people who do read books." Most people choose to read quietly in private. Some people however, attempt to read while operating motor vehicles or while on lifeguard duty, and as a result people get hurt. Solution? Ban reading books. I don't think so.

Overwhelmingly, people who smoke marijuana do so because they want to experience an altered state of consciousness. Responsibility must be practiced when partaking of mind altering substances in order to avoid endangering ones fellows. People who want to partake without being responsible should be held lawfully accountable for the mistake of public endangerment. People who partake with all the necessary preparations for safety, or simply avoid contact with people, have committed no crime.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Although for a person who's icon has soviet iconography you may disagree.

It's hard to tell since there are no stars and blue but if you look close it looks like it is depicting the soviet icon 'setting' (like the sun) behind an american flag.

 

[tchitt]

Actually I really don't like weed and I tend to have negative opinions of users. That doesn't make me think I have the right to go Johnny Fascist on liberty. I don't want my government trying to exercise that kind of control over its population. I think it's in complete disregard of the fundamental principles of said governments creation. Although for a person who's icon has soviet iconography you may disagree.

My avatar is a political statement on the current government's liberal policies. I'm not a communist.

Well let's also not forget that meth is a result of despirtation in the war on drugs. If drugs were legalized, they wouldn't be laced with other things and they're be a huge industry to make drugs that performed their recreational function while minimizing unwanted side-effects.

People have been getting high on meth since long before the war on drugs started. If you knew anything about meth or had used it yourself you'd know that the side-effects are not from the impurities in it but from the drug itself. (The pure, pharmaceutical version is called desoxyn.) It's a lot of fun, and it feels oh-so-good. That doesn't change the fact that you're reaching when it comes to the driving argument... does marijuana not impair your ability to operate machinery? Yes, I believe alcohol should probably be prohibited as well... I don't like double standards.

There are a very large number of substances ranging from painkillers, to flu medicine, to anti-depressants, which are both legal, and illegal to use while operating a vehicle. It wouldn't make sense to ban all of these things all together.

As a matter of fact it really bothers me that opioids, sedatives, anti-depressents etc. are prescribed so liberally in this country. I do believe they should be more strictly regulated if not outlawed altogether seeing as how no one knows exactly how or why they work the way they do.

Meth is another drug which is obviously very bad, and should be illegal, but there is no comparison between the two. You might as well compare meth to cough syrup. There aren't any stories I know of where the influence of pot made somebody kill someone.

In fact I bet there are instances where man paced around contemplated killing wife, then smoked a bowl, calmed down, and ate a cookie.

You're right... amphetamines and uppers in general are much worse than cannabinoids. But if a man in his right mind is seriously contemplating killing his wife, then he's got much bigger problems.

Edit: Because no one can seem to figure it out: http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5041/45948590.jpg http://www.barackobama.com/

 

[jreelawg]

You're right... amphetamines and uppers in general are much worse than cannabinoids. But if a man in his right mind is seriously contemplating killing his wife, then he's got much bigger problems.

[/url]

Because someone is not under the influence of drugs doesn't mean they are in their right mind. There are lots of things that are mind altering including anger, sleep deprivation, sex, etc.

 

[tchitt]

Because someone is not under the influence of drugs doesn't mean they are in their right mind. There are lots of things that are mind altering including anger, sleep deprivation, sex, etc.

And these are all unavoidable parts of life, unlike drugs.

 

[robertm]

There are lots of things that are mind altering

Technically, your mind is 'altering' every fraction of a second until the day you die.

Hey maybe we should just ban human life! No mind altering allowed you damn hippies!

 

[jreelawg]

The mind altering that should be banned are the kind which exploit these natural mind altering emotions and cravings to get us to vote for somebody or buy a product.

 

[tchitt]

The mind altering that should be banned are the kind which exploit these natural mind altering emotions and cravings to get us to vote for somebody or buy a product.

So now you're opposed to voting AND capitalism? So much for freedom.

 

[Pythagorean]

I love how no one arguing for legalization in here has responded to my one simple statement.

"The government is protecting people who don't use drugs from people who do."

"Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither"Drug dealers:
"Please don't legalize marijuana, then I have to compete with the government's low prices"

 

[maverick_starstrider]

So now you're opposed to voting AND capitalism? So much for freedom.

Uhh dude, you're the one who is basically suggesting we ban anything that might or might not incite a criminal mindset. Which, by the way, could be pretty much anything. A TV program, a religion, a book, a drug. It kinda reminds my of the John Lennon song Imagine (which is ironic, what with his drug use and all) and how that song always bugged me. Basically, he's suggesting that if we removed all possible provoking elements of the human existence the world would be a better place. Which also draws an interesting parallel to Brave New World where they basically had that (well almost) and they used DRUGS to do it.

I've always been of the mind that widespread drug abuse is just a symptom of poverty, uneducation and organized crime. So in my mind make the drugs legal and use the money to get rid of the cause and you could also make safer drugs in the process.

P.S. Crystal Meth and Crack very much owe their popularity to the war on drugs.

 

[jreelawg]

So now you're opposed to voting AND capitalism? So much for freedom.

I'm not opposed to capitalism. I don't really mean it literally, just generally opposed to shady manipulative advertising aimed at altering a persons mind for personal benefit.

Generally this bugs me because of the amount of people in this world who don't think for themselves, they belong to some kind of group who thinks for them. This may include, religions, cults, political parties, etc.

You obviously can't ban deception, but it still sucks.

I don't like commercials for serious prescription drugs where they play nice calm peaceful music while listing horrible side effects and showing people dancing around like butterflies. They should play something like megadeath while reading the side effects for more realistic effect.

 

[tchitt]

Uhh dude, you're the one who is basically suggesting we ban anything that might or might not incite a criminal mindset. Which, by the way, could be pretty much anything. A TV program, a religion, a book, a drug. It kinda reminds my of the John Lennon song Imagine (which is ironic, what with his drug use and all) and how that song always bugged me. Basically, he's suggesting that if we removed all possible provoking elements of the human existence the world would be a better place. Which also draws an interesting parallel to Brave New World where they basically had that (well almost) and they used DRUGS to do it.

I've always been of the mind that widespread drug abuse is just a symptom of poverty, uneducation and organized crime. So in my mind make the drugs legal and use the money to get rid of the cause and you could also make safer drugs in the process.

P.S. Crystal Meth and Crack very much owe their popularity to the war on drugs.

I'm not suggesting we ban anything that might or might not incite a criminal mindset. I'm not even saying that anyone who does anything criminal on drugs had a criminal mindset. I'm saying crime just tend to happen when your inhibitions are lowered... which happens when you decide to take drugs.

The song Imagine always bugged me too... Our political views are probably quite similar if you take drugs out of the equation.

I don't believe widespread drug abuse is a symptom of poverty. Spears, Jackson, Lohan, DeLorean, Kobain, Pressley, Barton... You could argue that heavy drug abuse is a symptom of wealth. Drugs feel good. I've often wondered what would happen to me if I had millions of dollars in the bank... what with being an addict and all. Not being able to afford it might be the only thing that keeps me from going off the rails.

Alcohol is legalized and it drains our economy... as opposed to stimulating it. There wouldn't be any "extra money" to use to combat dependency.

Safer drugs? That's like saying "safer cigarettes".

 

[jreelawg]

Actually, I am on the edge when it comes to the issue of parenting. The real epidemic is bad parenting more often than not because a parent is abusing a drug. Which is kind of tough because it is bad parenting that leads to drug abuse, and it is drug abuse which leads to bad parenting.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I don't believe widespread drug abuse is a symptom of poverty.

The highest rates of drug abuse are among the poor. The only drugs that are used more by rich people than poor people are the ones that are too expensive for poor people to afford.

Alcohol is legalized and it drains our economy... as opposed to stimulating it. There wouldn't be any "extra money" to use to combat dependency.

According to history that money for dependency programs will likely wind up in crime prevention with some still going to dependency.

 

[Al68]

OK, where did the "body of the people" get the right to imprison a person for using alcohol in their home?

Because it's their community. Majority rules. That's pretty much the way it works. If you want it to be different then you have to convince people to agree with you.

You just explained what the majority can do, not the justification for it.

My personal actions are "their community"? Is there no limit to what the majority should do to individuals to get their way? I'm not arguing about what the majority can do, but what they have the right to do.

 

[JRDunassigned]

You just explained what the majority can do, not the justification for it.

My personal actions are "their community"? Is there no limit to what the majority should do to individuals to get their way? I'm not arguing about what the majority can do, but what they have the right to do.

You're reaching closely at the idea of the "tyranny of the majority", an idea expressed in the Federalist Papers, geez even further back to Plato's work. Usually it was referenced with violence in mind, but here could possibly be an example of the non-violent forms it expresses itself.

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

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

You just explained what the majority can do, not the justification for it.

My personal actions are "their community"? Is there no limit to what the majority should do to individuals to get their way? I'm not arguing about what the majority can do, but what they have the right to do.

'Rights' are a social/legal fiction.

'Can' and 'cannot' is more realistic. The majority can institute laws that say you are not allowed to smoke marijuana. The majority can attempt to enforce those laws. Any abstract notion of the 'right' to do something is irrelevant.

 

[Count Iblis]

Because it's their community. Majority rules. That's pretty much the way it works. If you want it to be different then you have to convince people to agree with you.

This is exactly how it doesn't work. The majority only rules with the consent of the minority. If that consent isn't there, repression has to be used, but that won't work in a free democratic country if the minority is some sizeable fraction of the population.

The fact that there exists a drugs problem is proof of this. The minority drugs users successfully defies the will of the majority, creating problems in society. These problems can only be respolved if the governement goes against the will of the majority and legalizes all drugs.

Iraq is actually also a good example of the flawed notion that the majority rules in a democracy. In that case, you had the Neo-Cons in the US who thought that after removing Saddam from power and after holding elections etc. etc, they could ignore any political dimensions to the insurgency, that it was purely a matter of fighting them as everything on he political front would be taken care off by the democratic political process in Iraq: The majority rules.

The Surge in Iraq worked because consessions were made to the Sunnis, something they could never get via the political process alone. Also, the Iraqi government was forced to cut all ties with Shia militias. The US military dno longer had to fight Sunni insurgents in Al Anbar and then could go after the Shia militias in Baghdad who now had lost their backing from the Iraqi Interior Ministery.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

This is exactly how it doesn't work. The majority only rules with the consent of the minority. If that consent isn't there, repression has to be used, but that won't work in a free democratic country if the minority is some sizeable fraction of the population.

Well...

The fact that there exists a drugs problem is proof of this. The minority drugs users successfully defies the will of the majority, creating problems in society. These problems can only be respolved if the governement goes against the will of the majority and legalizes all drugs.

According to you it does work that way. We have a "War on Drugs" despite the fact that it is a sink hole for money and does not work. It doesn't work, it still goes on, and it does so because the majority seem to support it.
It can take only a few people in government to make drugs legal (a few judges, a few politicians) but that decision can easily be over turned by a majority. The California Supreme Court ruled that a ban on gay marriage was unconstitutional. What happened? A slim majority voted in an amendment to the state constitution to make it illegal again.

Iraq is actually also a good example of the flawed notion that the majority rules in a democracy. In that case, you had the Neo-Cons in the US who thought that after removing Saddam from power and after holding elections etc. etc, they could ignore any political dimensions to the insurgency, that it was purely a matter of fighting them as everything on he political front would be taken care off by the democratic political process in Iraq: The majority rules.

The Surge in Iraq worked because consessions were made to the Sunnis, something they could never get via the political process alone. Also, the Iraqi government was forced to cut all ties with Shia militias. The US military dno longer had to fight Sunni insurgents in Al Anbar and then could go after the Shia militias in Baghdad who now had lost their backing from the Iraqi Interior Ministery.

If you want it to be different then you have to convince people to agree with you.

Perhaps I should have added "...or to concede to you". You can make yourself a thorn in the side of the majority but this does not mean you get your way. The primary reason to be that thorn is that you still need the consent of the majority to have your way. You are attempting to "convince" them.

 

[Count Iblis]

The whole point of a ban on drugs is to make people stop using drugs. That is not happening. Some small fraction of the people who use drugs are prosecuted, but the vast majority who use drugs escape prosecution.

 

[turbo]

William F Buckley, Jr was a true conservative - one whom I could agree with on most issues, unlike the neo-cons who dominate GOP discourse these days. He very sensibly proposed that de-criminalization and regulation of recreational drugs would not only take critical funding from some very unsavory elements in our society, but would promote public health, generate tax revenue, and reduce the numbers of overdoses and slash the costs of our penal system. In the 1970's and 1980's, such views were not real popular with the powers that be. They still aren't, but it's probably time to revisit them.

The "war on drugs" is just as pathetic as prohibition, and it generates huge profits for gangs and disruptive elements in foreign countries. The two biggest opponents against legalizing and controlling drugs are gangs and the DEA.

 

[Pupil]

William F Buckley, Jr was a true conservative - one whom I could agree with on most issues, unlike the neo-cons who dominate GOP discourse these days. He very sensibly proposed that de-criminalization and regulation of recreational drugs would not only take critical funding from some very unsavory elements in our society, but would promote public health, generate tax revenue, and reduce the numbers of overdoses and slash the costs of our penal system. In the 1970's and 1980's, such views were not real popular with the powers that be. They still aren't, but it's probably time to revisit them.

The "war on drugs" is just as pathetic as prohibition, and it generates huge profits for gangs and disruptive elements in foreign countries. The two biggest opponents against legalizing and controlling drugs are gangs and the DEA.

No wonder marijuana is still illegal -- gangs are lobbying to keep it that way!

I completely agree with your post. +2 cool points for you.