RE: Legalization and Decriminalization of Marijuana(A major solution to social and economic problems

If it is legalized than you rid yourself of the drug dealer. It can be regulated then

 

I think that the right to govern one's own body is among the most fundamental of rights. Who am I to say that you're not allowed to harm your own body? That you're not allowed to kill yourself? Well, except if we determine you've committed a serious enough crime, at which point we can force you to die instead of forcing you to live. If we take control of people's bodies, isn't that making them into slaves?

I would never take such a drug because I don't want to be reliant upon one for happiness, even if there weren't such a dangerous cost. I would like, however, the right to do use drugs, even though I would never exercise it... kind of like the right to flag desecration.

I think that in private, all drugs should be legal. In public? That's a completely different story. If you smoke in public, you're harming everyone around you. If you take just about any drug in public, you're impairing your own judgment, putting everyone around you at risk.

 

The laws as they stand now, in the US, are ridiculous. I think it's silly that you could be banned from being a doctor or lawyer just because you've smoked up once or twice.

If it's decriminalized, there are a few problems solved. Casual smokers might get fined, but there's no record of it (sort of like parking violations). Because it's not a criminal act, people will do it more openly, and will get caught more often. Then the gov't can fine them and make some money. Meanwhile there are no lasting repercussions.

I don't like legalization for a few reasons. One, the gateway issue. I don't belive marijuana is a gateway drug. But I do think that if it is legalized, then you'll run into problems. You see, pot being illegal is good because it is a relatively harmless way for kids to rebel. And trust me, kids need to rebel. So if suddenly pot is legal, the rebellious ones will need something else to satiate their urges. In that sense I think legalization will bring other drug use up.

There's also the issue of marijuana being "not as bad" as cigarettes. When people say this, they are thinking only of the health issues. People don't smoke as much, so there is less chance of cancer and second-hand smoke problems. Secondly, weed isn't addictive.

Well, I'm going to point out where weed is worse than cigarettes. One, even if you are a heavy smoker, it doesn't really affect your productivity. If you ignore "smoking breaks" a smoker is just as efficient as a non-smoker. This is not true for marijuana. Smoking a joint can ruin a few hours, during which time you cannot accomplish much. Not for everyone, not for small amounts, but generally, this is true.

Secondly, marijuana is addictive, if not physically. It is maybe not nearly as addictive to cigarettes, but I've seen friends try to drop weed and be totally unsuccessful at it. It's an addictive lifestyle, and an expensive one.

Finally, the main reason I think marijuana can be worse than cigarettes is because it can, not necessarily will, but it can ruin your life, easily. For example, I do not know a single person who is failing or dropped out of school because of cigarettes. But I can name at least five semi-close friends who have because of marijauna. They would smoke every day, not get any studying done, eventually fail classes, etc... etc... This does not happen to people that smoke cigarettes. If weed were legalized, you'd see a lot more people like this.

Anyway, feel free to challenge my points, but I've not heard many people address these issues (I didn't read the thread either).

PS I've been known to smoke a j every now and then, but I've never ever smoked a cigarrete. I heard someone as this earlier.

 

In reply to shadow-dragon:

I think the issue is more with how taking drugs harms those around you.

For example, crack-heads who resort to stealing, druggie parents who don't take care of their kids, etc... etc...

By the way, did anybody find some of the "anti-drug" ads from the superbowl to be very disturbing and misleading?

 

First off, let me appologize if this has been brought up before, I haven't read every post here.

When discussing the idea of pot as a "gateway drug" perhaps we should consider that perhaps it is, but not for any chemical or psychological reasons, but for purely societal reasons. Right now, the majority of people would place drugs in the following order of danger (least dangerous first)

1 Alchohol
2 Cigarrettes
3 Pot
4 Designer drugs, Ecstacy, Acid etc.
5 Really hard stuff coke, heroin etc.

Now, for the most part this is pretty close to reality. There is some room for argument as to where cigarettes should go, as one could argue that they are the least dangerous as they are not mood altering(no one ever got in a car wreck, or beat their kids or commited a crime, or accted generally irresponsible cause they smoked to many cigarettes) or you could conversley argue that it is much more dangerous because it is as addictive as heroin and eventually can kill you. But generally this is the excepted order.

Most persons who get to the final level do often go through the first three levels, but the questionis why.

1.) all of these drugs are harmful in some way, so obviously anyone who will not drink because of the harmful effects is probably not going to try crack on a whim. Also, for teenagers they are all illegal, so again any teen that will not drink because they are underage is not going to go and smoke up.

2.)Cigarrettes, alchohol and pot are cheaper and easier to get ahold of, so, if a person is predisposed to try drugs, the chances are that they will encounter the first three long before they get to the other ones (think of the first high school party you went to, someone probably offered you beer or a cigarette, chances are no one walked up to you and said, "hey wanna shoot up, I got clean needles!?")

3.) These drugs right now fall under two categories legal, and illegal. The very first time you use an illegal drug, most likely pot, you are faced with that dilema of should i do this. If you do it, you have now crossed a line, which makes it very easy to cross that line again and again. The problem is pot being illegal makes it very easy to cross that line, because most people believe, and are probably correct, that there is a big difference btwn pot and smack. In terms of its affect on the body, its propensity to create addiction, its immediate danger in terms of overdose pot resembles alchol and cigarretes more than the other illegal drugs (in fact you can od on alchohol, and cigs are much more addictive)

Because of all this pot seems to represent a societal middle ground, an illegal drug, that is closer to legal drugs than other illegal ones. There are multiple problems this creates. First of all it seems very hippocritical and casts lots of doubts on the integrity of the legal code, as well as all the propoganda against drugs. This makes it so much easier to make the jump, than say a jump stright from alchohl to crack. By making pot illegal we have inadvertenty created a stepping stone right in the middle of the divide. IF we were to move pot(the stepping stone) back into the legal ground (the side of the river that we are crossing), we have a two much more realistic categories, and sudenly, the very first time you are approached to do x or crack, the fact that they are illegal actually might have some sort of meaning, one can't think to themselves "well they said this pot was bad and I'm still ok so why not." In effect we have made the leap harder to cross.

While I believe the above, I am not sure how important it is. I am not claiming that if pot were legal, suddnely every one would say, "oh, yeah, I use pot but i would never try Crack"

Here is one other way to look at it. Kissing is a gate way to sex. I'm serious here, who has ever heard of someone having sex for the first time without having kissed someone first, and also kissing arrouses the feelings that make it more likely for one to want to have sex. Does this mean that teen kissing, or kissing out of wedlock

 

I fail to understand why alcohol is legal and marijuana is not.

I haven't read all the above posts so forgive me if I'm going over old ground.

Alcohol causes many, many social problems. It causes disease and alcoholism, it encourages violence both domestically and publically, it destroys marriages and families and it encourages crime.

I don't understand why alcohol isn't illegal. If I were to invent some new drug that influenced and affected people the way alcohol does, I'd be demonized and the drug would be slapped straight into the illegal category.

 

Yeah but they tried making alcohol illegal and it caused more problems than it solved.

 

But generally this is the excepted order.

Actually, from people's posts in this thread I gather that many would put Pot as less dangerous than Alcohol and Cigs

 

Ta very much. Comparatively new here, I fear...

 

That's why I put the "in public" clause. I think you should be allowed to use them alone, but the second you step out in public under the influence of any drug that inhibits the mind (read: 99.99%), let the sentencing begin (or the trial, for that matter). In my world, knowingly making yourself dangerous in public (using drugs) would have a sentence as well as the offense possibly committed. If you can manage to do some drug in your home without even coming into contact with anyone else, why should I go and arrest you? Having kids nearby fits into the same category as "in public".

If it was truly about affecting other people, we'd have to throw away about 80% of the arguments here.

I also think people using drugs should receive no government-sponsored health care.

In an aside, I agree about those commercials. Any statistics about smoking killing (which doubtlessly happens a lot) are very subjective, as there is no real way of knowing which deaths were caused by smoking. Naturally, they choose the scariest number. I fail to see how growing your own drugs supports terrorism, too. Why not have anti-oil ads saying oil supports terrorism, too? Ugh... And those commercials saying cigarettes and urine are alike? Carbon is in cigs, and carbon is in a lot of nasty things! *Gasp*!

BTW: Jeez, I almost need a proof-reader! Every time I make a post, I notice something stupid like "do using drugs." Argh!

 

"That's why I put the 'in public' clause. I think you should be allowed to use them alone, but the second you step out in public under the influence of any drug that inhibits the mind (read: 99.99%), let the sentencing begin (or the trial, for that matter)."

Nyquil inhibits the mind. Should we not allow people on Nyquil out in public? And before you make any comments about not being as severe as Marijuana...I posted the link in the last pro-legalization thread(I'd have to look again) about how Marijuana's side effects are well within the acceptable range for medicines.

 

I was referring to the "credit card" style commercials where they list all the costs of being a terrorist (box-cutters, explosives, fake passports, etc...) and then state that if you are a drug user you are contributing to terrorist funds.

They also had one where they cut images of kids saying stuff like "my body is my body, everybody's doing it" in reference to drug use, intercut with those same kids saying stuff like "I helped buy guns for terrorists, I killed a judge" etc...

They were pretty sick, especially since the gov't was putting them out.

 

Good thread. Incedentially, many of us have heard the term "420" in regards to pot smoking, but does anyone know the origins of the term? I've heard several guesses, but only one real substancial story.

 

<<1 Alchohol
2 Cigarrettes
3 Pot
4 Designer drugs, Ecstacy, Acid etc.
5 Really hard stuff coke, heroin etc. >>

0_o From least dangerous to most? Not hardly. A more accurate list would place marijuana where you have alcohol, as it is without a doubt the least dangerous of all these drugs. It is less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, cannot poison you (alcohol and tobacco undeniably can), and, of course, does not produce nearly the level of societal damage that alcohol and tobacco do. The main problem with marijuana as a recreational drug today is its illegality, and the main consequences of its use turn on that, and not on any intrinsic bad quality of the drug itself. Look up the comments of the Lancet, Britain's leading medical publication.

 

http://www.hightimes.com/ has a theory on it. Speaking of which, the 20th of April is this Saturday. ;-D

 

Don't suppose you could post a copy of it - the site keeps giving me a "Document contained no data" message.

 

http://www.hightimes.com/ has a theory on it. Speaking of which, the 20th of April is this Saturday. ;-D

Hence my question about 420 and its origins. I've heard it was started back in the mid '70's by a group of high school kids in San Rafael, CA(yup, Lucasfilm country) and this was their code word, which was basically the time they liked to get high after school. It got popular and stuck. I'm from the Bay Area so I'm wondering if this is just a local thing, or if each region has it's clam to this term. It's not however the police code for possesion, or amount of chemicals in weed, as have been suggested before.

 

Who said marijuana is not addictive? I was just talking to my housemate last night, a heavy pot smoker, and he admitted that he was addicted to pot. He wanted to quit for final exams, but he wasn't able to. Just because something isn't physically addictive doesn't mean it isn't mentally addictive.

And as for one being more dangerous than the others (alcohol, cigarettes, pot) it all depends on what you consider dangerous. For people my age (16-22) I'd say it's somewhere between alcohol and weed. Why? Because I know too many people that have dropped out of school and potentially ruined their lives because they were addicted to one of these two things. Not so for cigarettes. For middle-aged people, cigarettes and alcohol seem to be the most dangerous.

You could also look at it this way: Have their been many cases of car accidents as a result of smoking? No, but their are a hell of a lot as a result of alcohol and even a few as a result of weed.

Marijuana is not as safe or harmless as supporters claim it to be, and it's not as dangerous as opposers claim. I can't believe that people don't discuss the gray area more often.

 

uhmmm i would say acid is alot worse than cocaine, but maybe that sjust me

 

Acid's not usually addictive. In fact I've never heard of it being addictive.

And 420 is the LAPD code for weed.

 

420 does not refer to any police code for posession of marijuana! Police codes are uniform all over the country ie, 187 is murder anywhere.

 

I never said it was more addictive i said it was worse for your mental state

 

An interesting side step from our conversation... 420 is the "National get high time," the date when columbine happened and also happens to be Senior skip day at my school.

 

Cailina: I probably agree with you, in that marijuana won't make you more dangerous to those around you. Nyquil? That's some sort of drowsy, sleep drug, right? Then allow it in most circumstances, but not driving. Not that it could be enforced, but IMO, it still needs to be there as a sort of moral decree.

Dacks: I didn't know which ones you were referring to, so I listed the types I didn't like. I actually think some of the anti-drug ads are very good. Certainly far better than any pro-drug ad I've ever seen. (Those "charitable" Philip Morris commercials really irk me -- "We gave $1 million to great causes, and now we're spending $5 million to tell you about how great we are, but it's still just because we wanted to give, and has nothing to do with marketing.")

 

"An interesting side step from our conversation... 420 is the "National get high time," the date when columbine happened and also happens to be Senior skip day at my school."

It's also Hitler's birthday.