Marijuana legalization

Luke flees the scene said:

I'm pro legalization. Having smoked it on and off for over a year now, and having tried other drugs/drinking, I've found that marijauana's the only vice I've done that I haven't experienced withdrawl from, can't OD on, can't gain any kind of lung cancer/heart disease from, and so on.

Click to expand...

A year? Come back when you've had some experience with it.

By the way, I'm not sure how you can't get lung cancer from inhaling smoke.

But I think it should be legalized so the government can regulate it and tax it.

I'm all for legalization too, how about marijuana as a medical adjunct? Hard to argue against that one.

Would you really want that? If it were properly legalized and taxed, teenagers wouldn't be able to get it as easily.

And let's not kid ourselves. Marijuana is shit, it's crap, it fucks your brain just like any other drug. It makes you stoooooooopid. It's not really that valuable medically, not nearly as much as identity politicians want us to believe. There are other herbs that work much better that don't have the pop culture exposure that pot enjoys.

I just think that making up lies about pot on either side is pointless. It's not that bad, but it's also not good by any means. It's not this miracle "natural" cure. Fuck, the shit you get nowadays is anything but natural. It knocks you down. That's not the way it goes with marijuana that's grown "naturally."

I think that the only way is to have a public corporation peddle this crap to the people who feel they need it. It should be heavily taxed.

Prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment, and bred gangs in the streets, the criminalization of the average citizen, and massive disrespect for the law. An entire criminal underclass became rich providing something people wanted that the government told them they could not have.

Notice any parallels? The primary difference is that the politicians were at least honest enough in those days to realize that without a Constitutional Amendment, they had no basis for attempting to regulate alcohol, and ceased their persecution of the average citizen when the citizens made it plain they had had enough blood in the streets.

George Santayana said:

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Click to expand...

i'm disdainful all recreational drugs, but i support the decriminalization of all of them, and the full legalization of weed for medicinal purposes.

Dude, I'm having a hard time reading your font. It's like I'm looking at it through a pair of (someone elses) glasses.

Now, about the topic? Eh. I don't smoke it, but growing up, every adult I knew did, and then all the kids did. Laws didn't stop them.

Big waste of money if you ask me. And I do believe, knowing plenty of half braindead stoners, a waste of brain cells.

He didn't turn on, tune in, drop out.

beezle said:

Dude, I'm having a hard time reading your font. It's like I'm looking at it through a pair of (someone elses) glasses.

Click to expand...

you're baked right now, aren't you?





seriously, i'm with beezle, your font is pretty tough to read

Luke flees the scene said:

I know it's one person, but I know someone who's in his early fourties and he's been smoking weed for a long time. He's the CEO of his company, has a family and is an all around successful person. He's also very intelligent.

What does this mean?

Click to expand...

It means he apparently has no qualms about breaking the law, first and foremost.

I have no problem with the decriminalization of weed. But per RG570's post, let's not kid ourselves...it's a recreational drug.

And right now, it is an illegal drug, except for some medical uses. Anyone currently using it as a rec drug has no room to talk about legalizing it, since they don't care enough about the law, to begin with--imo, of course.

When the law is unjust, it can and should be disobeyed. Why should someone 'respect' a law that is unjust?

If everyone had that attitude, black people would have to use separate toilet facilities.

Respect for the law should derive from the goodness of the law. Otherwise its just 'might makes right.'

Luke flees the scene said:

I do care about the law. But this law's pointless. Everyone does it anyway, and it's the most harmless of any kind of drug or any kind of alcohol.

Click to expand...

I don't do it. And it's not the "most harmless." That's BS. Try this on for size: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DEFDE1E39F936A25752C0A961948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Its like, just because there's tobacco laws doesnt mean its going to stop kids from smoking before they're eighteen. It's like fighting a virtually pointless fight.

Click to expand...

Just because there are laws against murder, it doesn't mean it will stop people from committing murder...

RG570 said:

It's not really that valuable medically, not nearly as much as identity politicians want us to believe. There are other herbs that work much better that don't have the pop culture exposure that pot enjoys.

Click to expand...

Having seen the pain disappear from the face of cancer patient when they smoke it, I disagree. Random medical use no. But when you're dying in excruciating pain...it is a boon.

Sarpedon said:

When the law is unjust, it can and should be disobeyed. Why should someone 'respect' a law that is unjust?

Click to expand...

A law outlawing marijuana is "unjust" and a point for civil disobedience? How about a 55 mph speed limit? That "unjust," too? Drive 90--make your point, and do it while you're stoned!

Sarpedon said:

When the law is unjust, it can and should be disobeyed. Why should someone 'respect' a law that is unjust?

If everyone had that attitude, black people would have to use separate toilet facilities.

Respect for the law should derive from the goodness of the law. Otherwise its just 'might makes right.'

Click to expand...

While I'm not quite ready to put legalization of marijuana on par with pursuing civil rights equality, I will concur that it's tough to make the blanket statement of "Anyone currently [breaking a law] has no room to talk about [reversing that law], since they don't care enough about the law, to begin with." Disobedience of a law does not automatically preclude the right to express disapproval of that law.

Sarpedon said:

When the law is unjust, it can and should be disobeyed. Why should someone 'respect' a law that is unjust?

If everyone had that attitude, black people would have to use separate toilet facilities.

Respect for the law should derive from the goodness of the law. Otherwise its just 'might makes right.'

Click to expand...

Who makes that determination? You can break any law you think is unjust? Isn't that anarchy?

How about if I think the law against murder is unjust, does that give me the right to kill people?

"That man keeps trying to keep me down, won't let me put a cap in everyone's ass."

robeiae said:

A law outlawing marijuana is "unjust" and a point for civil disobedience? How about a 55 mph speed limit? That "unjust," too? Drive 90--make your point, and do it while you're stoned!

Click to expand...

As an analogy, it's too far afield. Try the American experience with alcohol. The temperance movement made that illegal too, even got it in the constitution. What good did it do? Prohibition created a booming market for booze, and got the Mafia off to a roaring start. What good did the war on drugs do? It tripled the number of Americans in jail, to the point that we are unsurpassed in our incarceration rate. We are the land of the unfree, and still the drugs pour in.

These social experiments will never work. People want their wine and beer. And they want their drugs. To prohibit these things, to incarcerate people for decades and ruin their lives because somebody thinks they might be harming themselves is illogical and totalitarian, and should be resisted by a free people.

robeiae said:

Anyone currently using it as a rec drug has no room to talk about legalizing it, since they don't care enough about the law, to begin with--imo, of course.

Click to expand...

Rob, I know you're conservative, but surely you can't be taking the position that laws must be obeyed simply because they are laws. in and of themselves, without regard to other factors.

Want to see where that takes you?

I smoked weed from my early teens until I turned 30. I was big into legalizing it back then... not so much now. It's not that I'm old and unhip... I'm only 37 and I would put my Ipod up against any youngster's here The deal is that it really has some very debilitating and adverse consequences. Prolonged use, triggered in me a sense of paranoia and even what I consider to be a mild schizophrenia (nothing I was treated for, but I really had the strangest conversations in my head). The only lingering issues since quitting seven years ago, five guys named Bob that occupy a single couch in my head and constantly argue over the remote control. In addition to that, it made me a chronic procrastinator and sucked a lot of motivation from me.

I know, maybe those seem like small time consequences (compared to heroin or cocaine) but it really ingrains in you some lousy habits. Putting things off is a bitch of a character flaw to overcome when you're no longer smoking weed. I know that some people will have the will and the self-control to deal with such things, but I think that use on a massive scale would be a bad thing. I just think that people looking to use weed on a recreational basis, need to define recreational. Wake and bake is not recreational. Getting to work stoned and then running home to party a bowl, is not recreational. Being stoned as often as possible just isn't productive. I offer this warning as a guy that lost a lot of time sitting around his house... ignoring the doorbell and otherwise locking myself up in a perpetual high. I loved weed, I loved the way I felt on it (when not paranoid) but I still don't think it's something that should be considered harmless.

Weed is easy to get caught up in... and while they say it isn't addictive, I would counter that while it might not be physically addictive it is mentally addictive. Don't wanna deal... spark one up. Well that kind of self medicating doesn't work with booze and I'm here to tell you it doesn't work with weed either.

Meh... anyway.

Shadow Ferret said:

Who makes that determination? You can break any law you think is unjust? Isn't that anarchy?

Click to expand...

The laws exist because of the consent of those governed. There are no hard and fast rules. Nothing is absolute. There is no law that is universally agreed upon. There is no such thing as a perfect system. Every law is a compromise. There will some who will agree, some who will disagree but accept the law, and some who will not obey it. Enough people who are unwilling to compromise can scuttle any law.

Julie Worth said:

As an analogy, it's too far afield. Try the American experience with alcohol. The temperance movement made that illegal too, even got it in the constitution. What good did it do? Prohibition created a booming market for booze, and got the Mafia off to a roaring start. What good did the war on drugs do? It tripled the number of Americans in jail, to the point that we are unsurpassed in our incarceration rate. We are the land of the unfree, and still the drugs pour in.

These social experiments will never work. People want their wine and beer. And they want their drugs. To prohibit these things, to incarcerate people for decades and ruin their lives because somebody thinks they might be harming themselves is illogical and totalitarian, and should be resisted by a free people.

Click to expand...

The difference is that alcohol was legal and already a booming industry that was suddenly shut down creating a huge underground market for it.