Should Cannabis Remain Illegal Amid Growing Debate?

[Some Slacker]

Firstly: calm down. Secondly with the exception of the clear physical dependency that a lot of drugs create you are partly right, people take them for enjoyment and escapism.

We were talking about cannabis, not "a lot of drugs", mental dependency is all there is for pot, as in, wow, I like this, I can't wait to do this again!

But you can't deny that most drugs are easily and readily abused, far more so than fruit. To have a sensible and balanced discussion about drug policy you have to acknowledge that.

Yeah, he picked a bad example... fruit?!? why not say sugared fizzy drinks? chips? bacon cheeseburgers? None of these are drugs and I'm sure they get 'abused' in record numbers at least in the US.

I just want my smokable beer! I don't care, tax it (at some shop or whatever where you can buy it), regulate it (keep away from children, and FFS don't advertise it! I can't imagine what commercials would be like for northern lights or whatever! LOL!), find a way to find out who's high and just how high are they at THIS moment (I firmly believe that without this, this is a NO-GO, otherwise it returns to being illegal if you've smoked in the last 30ish days), and charge for the right to grow your own (some yearly fee in lieu of the tax you won't be paying (since the stuff grows like a weed) to keep up appearances that you are part of the tax system).

I really can't think of anything else at the moment, my drug addled mind isn't always my friend. Yes, drug addled... been an abuser since 1982. Not bragging, simply stating a fact. I know its abuse and I know I totally am. Doesn't change the fact that I have been gainfully employed for most of that time, unfortunately (for me) the last five years ain't been so good, but then again I haven't been abusing either, as I can't afford it.. heh. But therein lies part of the problem, I know myself well enough to know that if I can afford it, I will be right back at it, which limits the number of jobs available to me, and I'm not going to risk getting it put into record that I'm a user (abuser, whatever), so I tend to avoid the ones that do testing. (which seems to be most nowadays, hopefully the Pres will actually follow up on his statements from last week)

 

[Evo]

I really can't think of anything else at the moment, my drug addled mind isn't always my friend. Yes, drug addled... been an abuser since 1982. Not bragging, simply stating a fact. I know its abuse and I know I totally am. Doesn't change the fact that I have been gainfully employed for most of that time, unfortunately (for me) the last five years ain't been so good, but then again I haven't been abusing either, as I can't afford it.. heh. But therein lies part of the problem, I know myself well enough to know that if I can afford it, I will be right back at it, which limits the number of jobs available to me, and I'm not going to risk getting it put into record that I'm a user (abuser, whatever), so I tend to avoid the ones that do testing. (which seems to be most nowadays, hopefully the Pres will actually follow up on his statements from last week)

You really avoid good jobs so that you can continue smoking weed?

 

[Some Slacker]

You really avoid good jobs so that you can continue smoking weed?

I've had good jobs, they just weren't interested in weather I smoked weed or not, but yes I am choosy about who I will work for, for example, my father was a police officer for 20 years, I would never presume to apply for such a job as I don't consider myself a hypocrite, or a bus driver (which my sister does) these are simply not open to me, as I hold myself to higher (get it? higher (insert butthead type laugh)) standard. And I don't consider it avoiding a good job, I simply consider it avoiding jail time, just because I want to smoke my beer rather than drink it.

Straight people don't know, what your about.
They put you down and shut you out.
You gave to me, a new belief.
And soon the world will love you Sweet Leaf! -Black Sabbath

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Yeah, he picked a bad example... fruit?!? why not say sugared fizzy drinks? chips? bacon cheeseburgers? None of these are drugs and I'm sure they get 'abused' in record numbers at least in the US.

There have been and still are various arguments for tighter regulation and taxes on these as well.

 

[madness]

You really avoid good jobs so that you can continue smoking weed?

To be honest I would not like to work for any job that drug tested simply because it feels like an intrusion. I have certain principles and do not I should have to put up with certain things to be employed. Likewise I would refuse to work at a job that randomly breathalysed people every day - it seems demeaning to me.

From a slightly different angle, many people would not work for a job that would not allow alcohol use in their private lives. I don't think there would be such a stigma attached to refusing a job on this basis.

 

[nitsuj]

Firstly: calm down. Secondly with the exception of the clear physical dependency that a lot of drugs create you are partly right, people take them for enjoyment and escapism. But you can't deny that most drugs are easily and readily abused, far more so than fruit. To have a sensible and balanced discussion about drug policy you have to acknowledge that.

Firstly, that's assuming I'm excited by this discussion.

I'm more than partly right that people take drugs for the high. I am not sure why else someone would take drugs.

Of course fruit doesn't give people an emotional high, err I mean of course people don't abuse fruit like they do drugs.

My point with mentioning "Fruit abuse" is how easy it is to see fruit is not the issue in that abuse. I'm sure most people don't abuse fruit. I'm guessing it has happened.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

To be honest I would not like to work for any job that drug tested simply because it feels like an intrusion. I have certain principles and do not I should have to put up with certain things to be employed. Likewise I would refuse to work at a job that randomly breathalysed people every day - it seems demeaning to me.

And how many jobs actually require this? Aside from athletes I can't think of a career that requires mandatory drugs testing.

From a slightly different angle, many people would not work for a job that would not allow alcohol use in their private lives. I don't think there would be such a stigma attached to refusing a job on this basis.

Well it's a bit different because one is legal and one isn't. It isn't as simple as "social stigma".

 

[dcpo]

And how many jobs actually require this? Aside from athletes I can't think of a career that requires mandatory drugs testing.

There are a few. Some of my friends have been through such tests, though in all cases they were either working for intelligence services or for a firm being contracted by them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

And how many jobs actually require this? Aside from athletes I can't think of a career that requires mandatory drugs testing.

Here is the US, drug testing is extremely common.

 

[madness]

And how many jobs actually require this? Aside from athletes I can't think of a career that requires mandatory drugs testing.

It's not uncommon in the UK. I have a friend working for a large engineering firm who could technically be drug tested at any time.

Well it's a bit different because one is legal and one isn't. It isn't as simple as "social stigma".

We are talking about whether cannabis should be legal. Saying it's different from alcohol because it is illegal doesn't make sense here.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's not uncommon in the UK. I have a friend working for a large engineering firm who could technically be drug tested at any time.

If that's true it's still vanishly rare in the uk, I'm not even sure of its legality here. Either way I'm very skeptical that you've had to turn down man jobs because of drugs testing.

We are talking about whether cannabis should be legal. Saying it's different from alcohol because it is illegal doesn't make sense here.

Hardly. You were alluding to the fact that it's a problem with employment because it is a social stigma, I argue that it is because it is illegal that it is a problem.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Firstly, that's assuming I'm excited by this discussion.

Given the "gimme a break" drama it's fairly indicated.

I'm more than partly right that people take drugs for the high. I am not sure why else someone would take drugs.

Of course fruit doesn't give people an emotional high, err I mean of course people don't abuse fruit like they do drugs.

My point with mentioning "Fruit abuse" is how easy it is to see fruit is not the issue in that abuse. I'm sure most people don't abuse fruit. I'm guessing it has happened.

This is a total non-argument. When discussing whether or not something should be illegal or legal (and all points in between i.e. controlled, regulated, taxed etc) you have to take into account likelihood of abuse and severity of the consequences of abuse. For fruit both of those rank quite low, for various illegal drugs (and some legal ones) they both rank quite highly.

 

[madness]

If that's true it's still vanishly rare in the uk, I'm not even sure of its legality here. Either way I'm very skeptical that you've had to turn down man jobs because of drugs testing.

I haven't claimed to have turned down any jobs based on drugs testing. I simply said that I wouldn't like to take a job which tested for drugs out of principle.

Hardly. You were alluding to the fact that it's a problem with employment because it is a social stigma, I argue that it is because it is illegal that it is a problem.

I wasn't alluding to that at all. I was responding to Evo's distaste that someone might turn down a job on that basis with a comparison to alcohol. This is purely about people's attitude towards smoking pot as opposed to drinking alcohol.

In any case, you can't respond to a debate about whether something should be legal with "it is because it is illegal that it is a problem". The only reasonable way to interpret that statement in this context is as an argument for legalisation of the drug.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I wasn't alluding to that at all. I was responding to Evo's distaste that someone might turn down a job on that basis with a comparison to alcohol. This is purely about people's attitude towards smoking pot as opposed to drinking alcohol.

I find the idea of not taking a job because of alcohol just as distasteful.

In any case, you can't respond to a debate about whether something should be legal with "it is because it is illegal that it is a problem". The only reasonable way to interpret that statement in this context is as an argument for legalisation of the drug.

You're not reading my posts correctly. I suggest you back up, look at what you said, then look at what I've said. I'm not saying that it's a problem because it is illegal I'm saying that people don't view it as purely a social stigma.

If you're trying to guess my position on this subject clearly you've not read this thread. You might want to go back to the first page if you want to read my thoughts on this subject.

 

[madness]

I find the idea of not taking a job because of alcohol just as distasteful.

You're not reading my posts correctly. I suggest you back up, look at what you said, then look at what I've said.

Perhaps you should do the same with my posts. I said that the problem with the testing is the personal intrusion, in the same way that alcohol tests would be. It's not an issue with stopping drinking/smoking, it's the fact that you should be expected to and could be tested for it. I don't believe my employer should have any control over my private life, so long as I am performing well at work. If I am not performing well at work, they are free to let me go, but it has to be on that basis alone.

I'm not saying that it's a problem because it is illegal I'm saying that people don't view it as purely a social stigma.

You mean they view it partly as a legal stigma. In which case what I said still stands - this can only be interpreted as an argument for legalisation.

 

[GladScientist]

LEGALIZE DA HERB ITS GODS MIRACLE CURE! SMOKE DA REEFER ALL DAY

No but really, people do deserve the right to be able to make their own decisions.

 

[Evo]

No but really, people do deserve the right to be able to make their own decisions.

In society, not really, it has to be what the majority decides is acceptable. If what you do in private has no impact on society, I'd agree, but even what you do in private can impact society, so there can still be some societal responsibility for your private actions. (think illegal activities that involve violence/robbery/etc... in the bigger picture)

 

[GladScientist]

Of course one's actions can affect others, my post was a very short summary of my opinion on this matter. One could argue that any addiction (such as one to marijuana) could eventually lead to some 16 year old stealing your car stereo. However, such things are so unpredictable that I really don't think it's fair for them to be illegal because of it. A medication may save someone's life who later goes on a killing spree, but that's not really a problem for the medication.

But more importantly, and my strongest argument against the illegality of marijuana, is that such laws simply do not work. If a person is about to smoke for the first time, they will be taking many things into consideration (unless they're uneducated or an idiot), such as the health effects, potential mental effects, possibility for addiction, etc. The one thing that never crosses their mind is "what if a cop walks into my house right now and catches me?"

The perceived chance of being caught is zero, because they don't ever picture themselves doing something stupid enough to get caught.

 

[Evo]

I wasn't alluding to that at all. I was responding to Evo's distaste that someone might turn down a job on that basis with a comparison to alcohol. This is purely about people's attitude towards smoking pot as opposed to drinking alcohol

Excuse me, I said no such thing. I simply asked if you actually turned down jobs in favor of smoking pot. I made no judgement. I certainly did not mention alcohol.

Want to apologize for misinformation?

 

[madness]

Evo, I think you may have misunderstood my post. I didn't say you mentioned alcohol, I said that I mentioned it as a comparison to cannabis. Secondly, it wasn't me who claimed to have turned down jobs, it was someone else. I have never had any issue with smoking pot in my professional life. Your post came across as a negative judgement on someone turning down a job based on drug testing, but if you genuinely didn't mean it that way then it's my mistake.

I think you have overreacted a bit here. There was absolutely no offence intented.

 

[Travis_King]

I find the idea of not taking a job because of alcohol just as distasteful.

Well...I personally believe people have the right to choose where they work, and that they have the right to make decisions about their lives so as to maximize their happiness. If a person is offered a job, but must give up alcohol or marijuana in order to work there, then that person has every right to refuse, for whatever reason (but in this case if he believes that either substance brings him joy) without being looked down upon.

Now, sure, it's another matter if the guy (or gal) is living on the edge of poverty and needs to find a job to support his kids, but decides weed is better than diapers. But that has nothing to do with the argument really. That isn't about choosing weed over a potential job. That's about choosing a high over the wellfare of your children...

I think marijuana should be legal for many reasons. A major one is ecomonic. We, the US, spend millions and millions a year in policing, ticketing, court dates, fees, and the costs associated with keeping prisoners on a substance which poses no real threat to virtually anyone on its own.

Another is the fact that the only real, appreciable dangers that come from marijuana (money going to gangs, or even cartels / violent crimes related to it's sale / etc) stem directly from its illegality. Legalize, commoditize, and you take that away.

There are too many pro's to list. And I recognize that there would be cons (e.g. I imagine the number of teen burnouts would initially spike) But really it doesn't make any sense to treat marijuana the way that we, here in the US, do.

 

[nitsuj]

Given the "gimme a break" drama it's fairly indicated.

This is a total non-argument. When discussing whether or not something should be illegal or legal (and all points in between i.e. controlled, regulated, taxed etc) you have to take into account likelihood of abuse and severity of the consequences of abuse. For fruit both of those rank quite low, for various illegal drugs (and some legal ones) they both rank quite highly.

Sorry "Gimme a break" is a cliche now (i.e. "remarkable") I meant it literally, to give me a break (a pass) on the point you were making. I used to think "remarkable" meant really good!

Then your point is out of context. The context is some posters brother is skipping school due to his drug ABUSE.

The illegal/legal issue is near meaningless in that discussion of addressing the abuse.

 

[nitsuj]

In society, not really, it has to be what the majority decides is acceptable. If what you do in private has no impact on society, I'd agree, but even what you do in private can impact society, so there can still be some societal responsibility for your private actions. (think illegal activities that involve violence/robbery/etc... in the bigger picture)

In turn not their own decision.

"people do deserve the right to be able to make their own decisions"

Is pretty indisputable.

You added some stuff, such as extending the impact of the decision to all of society.

I think the poster, would appreciate there are laws that protect society from deviant individuals. And that the poster appreciates concepts such as "government regulation can create black markets".

Hmmmm, Evo, maybe your comment is better applied to government regulation. That sometimes the laws they create targeting one substance, impacts MANY AREAS of Society and possibly in a negative way. The BIG picture.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sorry "Gimme a break" is a cliche now (i.e. "remarkable") I meant it literally, to give me a break (a pass) on the point you were making. I used to think "remarkable" meant really good!

Then your point is out of context. The context is some posters brother is skipping school due to his drug ABUSE.

The illegal/legal issue is near meaningless in that discussion of addressing the abuse.

I don't see how it was out of context nor meaningless, I've clarified my point. Abuse needs to be taken into account where the likelihood and/or severity of abuse are high.

In turn not their own decision.

"people do deserve the right to be able to make their own decisions"

Is pretty indisputable.

Actually I think it is disputable. "People do deserve the right to be able to make their own decisions where they can" is a better version (thinking primarily of mentally ill patients). Added with the clarification of "and their decision will be regulated in some manner if it impacts on others".

You added some stuff, such as extending the impact of the decision to all of society.

I think the poster, would appreciate there are laws that protect society from deviant individuals. And that the poster appreciates concepts such as "government regulation can create black markets".

Hmmmm, Evo, maybe your comment is better applied to government regulation. That sometimes the laws they create targeting one substance, impacts MANY AREAS of Society. The BIG picture.

Yes, that's why their the government! They're meant to make laws that impact many areas of society, the idea obviously being that the impact is as positive as possible whilst minimising the negative.

 

[nitsuj]

Were you not of the opinion that government regulation that causes more problems than it solves is a bad thing? i.e making marijuana possession illegal.Was American alcohol prohibition brought up in this thread?
people do deserve the right to be able to make their own decisions. "the idea obviously being that " they can.

 

[Travis_King]

I don't see how it was out of context nor meaningless, I've clarified my point. Abuse needs to be taken into account where the likelihood and/or severity of abuse are high..

But is it the government's job to determine how much of a given substance an individual can use? A good example is sugar and caffeine. New York is pushing a bill (maybe it's already been passed here) making it illegal to sell drinks like the Big Gulp which are, they say, exorbitantly sized. Now I personally agree with the idea; it is certainly a health conscious objective, but is it really the job of government to determine how healthily we eat?

Many people abuse sugar and caffeine (admittedly, substances with less obvious state-altering effects), but that does not mean they should be illegal simply because they have a high probability of abuse...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Were you not of the opinion that government regulation that causes more problems than it solves is a bad thing? i.e making marijuana possession illegal.

Depends on the regulation. I am of the opinion that current approaches do make things worse yes. But I have to stress the false dichotomy that often pervades debates of this type: the idea that the options are draconian regulation OR no regulation.

Were I to have started this poll I would have emphasised that more.

people do deserve the right to be able to make their own decisions. "the idea obviously being that " they can.

Yes we seem to be in agreement there. Though the obvious point is that people do not have the right to see their decisions fulfilled.

 

[sas3]

Just a comment on what EVO said "the majority decides what is acceptable", too bad this is not true, in the government it seems to me that the corporations often decide what is good for us, and in the case of marijuana I think it is the big drug companies that are dictating what laws get passed not the people.

 

[Evo]

Just a comment on what EVO said "the majority decides what is acceptable", too bad this is not true, in the government it seems to me that the corporations often decide what is good for us, and in the case of marijuana I think it is the big drug companies that are dictating what laws get passed not the people.

But those laws are made by the people that were elected "by the majority" of voters for their particular position. Whether those politicians are corrupt is not part of this discussion.

If a law is decided to not be what the actual majority wants, then there are processes to change that law.

 

[Travis_King]

It's not as black and white as that Evo...

1. Who says the majority of the people who want to see marijuana legalized voted for the party that the elected official belongs to?

2. People want to see their political party (the one that lies most in line with their views) in the elected position. So do coorporations. People generally understand that coorporations pay for the campaigns of their political parties and have significant influence on their stance on various issues. It's a trade-off. Sometimes the stances align, sometimes they do not. That is not corruption, that is a pitfall of modern campaigning. Your party will not win if they don't have money, but in order to get money (in meaningful amounts) their political directions kinda have to align with those of the various interest groups that are funding them.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It's not as black and white as that Evo...

1. Who says the majority of the people who want to see marijuana legalized voted for the party that the elected official belongs to?

2. People want to see their political party (the one that lies most in line with their views) in the elected position. So do coorporations. People generally understand that coorporations pay for the campaigns of their political parties and have significant influence on their stance on various issues. It's a trade-off. Sometimes the stances align, sometimes they do not. That is not corruption, that is a pitfall of modern campaigning. Your party will not win if they don't have money, but in order to get money (in meaningful amounts) their political directions kinda have to align with those of the various interest groups that are funding them.

Just as a polite reminder this is an international forum. In other nations the effects of donors are mitigated via regulation e.g. campaign funding caps.

Otherwise you do have some points, there are various examples of a failings in democracy wherein the opinions of a majority are not respected. That's mainly due to the inherent problems in representative democracy IMO, but that's another conversation.

 

[nitsuj]

Just as a polite reminder this is an international forum. In other nations the effects of donors are mitigated via regulation e.g. campaign funding caps.

Otherwise you do have some points, there are various examples of a failings in democracy wherein the opinions of a majority are not respected. That's mainly due to the inherent problems in representative democracy IMO, but that's another conversation.

That's a good point, Ima go check and see if the spread between party coffers is remarkable.

Okay,

wiki says for Canada '09 it was this for "Individual political contributions made to federal political parties in 2009"I'll start from the bottom of the list 'cause it's funny, understandable and on topic

Marijuana Party 2,610.00
Bloc Québécois (our separatist party) 621,000.00
Green Party 1,100,000.00
NDP 4,000,000.00
Liberal 9,000,000.00
Conservatives 17,700,000.00Liberals have been Canada's reigning political party champs for a near unprecedented amount of time.

Wanna guess when the Conservatives where able to break that precedence?

This is just the individual contributions. There is also $1-2.00 addition for each vote the party got. With the VERY common correlation between the individual contribution figure and the number of votes the party gets, I'm sure it's clear how a party can become a "perpetual" winner.

In the UK or which ever you were reffering too, is it a max coffer that's allowed? as in Max 10 million in revenue?

But yea, I'm sure Canada is unique in political landscape from this perspective.Here is an Interesting quote from that same wiki article, and note the funding cap you mention Ryan.

"In 2006, it was revealed during the Liberal leadership contest that one candidate, Joe Volpe, had received a total of $108,000 in contributions from 20 individuals that were all in some way connected to the top corporate executives of Apotex Pharmaceuticals. Each of the 20 individuals - which included 11-year-old twin boys and a 14-year-old boy - gave exactly $5,400, the maximum allowed at the time."As if eh? And from a pharma company?? weird...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'll start from the bottom of the list 'cause it's funny, understandable and on topic

Marijuana Party 2,610.00
Bloc Québécois (our separatist party) 621,000.00
Green Party 1,100,000.00
NDP 4,000,000.00
Liberal 9,000,000.00
Conservatives 17,700,000.00

One wonders how much the Marijuana party would have if they could sell it

In the UK or which ever you were reffering too, is it a max coffer that's allowed? as in Max 10 million in revenue?

As far as I am aware there is no limit to donations nor to how much a party can hve in the bank though PR has to be taken into account (if you're campaigning against a green policy having it on record that you recently received £10,000,000 from an oil company will damage your campaign). What I was referring to however is http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/election-spending/party-campaign-expenditure, in other words it doesn't matter if one party could afford to spend £100,000 per constituency and another £40,000 because they are both limited.