Pot Legalization - Yes or no?

[Jason76]

I think it's a waste of money to fight it. Nonetheless, it's not a positive thing that society should condone. In my experience, so many smokers are not "mellowed out" but are rather - raging psychotics - often mean. It's often those people on Facebook posting vulgar memes - leading people to claim society's IQ has gone down the drain. But that's not saying these people are low IQ - as mentioned in another thread, but rather just people given over to vulgarity.

 

[Josiah]

No. I'm not SURE there should be a targeted law enforcement issue regarding it, but I don't think it should be legalized.



But it's irrelevant in California, which is one of the states that has fully legalized it (there are pot shops everywhere now; all with free delivery). The federal government (which still regards it as illegal) has chosen to do nothing about this and not enforced the federal law here.

The "justification" is...

1) "People do it anyway." Of course, the same rationale could be used for legalizing rape or murder. The REALITY is, legalization nearly always increases an activity. And I think that's happening in California. And of course, children and youth are now being told this is a fine activity so they are more likely to engage.


2) "It's no worse than booze." Interesting concept.... So, two negatives make a positive? The best way to improve things is to multiply the problems?


3) "We need the taxes!" Of course, why not sell guns to anyone and everyone, we need the sales taxes. Why not legalize rape, and tax it? There's never been a tax liberals don't like (they are ADDICTED to taxes). California legalized some gambling because it would fund our schools and education would vastly improve, but school funding actually went down and the government just spent more money on itself. California just raised gas taxes AGAIN (going from #2 to #1 in the amount of gas tax in the nation), but we were'nt spending NEARLY all the gas tax already being collected on roads... every time the tax is raised, more just gets spent on government and whatever "pay back" problem the liberals need to fund. None of this tax will make a bit of difference, in this TAXED TO DEATH state.


The "Hippies" of my Dad's generation now run the Democrat Party, so I guess this move should have been anticipated. As I understand it, drugs were the Sacraments of the 60's.

 

[Andrew]

For medicinal use only for legit reasons, not for treating depression or anxiety but for instance, generating appetite for people going through chemo.

 

[psalms 91]

Considering its benefits and the fact it is not as harmful as alcohol then I say yes by all means

 

[tango]

I think it's a waste of money to fight it. Nonetheless, it's not a positive thing that society should condone. In my experience, so many smokers are not "mellowed out" but are rather - raging psychotics - often mean. It's often those people on Facebook posting vulgar memes - leading people to claim society's IQ has gone down the drain. But that's not saying these people are low IQ - as mentioned in another thread, but rather just people given over to vulgarity.

I'm very much libertarian and don't think the government has any right to tell me what I can and can't put into my own body. I believe if drugs are legalized and sold through proper channels we can solve a whole lot of problems.

Firstly we can tax it, and the taxes can be used to help those who overdo it. We can guarantee the purity of it, so you won't get people snorting what they thought was cocaine but was actually 20% cocaine and 80% battery acid (that kind of thing destroys noses in ways pure cocaine can only dream of). You also take away the huge profits that dealers can make and therefore remove the incentive to offer kids in school their first wrap for $1 in the hopes of getting them hooked.

As things stand someone who wants help to cope with addiction to alcohol can attend a group such as Alcoholics Anonymous. To attend something like Narcotics Anonymous is tantamount to a confession of illegal activity. The person who wants help with a narcotics problem can probably really do without criminal charges as they try to clean up their life.

For good measure when all sorts of things are banned you can find other unwanted side effects. Firstly there's the hunt for the so-called "legal high" that can create all sorts of unwanted issues. Then there's the potential for totally innocent activity resulting in criminal charges - a local mushrooming expert has advised caution when dealing with unknown mushrooms. This is partly due to the risk of being poisoned (mushrooms like the Destroying Angel are given names like that for a reason) and partly due to the risk of criminal charges because it's apparently not unknown for police departments to plant mushrooms like psylocybin and arrest anyone who harvests them for possession of illegal drugs. That's a pretty heavy penalty if all you were trying to do was learn about mushrooms, and your plan was nothing more than to take it home to see what it was. After all, when learning about something like wild mushrooms it is a good thing to take something home to look at it more closely.

 

[Jason76]

As Tango noted, it's a total waste to fight pot and, in reality, other drugs - though I can see the cause of why some would be opposed in that case.

However, it's interesting to note that do-gooders are always trying to ban stuff - and often they are religious. For instance, it was religious people behind banning alcohol way back (Prohibition) - and some religious people would like to ban most entertainment (rock music etc..) - under the premise of conspiracy theories.

 

[Lamb]

The pot smokers I know (and I mean lifetime smokers since teenaged years) have very slow reflexes and poor memory skills. I joked with a friend of ours who came to visit that he drove like an old man (15 below the speed limit!). He's a danger on the road.

 

[tango]

As Tango noted, it's a total waste to fight pot and, in reality, other drugs - though I can see the cause of why some would be opposed in that case.

However, it's interesting to note that do-gooders are always trying to ban stuff - and often they are religious. For instance, it was religious people behind banning alcohol way back (Prohibition) - and some religious people would like to ban most entertainment (rock music etc..) - under the premise of conspiracy theories.

There's little rhyme nor reason to the nature of people who want to ban stuff. Some ultra-religious groups want to ban things they dislike, but those on the left who want to ban guns are often the least religious. It's just a matter of some people not liking something and therefore not wanting anyone else to like it either.

 

[psalms 91]

There's little rhyme nor reason to the nature of people who want to ban stuff. Some ultra-religious groups want to ban things they dislike, but those on the left who want to ban guns are often the least religious. It's just a matter of some people not liking something and therefore not wanting anyone else to like it either.

Again, common sense. I dont want to ban all guns but I would like to see some common sense applied to the laws.

 

[tango]

Again, common sense. I dont want to ban all guns but I would like to see some common sense applied to the laws.

The trouble is that so many who refer to common sense propose something that is either questionable whether it is actually common sense, or that is so vague it could mean anything.

 

[Albion]

Considering its benefits and the fact it is not as harmful as alcohol then I say yes by all means

It is much more harmful than alcohol, my friend. The difference narrows only when we are speaking of people who have used either drug constantly and over a long period of time.

 

[Albion]

As Tango noted, it's a total waste to fight pot and, in reality, other drugs - though I can see the cause of why some would be opposed in that case.

However, it's interesting to note that do-gooders are always trying to ban stuff - and often they are religious. For instance, it was religious people behind banning alcohol way back (Prohibition) - and some religious people would like to ban most entertainment (rock music etc..) - under the premise of conspiracy theories.

What do YOU want to ban? Whatever it may be, Ill bet that there are religious groups who are active in the effort to ban it, just as there are in the case of alcohol and rock music (?).

 

[Lamb]

It is much more harmful than alcohol, my friend. The difference narrows only when we are speaking of people who have used either drug constantly and over a long period of time.

It's very harmful. I know of people who think pot also prevents cancer but one of my closest friends got cancer and she's a long time smoker of weed...so there goes that theory!

 

[tango]

It's very harmful. I know of people who think pot also prevents cancer but one of my closest friends got cancer and she's a long time smoker of weed...so there goes that theory!

One data point doesn't prove anything unless it's to counter a claim of universal cause and effect. I had an aunt who smoked like a chimney from the age of about 18 until she finally died well into her 90s. It doesn't prove that cigarettes don't increase the risk of cancer.

I would say the question isn't whether something is harmful or not, but whether adults should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. If the State's role is to protect us from ourselves there are all sorts of other things that should arguably be made illegal. If the State's role is not to protect us from ourselves, why does it feel the need to regulate what we are allowed to consume?

If there were less legislation around narcotic use the people who become addicted could receive help without risking criminal charges. It's not as if the current drug laws are doing much good - if anything they make it harder to usefully combat drugs, not least because dealers want to protect their profits at any cost. People still die from drug overdoses, people still die as drug gangs fight for territory.

If nothing else it would be good to abolish any reluctance for people who are seeking medical help for someone who overdid the drugs to openly say what they had been doing that led up to the incident. It would seem much easier for medics to help someone if they were told outright "we were shooting heroin", than if they were fed some line about how the caller has no idea why his friend just collapsed, then spend time looking for natural causes before concluding he'd overdosed on something.

There would certainly be social costs associated with across-the-board legalization but I think in the long term they would be lower than the current social costs of prohibition.

 

[Jason76]

One data point doesn't prove anything unless it's to counter a claim of universal cause and effect. I had an aunt who smoked like a chimney from the age of about 18 until she finally died well into her 90s. It doesn't prove that cigarettes don't increase the risk of cancer.

I would say the question isn't whether something is harmful or not, but whether adults should have the right to do what they want with their own bodies. If the State's role is to protect us from ourselves there are all sorts of other things that should arguably be made illegal. If the State's role is not to protect us from ourselves, why does it feel the need to regulate what we are allowed to consume?

If there were less legislation around narcotic use the people who become addicted could receive help without risking criminal charges. It's not as if the current drug laws are doing much good - if anything they make it harder to usefully combat drugs, not least because dealers want to protect their profits at any cost. People still die from drug overdoses, people still die as drug gangs fight for territory.

If nothing else it would be good to abolish any reluctance for people who are seeking medical help for someone who overdid the drugs to openly say what they had been doing that led up to the incident. It would seem much easier for medics to help someone if they were told outright "we were shooting heroin", than if they were fed some line about how the caller has no idea why his friend just collapsed, then spend time looking for natural causes before concluding he'd overdosed on something.

There would certainly be social costs associated with across-the-board legalization but I think in the long term they would be lower than the current social costs of prohibition.

But "smoking around kids" is a different matter. I mean, tobacco or anything else - maybe not vaping.

 

[tango]

But "smoking around kids" is a different matter. I mean, tobacco or anything else - maybe not vaping.

The trouble with this approach is that although it clearly has some merit it raises the question of degree. Is it the State's job to protect children and, if so, to what extent? If today the state regulates whether adults may smoke in the presence of children, what happens tomorrow? Should the state be involved in selecting an appropriate diet for children? Should the state get to determine what hobbies and activities a child may enjoy? Where does it stop?

 

[Pedrito]

==============================================================================================

Pot Legalization - Yes or no?

Which is most likely to result in the country not going to pot?

==============================================================================================

 

[Albion]

I'm very much libertarian and don't think the government has any right to tell me what I can and can't put into my own body. I believe if drugs are legalized and sold through proper channels we can solve a whole lot of problems.

Firstly we can tax it, and the taxes can be used to help those who overdo it. We can guarantee the purity of it, so you won't get people snorting what they thought was cocaine but was actually 20% cocaine and 80% battery acid (that kind of thing destroys noses in ways pure cocaine can only dream of). You also take away the huge profits that dealers can make and therefore remove the incentive to offer kids in school their first wrap for $1 in the hopes of getting them hooked.

As things stand someone who wants help to cope with addiction to alcohol can attend a group such as Alcoholics Anonymous. To attend something like Narcotics Anonymous is tantamount to a confession of illegal activity. The person who wants help with a narcotics problem can probably really do without criminal charges as they try to clean up their life.

For good measure when all sorts of things are banned you can find other unwanted side effects. Firstly there's the hunt for the so-called "legal high" that can create all sorts of unwanted issues. Then there's the potential for totally innocent activity resulting in criminal charges - a local mushrooming expert has advised caution when dealing with unknown mushrooms. This is partly due to the risk of being poisoned (mushrooms like the Destroying Angel are given names like that for a reason) and partly due to the risk of criminal charges because it's apparently not unknown for police departments to plant mushrooms like psylocybin and arrest anyone who harvests them for possession of illegal drugs. That's a pretty heavy penalty if all you were trying to do was learn about mushrooms, and your plan was nothing more than to take it home to see what it was. After all, when learning about something like wild mushrooms it is a good thing to take something home to look at it more closely.

Shall we stop people from selling or giving drugs to other people knowing that if they take it the drug will kill them? Millions of pounds of fentanyl have been confiscated lately, but that would have to stop in your anarchist society of the future. And what about giving drug-laced candy to children because the parent or friend thinks it will be fun for them? Not a problem?

 

[tango]

Shall we stop people from selling or giving drugs to other people knowing that if they take it the drug will kill them? Millions of pounds of fentanyl have been confiscated lately, but that would have to stop in your anarchist society of the future. And what about giving drug-laced candy to children because the parent or friend thinks it will be fun for them? Not a problem?

You've got two very different situations there.

Why does someone else get to tell me that I'm not allowed to take a drug that will kill me? If I'm deemed to be an adult responsible enough to make decisions for myself, where does that stop? If it's the government's job to protect me from myself, should I be barred from bungee jumping? Mountain biking? Hang gliding? Off-piste skiing? All of those things carry increased risk of injury or death. Funny how the government fusses over people growing marijuana but doesn't worry about plants like pokeweed or deadly nightshade growing wild.

We already ban giving things like alcohol to children because they can't give informed consent to taking it. It's no different with drug-laced candy. Every time it comes back to the issue of informed consent. It's why children can't enter into legally binding contracts, aren't allowed to have sex or drink alcohol and the like. The same would apply if you were to lace a product given to an adult without their consent, and why the law regards consensual sex as a very different beast to rape.

 

[Albion]

You've got two very different situations there.

Why does someone else get to tell me that I'm not allowed to take a drug that will kill me?

I'm not sure about that question but it isn't the scenario I described in my post.

If I'm deemed to be an adult responsible enough to make decisions for myself, where does that stop?

Nor is that one.

However, I think that the answer to all of these may be that what you do to yourself is quite different from what you do to others.

We already ban giving things like alcohol to children because they can't give informed consent to taking it. It's no different with drug-laced candy.

Of course it is. The effects are entirely different....and so is the opportunity.

Every time it comes back to the issue of informed consent. It's why children can't enter into legally binding contracts, aren't allowed to have sex or drink alcohol and the like. The same would apply if you were to lace a product given to an adult without their consent, and why the law regards consensual sex as a very different beast to rape.

So if we get back to what I spoke about in my post and deal with that instead of these diversions, how do you justify the distribution of a fatal or very harmful or instantly addictive drug which is either mixed into something else or comes with the promise that it is not harmful at all--or is packaged so that it looks like candy to a child?