News Do you support legalisation of marijuana?

[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.

 

[Civilized]

I'm saying crime just tend to happen when your inhibitions are lowered... which happens when you decide to take drugs.

This is a very weak argument for prohibition.

What evidence do you have that people are more likely to commit crimes under the influence of marijuana?

Does this conclusion of yours also apply to medical marijuana users who have obtained permission from their doctor and their state to use marijuana legally? Are these people more likely to commit crimes as well?

If the answer to my above question is "no", then you agree that there is no induced criminality that is inherently attributable to cannabis use. If the answer to the above is "yes", and you think that AIDs/Cancer patients, people with uncurable pain, seizures, depression, nausea, etc are more likely to commit crimes because of smoking their medical marijuana, then I would contend that you have been brainwashed by the government initiatives under the "war on drugs label" because their is no factual basis for such a position.

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

If you think that prohibition of drugs is compatible with the general philosophy of the song 'Imagine' by John Lennon, then either you are critically misinformed about drugs, misunderstood the song, or possibly both.

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

No, it is not very similar. Drugs like meth and crack are extremely damaging and dangerous at all times. Cocaine is moderately damaging and quite dangerous as a street drug, heroin is inherently not damaging but is extremely dangerous as a street drug, and marijuana is inherently not damaging but is moderately dangerous as a street drug.

The differences in the dangers of various recreational drugs are by all statistical measures (functional impairment tests, LD50, etc) several orders of magnitude wider than the statistical difference between the worse drug store tobacco with most noxious additives and the conneseur no-additive natural tobacco sold in specialty shops.

It would be hard for anyone to debate that ALL drugs become significantly safer when used in a legal and controlled setting. No one has ever died due to a chemical overdose of marijuana, and I challenge you to find any documented case of increased risk of lung cancer attributable to marijuana alone with no tobacco involved. This idea that people become mentally out of control when under the influence of cannabis is an insulting stereotype based on anecdotal reports of immature users. I have already mentioned Carl Sagan, I will also mention Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould who used medical marijuana for cancer for over a decade while still publishing books and doing important work. Before beginning this treatment Gould was concerned about the mental effects of daily cannabis use, but after giving it a try he found that it did not inhibit his ability to do work (and certainly did not make him more likely to commit crimes, that is insulting). Then there is Feynman, the nobel prize winning physicist who like to smoke marijuana later in his career, who stayed sharp till the end in the eyes of everyone who knew him, and who certainly did not become more criminal due to his recreational use.

 

[Al68]

'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.

It's certainly not irrelevant to me, as I am a strong believer in natural rights.

The concept of natural rights was the foundation of the Enlightenment and classical liberal philosophy, as well as the American Revolution. And many people have killed and died for this "social/legal fiction" as you call it.

But you do make a good point, the same one made by Ben Franklin in his famous quote, "Force s$$ts on reason's back." A society with some people willing to defend their natural rights, and others desiring to infringe on them by force, will never live in peace.

Do you expect the ones who want nothing more than to be left alone to be the ones to just surrender to oppression? Or is it more practical to expect that we can only live in peace when the oppressors lose power, give up, or die?

 

[Al68]

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.

I guess you've never heard of a sobriety test?

 

[Al68]

A hundred years ago, I could walk into a pharmacy and buy...

Um, how old are you?

 

[Evo]

I guess you've never heard of a sobriety test?

Sobriety tests are after the fact. It's when you are caught.

I've been a passenger in cars driven by people high on pot as they stradled the raised esplande, ripping their muffler off, as they drive over curbs and up into yards, enter a one way street going the wrong and weave into uncoming trafic.

 

[jgens]

Um, how old are you?

Not that I'm defending Camilus or his position but he is correct that heroin was legal in the United States about 100 years ago. There were even advertisements proclaiming its "health benefits."

 

[Evo]

There is just too much misinformation and overly speculative posts to be moderated. This thread is going in circles and is not productive. Closed.