Legalize it

[searcher]

Not to mention that I don't want my family exposed to "contact highs" that it would produce.

If it is legal, then I want to be able to legally kick the crap out of people who are doing it. You want the problem to go away? Start executing drug dealers. I have several in my own family that you can start with.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

You recognize the Constitution but seemingly disrespect the Declaration of Independence. Most scholars consider the Declaration of Independence the "promise" and the Constitution as the "fullfillment" of that promise.

"The Declaration of Independence is the declaratory charter of our rights, and the rights of man." -Thomas Jefferson

Yeah...so you think this basic principle can take a flying leap then?

When one cites 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as the basis for their argument that this substance or that behavior should be legal, one ignores the most basic counter-argument; that there is no objective standard.

The right to life? We put people to death all the time. With due process, of course, but we do indeed deprive them of a basic and fundamental right.

The right to liberty? Everyone in prison is denied this basic right.

The right to 'pursue happiness'? Well, someone tell me what that covers and what it does not. What, there is no objective list? Well, bugger me. Whoops, that's probably a 'pursuit' for some people too.

Those are very generic and general terms, meant to state the over-arching condition of man as it ought to be. The Declaration even goes so far as to state that these rights are fundamental for ALL men, not just (what would become) US citizens. How does the US protect the rights to life, liberty, etc, to citizens of other countries who live in those self-same countries?

The rights the government may not abrogate are listed in the Amendments. All other rights, they may indeed abrogate, and do on a regular basis.

You and I may agree that the government (state, federal, etc) frequently goes too far in that respect, but every citizen has a different idea of where the line ought to be drawn. Some would say no to helmet laws, some would say yes to them. Some would say no to minimum drinking age, some would say yes.

The fact is that in most US states, the recreational use of marijuana is prohibited. Polls continue to show that the majority of citizens do not want marijuana to be legal for recreational use.

My argument is that this is a good enough reason to ban it. While you may argue that your right to smoke a jay is infringed by bans on dope-smoking, I might argue that this is not an onerous infringement on your vital liberties.

 

[Ronin74]

Not to mention that I don't want my family exposed to "contact highs" that it would produce.

If it is legal, then I want to be able to legally kick the crap out of people who are doing it. You want the problem to go away? Start executing drug dealers. I have several in my own family that you can start with.

As funny as I might have found this response, I'd be lying if I said a part of me didn't agree with you.

Referencing my previous post, I don't have anything against it being done in cannabis clubs or in a person's own house, but once it's outside or in a place where it can affect others, then that's where I find a problem. If my neighbors smoked pot IN their house, I wouldn't give a damn. However, if it brought around some riff-raff into the neighborhood, or the smoke was creeping into my house, then I think I should have the right to do something about it.

Still though, there is a sense of "problem solved" if dealers were executed. I know some would try to justify dealing it as the only source of income they could come across, but I never understood why a person would opt for dealing when there are entry-level jobs that could provide, and do it legally.

 

[Satt]

Wait until it destroys your family and tell me that. I've been to hell with a family member who became an addict. I can tell you haven't. Like atheists in fox-holes, once you've seen a family member turning tricks on a street corner for drugs, you will change your tune.

LOL I assume you are talking about when it progresses past the weed phase. I have known SEVERAL people who did and do smoke and they have been fine. I have NEVER heard of anyone "turning tricks" for weed. If you mean after weed and they have started something else, then yes, I understand.

 

[jim777]

It's going to be legalized in a few places in the US relativelty soon. I would guess it will totally legal in a few States in the next 6 years or so. It has been shown to not be a gateway drug, with the author of one study saying, "“The emphasis on the drugs themselves, rather than other, more important factors that shape a person’s behavior, has been detrimental to drug policy and prevention programs”. (http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/study-say-marijuana-no-gateway-drug-12116.html) (On a note here - when I accessed this page there was an ad in it from a group called "DrugFreeWorld.org", which is in fact the Church of Scientology) The president has said he won't use the DEA to impose federal law in places state law differs from federal law, and momentum for legalization is growing.
The American College of Physicians is calling for more research, and hopefully that will happen.
A recent poll showed 52% of Americans for legalization and taxation, 11% 'not sure' and only 37% against. Legalization of marijuana in the US is coming.

 

[MJS]

LOL I assume you are talking about when it progresses past the weed phase. I have known SEVERAL people who did and do smoke and they have been fine. I have NEVER heard of anyone "turning tricks" for weed. If you mean after weed and they have started something else, then yes, I understand.

I'm not going to speak for Bill, but I think this is what he may be saying....if you have an addiction, a strong addiction, be it to pot, crack, coke, alcohol or sex, if that addiction is stronger than the person having it, it could take control of that person, making them do things, that are illegal, ie: steal, robbery, etc. to get the cash to support that habit.

So, while 'turning tricks' may not, although one never knows, be what someone does to get cash, as I said, it could drive you to do those things or things of that nature.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Personally I think cigarettes and alcohol both have risks. They are not harmless.

Cannabis isn't harmless either. Since legalization will logically result in an increase of consumption, why encourage more trouble?

Everything on the planet contains some risk and causes harm...including sunlight.

Are you sure it would result in an increase in consumption? Today, the drug of choice is pain-killers for young people. It gets them high without having to smoke...and they're free...right in mommy and daddy's medicine cabinet. Why pay for what you can get for free? Or at least what their insurance pays for...gee...wonder how that will be affected by Universal Health care?...hmmmmm...

Right now the government dictates what "drugs" are legal and which one's are illegal. (details on the how's, why's, and classifications available at the link I posted further back.) Just because Phizer provided huge kick-backs to Joe Congressman their drugs are legal. I guess if Cheech and Chong would give Uncle Sam a larger cut things might be different.

When one cites 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness' as the basis for their argument that this substance or that behavior should be legal, one ignores the most basic counter-argument; that there is no objective standard.

Isn't there? How about you have the right to do whatever you damn well please as long you aren't causing me any harm?

The right to life? We put people to death all the time. With due process, of course, but we do indeed deprive them of a basic and fundamental right.

The right to liberty? Everyone in prison is denied this basic right.

When you commit murder or other serious crimes you no longer have those rights. I thought that was common knowledge? Your argument, which uses prisoners as an example, is moot.

The right to 'pursue happiness'? Well, someone tell me what that covers and what it does not. What, there is no objective list? Well, bugger me. Whoops, that's probably a 'pursuit' for some people too.

What makes me happy is different than what may make you happy. In the simplest terms: You can do whatever makes you happy as long as you do not cause harm to another. If cutting yourself makes you happy...cut away. If cutting other peoeple makes you happy...then you can't do it...unless they like it too. LOL ... get it? It doesn't matter if you find this act distatseful on a personal level...it's nunya.

Those are very generic and general terms, meant to state the over-arching condition of man as it ought to be. The Declaration even goes so far as to state that these rights are fundamental for ALL men, not just (what would become) US citizens. How does the US protect the rights to life, liberty, etc, to citizens of other countries who live in those self-same countries?

The idea of "liberty" is abstract. There's no universal list of what is acceptable and what is not in terms of what makes someone happy.

In recent history, the US has done a pretty crappy job of protecting those rights IMHO. And anytime we do try to use it as an excuse to "help" out another country we are usually dubbed as being Imperialistic and/or Empire Builders.

I personally think we should focus on straightening up our own back yard before we try to tell others what to do with theirs.

The rights the government may not abrogate are listed in the Amendments. All other rights, they may indeed abrogate, and do on a regular basis.

How about numero 10 then? They seem to stomp on that one quite a bit, especially in regard to this topic.

Also, considering 18 and 21...well...:erg:

You and I may agree that the government (state, federal, etc) frequently goes too far in that respect, but every citizen has a different idea of where the line ought to be drawn. Some would say no to helmet laws, some would say yes to them. Some would say no to minimum drinking age, some would say yes.

What seems to continue to get lost in the shuffle is the fact that we are supposed to have power over our own lives.

If you don't want to wear a helmet...why should it matter to me? It's your head...do with it what you like. As long as you're not head-butting me in the nose with it...It's nunya.

The fact is that in most US states, the recreational use of marijuana is prohibited. Polls continue to show that the majority of citizens do not want marijuana to be legal for recreational use.

My argument is that this is a good enough reason to ban it. While you may argue that your right to smoke a jay is infringed by bans on dope-smoking, I might argue that this is not an onerous infringement on your vital liberties.

Any law that prohibits a behavior or action based on the whim of another violates the concept of liberty. Laws were created to protect, not inhibit acts that do no harm to another.

It's as simple as the Golden Rule really. You don't want me sticking my nose in your business, so don't stick yours in mine. I'll go out on a limb here and admit that I actually have issues with obese people. I do, it's true. My personal feelings aside, it's none of my business if they want to eat 20 cheeseburgers and sit on the couch all day. It's also nunya if some goober wants to smoke a spliff and watch sit-coms all day. As long as they aren't forcing cheesburgers and joints down my throat, it really doesn't matter. They're happy....I'm happy, everybody's happy. It's called LIBERTY. :idea:

I'm also curious to see how you address the scientific and medical facts listed at the link I posted further back.

I'd also like your $0.02 on the question regarding the hypocrisy of condoning the use of tobacco and alcohol while vehemently arguing against the use of marijuana.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

What seems to continue to get lost in the shuffle is the fact that we are supposed to have power over our own lives.

If you don't want to wear a helmet...why should it matter to me? It's your head...do with it what you like. As long as you're not head-butting me in the nose with it...It's nunya.

That's a fine libertarian approach, but it is not how the law works, is it?

I'm more interested in what is than in what should be or could be as it pertains to legalization of marijuana. The fact is that it is illegal for recreational use in most places, the public supports that, and that is a perfectly valid reason for it.

Any law that prohibits a behavior or action based on the whim of another violates the concept of liberty. Laws were created to protect, not inhibit acts that do no harm to another.

No, that is not true. Laws were created to protect the public safety and maintain civil order first. Our rights were protected in the Bill of Rights for the purpose you mentioned above. However, our rights are not absolute.

It's as simple as the Golden Rule really. You don't want me sticking my nose in your business, so don't stick yours in mine. I'll go out on a limb here and admit that I actually have issues with obese people. I do, it's true. My personal feelings aside, it's none of my business if they want to eat 20 cheeseburgers and sit on the couch all day. It's also nunya if some goober wants to smoke a spliff and watch sit-coms all day. As long as they aren't forcing cheesburgers and joints down my throat, it really doesn't matter. They're happy....I'm happy, everybody's happy. It's called LIBERTY. :idea:

It's a fine model, but it is not reality. You're describing how you think things ought to be. Great, but that's not how they are.

I'm also curious to see how you address the scientific and medical facts listed at the link I posted further back.

I'm not going to address the 'facts' you posted links to. I have mine that say the opposite. You'd poo-poo them, just as I poo-poo yours, so stalemate. In point of fact, however, I don't care how many studies say marijuana helps a body grow strong twelve ways and gives you a larger phallum bway-bway in the bargain. I am against it, and I will always be against it.

I'd also like your $0.02 on the question regarding the hypocrisy of condoning the use of tobacco and alcohol while vehemently arguing against the use of marijuana.

Good, I'm glad you brought that up.

Hypocrisy, is it?

If I say I like ketchup but not mustard, am I a hypocrite? They're both condiments, right? It would be hypocrisy if I based my judgment on the dangers each poses to human health. But that is not my basis. My basis is that I like ketchup and I don't like mustard. End of story, that's the whole thing. There is no hypocrisy present. It's called an opinion, and everybody gets one. You cannot be a hypocrite for having a personal bias - and we all have personal biases.

I do not have a problem with tobacco, and I don't have a problem with alcohol. I do have a problem with marijuana. I do not base my assessment on the relative dangers present, I base my assessment on my experiences, my observations, and my gut feelings. It all comes together to inform my opinion, and my opinion is what it is.

But since we are talking about hypocrisy, let's go there.

I take the 'anti' side of the marijuana debate, and in doing so, I am called a hypocrite because I do not take the same strong stance against tobacco or alcohol. However, neither tobacco nor alcohol are illegal.

Now, you can argue, as many do, that IF pot was legal, THEN it would not be any different than tobacco or alcohol, so therefore my position would logically have to change.

However; first, pot is NOT legal. So wish on, but illegal is illegal. I take the side of law and order, and those who argue in favor of using from the point of view of being pot-smokers themselves are not on the side of law and order. And I'm the one who is wrong?

Second, and I am speaking only to those who are currently recreational marijuana smokers in places where it is illegal, like the USA, I am not directly complicit in murder; you are.

I can draw a bright shining line from the casual pot smoker to his dealer to his distributor to the smuggler to the grower, and along the way, there is murder and mayhem on a scale that boggles the mind. The casual pot smoker may argue that his drug does no harm. Perhaps not to him. But unless he is growing it himself and never buys it on the street, he is directly supporting an industry that kills people on a regular basis as part of its method of operation.

I know the average pot smoker doesn't want to think about that, and I know that the standard counter argument is that if pot were legal, this would not happen. Yes, perhaps that is true, but pot is NOT legal, and this DOES happen, and if you buy pot from illicit sources, YOU are directly responsible for murders that happen as due course to bring you your illegal drug. YOU are a killer, not me.

And I'm the hypocrite?

I think not.

I work hard, pay my taxes, obey the law, and live a decent life. I don't want to smoke pot, legal or not. I don't like pot and I don't like what pot does to people. I won't tolerate it in my presence. I'll vote against legalization any time it appears on a ballot, and I'll contact my elected representatives to urge them to vote against it as well. These are all the acts of a law-abiding person. And somehow, that makes ME the bad guy?

The recreational dope-smokers of the USA are supporting terrorists and murderers with their money. And they stand up righteously and tell me how pot ought to be legal so they would not have to be murderers-by-proxy anymore. Hmmm.

Pot is a vice, like booze, like tobacco, like any other mind-altering substance. It's not a necessity (legal use for legitimate medical relief of pain not included). It is not a requirement. It's not the staff of life. No one is being denied food on their table, a roof over their heads. In an ideal libertarian world, of course it would be legal - so would heroin. I'm not an ideal libertarian, and I'm against it. It is 'like' tobacco and alcohol as a mind-altering substance, but in my opinion, it is much, much, more dangerous.

Most of you would agree that drugs like crack and heroin ought to remain illegal for casual recreational use. I just include marijuana in that list. That's really not so different from most of you, it is a difference of degree only.

Hypocrite? No. And recreational pot-smokers dare not look me in the eye and tell me that, given that they directly participate in murders done on their behalf. Hypocrite indeed.

 

[celtic_crippler]

That's a fine libertarian approach, but it is not how the law works, is it?

No, and it's another example of how it's "broken". This discussion is about whether or not it SHOULD be legalized and why.

I'm more interested in what is than in what should be or could be as it pertains to legalization of marijuana. The fact is that it is illegal for recreational use in most places, the public supports that, and that is a perfectly valid reason for it.

Not when that reason is contrary to other substances that are indeed legal. If the law is to be fair, it must apply equally to all things related. No?

No, that is not true. Laws were created to protect the public safety and maintain civil order first. Our rights were protected in the Bill of Rights for the purpose you mentioned above. However, our rights are not absolute.

"Were"? Past tense? Freudian slip? LOL

Perhaps not absolute, but unalienable. Unfortunatley, many have indeed been taken away over the slow process of time.

And yes, it is true. You're simply rewording what I posted. Nowhere has it been determined or proven that smoking pot endangers public safety or threatens civil order. It's a personal choice and if you use the argument that it cause health problems, ad nauseum...the same argument applies to those that eat cheesburgers. Bottom line, if you tell me I can't smoke a J, then I can reciprocate and tell you that you can't have a cheesburger. As ridiculous as that sounds, that is the way we've headed. Denying it doesn't change it.

It's a fine model, but it is not reality. You're describing how you think things ought to be. Great, but that's not how they are.

No, I'm describing the principles and model our country was established on. And you're right...it's not how things are and that's why I have a problem with it. If I wanted less liberty I'd move to another country, but that's what American is supposed to be about.

I'm not going to address the 'facts' you posted links to. I have mine that say the opposite. You'd poo-poo them, just as I poo-poo yours, so stalemate. In point of fact, however, I don't care how many studies say marijuana helps a body grow strong twelve ways and gives you a larger phallum bway-bway in the bargain. I am against it, and I will always be against it.

Did I miss your link to your "facts"?

Good, I'm glad you brought that up.

Hypocrisy, is it?

If I say I like ketchup but not mustard, am I a hypocrite? They're both condiments, right? It would be hypocrisy if I based my judgment on the dangers each poses to human health. But that is not my basis. My basis is that I like ketchup and I don't like mustard. End of story, that's the whole thing. There is no hypocrisy present. It's called an opinion, and everybody gets one. You cannot be a hypocrite for having a personal bias - and we all have personal biases.

It is hypocrisy when you try to tell me it's illegal for me to use mustard just because you don't like it.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to try and force everyone else to live by it. That's where you are wrong.

I do not have a problem with tobacco, and I don't have a problem with alcohol. I do have a problem with marijuana. I do not base my assessment on the relative dangers present, I base my assessment on my experiences, my observations, and my gut feelings. It all comes together to inform my opinion, and my opinion is what it is.

Again, you're entitled to hate marijuana as much as you like but not entitled to force everyone else to not use it. Opionions as well as experiences vary. Facts do not.

But since we are talking about hypocrisy, let's go there.

I take the 'anti' side of the marijuana debate, and in doing so, I am called a hypocrite because I do not take the same strong stance against tobacco or alcohol. However, neither tobacco nor alcohol are illegal.

You're entitled to take any stance you like. But when you cite the reasons for keeping it illegal, and those reasons are equally applicable to substances you endorese, then you then appear to be a hypocrite. You don't see that?

Now, you can argue, as many do, that IF pot was legal, THEN it would not be any different than tobacco or alcohol, so therefore my position would logically have to change.

You'd think that you'd at least have to recognize that the dangers are at least the same.

You do know that it was legal in the past right? Did you know that Jefferson prefered it to tobacco? I thought that was an intersting tid-bit...

But anyway...please continue.

However; first, pot is NOT legal. So wish on, but illegal is illegal. I take the side of law and order, and those who argue in favor of using from the point of view of being pot-smokers themselves are not on the side of law and order. And I'm the one who is wrong?

Not the point and not the topic of discussion. Should it be legal? It was legal before...actually at one point the law required so much of one's property be dedicated to growing it. Wierd, huh?

By that logic those who break the speed limit are not on the side of law and order either.

And no, you're not necessarily wrong but you haven't done a great job of arguing against it. Especially when the reasons you cite can just as easily apply to tobacco and alcohol. Do you support making those substance, even caffeine, illegal? That's where you appear to be hypocritical.

Second, and I am speaking only to those who are currently recreational marijuana smokers in places where it is illegal, like the USA, I am not directly complicit in murder; you are.

I can draw a bright shining line from the casual pot smoker to his dealer to his distributor to the smuggler to the grower, and along the way, there is murder and mayhem on a scale that boggles the mind. The casual pot smoker may argue that his drug does no harm. Perhaps not to him. But unless he is growing it himself and never buys it on the street, he is directly supporting an industry that kills people on a regular basis as part of its method of operation.

Exactly! The fact that it's illegal perpetuates that "black" market and those additional crimes!!! :duh:

The act of smoking it is not the crime. You can not blame the smoker for the deaths caused by the "drug lords" engaged in warring over who gets to sell it. By that logic, we should blame the government for making it illegal and therefore establishing the environment that produces and perpetuates the existance of "drug lords" and associated crimes!!!

And what about some hill-billy that grows it for personal use? Who are they harming?

I know the average pot smoker doesn't want to think about that, and I know that the standard counter argument is that if pot were legal, this would not happen. Yes, perhaps that is true, but pot is NOT legal, and this DOES happen, and if you buy pot from illicit sources, YOU are directly responsible for murders that happen as due course to bring you your illegal drug. YOU are a killer, not me.

I could easily argue that you are responsible because you support it being illegal and YOU are a killer.

I could also argue that you are a killer because you allow alcohol and tobacco to be legal! People die from using those substances every day.

I could also argue that you are a killer because you allow people to eat fatty foods.

All those arguments are ridiculous, including yours. That is, unless you are against Liberty and Freedom. If you are against individual choice and responsibility then you may well be within your rights to make that argument. Perhaps that is where we differ.

And I'm the hypocrite?

I think not.

Pehaps...but definatley unfair when allowing personal opinion to be the your yardstick instead of the facts.

I work hard, pay my taxes, obey the law, and live a decent life. I don't want to smoke pot, legal or not. I don't like pot and I don't like what pot does to people. I won't tolerate it in my presence. I'll vote against legalization any time it appears on a ballot, and I'll contact my elected representatives to urge them to vote against it as well. These are all the acts of a law-abiding person. And somehow, that makes ME the bad guy?

It's a free...well still relatively free...country. When it comes up on the ballot to make cheesburgers illegal I may consider doing the same. I would hope that logic and reason would prevail; however, and I would take into consideration that people that eat cheesburgers are not a danger to me.

I wouldn't say you're a bad guy, just mislead and close-minded. I actually respect your stance, but have yet to see any real evidence or legitimate argument against decriminalizing marijuana from you or anyone else.

The recreational dope-smokers of the USA are supporting terrorists and murderers with their money. And they stand up righteously and tell me how pot ought to be legal so they would not have to be murderers-by-proxy anymore. Hmmm.

Again...not a valid argument as pointed out above.

Pot is a vice, like booze, like tobacco, like any other mind-altering substance. It's not a necessity (legal use for legitimate medical relief of pain not included). It is not a requirement. It's not the staff of life. No one is being denied food on their table, a roof over their heads. In an ideal libertarian world, of course it would be legal - so would heroin. I'm not an ideal libertarian, and I'm against it. It is 'like' tobacco and alcohol as a mind-altering substance, but in my opinion, it is much, much, more dangerous.

You're dead wrong about marijuana being more dangerous than tobacco and especially alcohol. Facts, facts, facts...where are the facts? I believe I posted a link to some....

Anyway, you're getting warmer hitting on "vice." In a free society you do not have to partake of any vice, but you would have the freedom to do so if you liked.

Most of you would agree that drugs like crack and heroin ought to remain illegal for casual recreational use. I just include marijuana in that list. That's really not so different from most of you, it is a difference of degree only.

Wrong again. Marijuana is not a narcotic. Marijuana is not the same classification of drug as crack and/or heroin....where's that link again? LOL

BTW...did you know that codeine is actually the most commonly used drug today according to the World Health Organization?

It's an opiate and what is the principle ingrediant in drugs like vicodine and/or hydrocodone. It's what little Johnny and Susy prefer these days. It is a narcotic.

Closely behind that is another opiate derivitive, oxycotten. Got any idea how many folks go to rehab for this every year? Oh...and they get it "legally" too.

Less than 1% of Americans smoke pot regularly.

So...exactly what "drug" should you be advocating making illegal again?

Hypocrite? No. And recreational pot-smokers dare not look me in the eye and tell me that, given that they directly participate in murders done on their behalf. Hypocrite indeed.

According to your logic, we all pretty much participate in murders. We should be ashamed of ourselves...

And for the record...No, I'm not a pot smoker.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

No, and it's another example of how it's "broken". This discussion is about whether or not it SHOULD be legalized and why.

And I am of the opinion that it should not be legalized, and my reason is because I am against it - no other reason necessary.

Not when that reason is contrary to other substances that are indeed legal. If the law is to be fair, it must apply equally to all things related. No?

No, not at all. The law does not treat like things equally, nor does it have to. Justice is supposed to establish fair treatment for the same crimes - not fair crimes for similar actions.

And yes, it is true. You're simply rewording what I posted. Nowhere has it been determined or proven that smoking pot endangers public safety or threatens civil order. It's a personal choice and if you use the argument that it cause health problems, ad nauseum...the same argument applies to those that eat cheesburgers. Bottom line, if you tell me I can't smoke a J, then I can reciprocate and tell you that you can't have a cheesburger. As ridiculous as that sounds, that is the way we've headed. Denying it doesn't change it.

*I* cannot deny you anything - I am not the lawgiver. Society can, and does. If society chose to make cheeseburgers illegal, then that would be the law.

No, I'm describing the principles and model our country was established on. And you're right...it's not how things are and that's why I have a problem with it. If I wanted less liberty I'd move to another country, but that's what American is supposed to be about.

I can't deny that, but it's not germane to the discussion at hand.

Did I miss your link to your "facts"?

No, because I didn't post it. There is no reason to do so. You won't believe my 'facts' any more than I'll believe yours. Studies on both sides of the argument are guaranteed to be rejected out of hand by those who hold contrary opinions, so I won't bother you with mine.

It is hypocrisy when you try to tell me it's illegal for me to use mustard just because you don't like it.

No, not at all. Again, *I* am not the lawgiver. But if society wants to pass a law that makes mustard illegal JUST because they don't like it, then that's the way it is. Gay Marriage in California ring a bell? The citizens shot it down - just because they don't like it. People on both sides of that argument are likewise uninterested in studies pointing to the pros or cons of gay marriage - they're either for it or against it for very personal reasons - and when it goes to the polls as a plebiscite, the majority wins and that is indeed the law of that state.

You're entitled to your opinion, but you're not entitled to try and force everyone else to live by it. That's where you are wrong.

Yes, I am entitled to try to force my opinion on everyone else. And you are likewise entitled to try to force your opinion on everyone too. This is exactly what happens when people go to the polls and vote on initiatives, ballot measures, constitutional modifications, and other plebiscites. There is nothing that requires any citizen to have logic or science or public sentiment as their backing - they vote their conscience and that is good enough. We are a representative republic, but we have aspects of direct democracy built into our systems, and this is one of them. We are indeed free to attempt to enforce our biased, flawed, emotional, and logic-less opinions on everybody else.

Again, you're entitled to hate marijuana as much as you like but not entitled to force everyone else to not use it. Opionions as well as experiences vary. Facts do not.

The fact is that marijuana is illegal for recreational use in most of the USA. The fact is that the people appear to prefer it to remain that way. Those are facts. There are no laws that require public opinion to adhere to the results of studies, nor are there any laws that prevent people from voting their opinion and nothing else.

Studies - pro and con - are not facts. They are studies. They are valid means to attempt to reach a conclusion about the 'truth' but they are not facts in an of themselves. Even if they were - we as citizens are still free to absolutely reject them and hold contrary opinions anyway. That's life.

You're entitled to take any stance you like. But when you cite the reasons for keeping it illegal, and those reasons are equally applicable to substances you endorese, then you then appear to be a hypocrite. You don't see that?

Sure, which is why I do not cite the dangers of marijuana as the REASON that I hold my anti-marijuana opinion. It is just something I also happen to believe. My basis for disliking marijuana and wanting it to remain illegal is personal, which I have said repeatedly. It isn't based on fact or logic and it doesn't have to be. I have a bias. So do you. That is not hypocrisy. Live with it.

You'd think that you'd at least have to recognize that the dangers are at least the same.

I do not agree.

You do know that it was legal in the past right? Did you know that Jefferson prefered it to tobacco? I thought that was an intersting tid-bit...

Misquotes and half-truths. I've read the quotes, and I've read the statements debunking those statements. You can believe what you like.

Not the point and not the topic of discussion. Should it be legal? It was legal before...actually at one point the law required so much of one's property be dedicated to growing it. Wierd, huh?

The laws requiring it to be grown pertained to hemp, which is indeed cannabis, but without THC. It was not grown to smoke but to make rope, cloth, and paper. That's a misleading half-truth in the way it is commonly used by pro-weed people.

Many illicit drugs were at one time legal, like LSD and cocaine and so on. So what? They're illegal now and I'm glad of it.

By that logic those who break the speed limit are not on the side of law and order either.

Not if they are arguing for or against speed limits. I am a law-abiding citizen in that I (and you too apparently) do not smoke pot; so when I make my argument, I do so as a law-abiding citizen. Those who argue against me who also smoke pot illicitly are not law-abiding. That's their choice, but I have to laugh at the idea of criminals pointing out my flaws. As far as morality goes, I hold the high ground in this debate.

And no, you're not necessarily wrong but you haven't done a great job of arguing against it. Especially when the reasons you cite can just as easily apply to tobacco and alcohol. Do you support making those substance, even caffeine, illegal? That's where you appear to be hypocritical.

No, I do not support making them illegal. As I have said repeatedly, which you appear either not to get or not to want to get, I am not using the argument that pot is injurious to health as the basis for my opinion. If I were, then I would agree that it would be hypocritical for me to be against one and not against all.

However, I should point out that the entire line of reasoning you're using is flawed, because it can be applied to ANYONE in ANY argument. If you're against abortion, you'd better be against capital punishment. It is very easy to make any comparison and claim the person is a hypocrite if they don't also support (or are against) x, y, or z. It's used as a distraction and does not go toward the argument at hand.

The act of smoking it is not the crime. You can not blame the smoker for the deaths caused by the "drug lords" engaged in warring over who gets to sell it. By that logic, we should blame the government for making it illegal and therefore establishing the environment that produces and perpetuates the existance of "drug lords" and associated crimes!!!

Yes, I can indeed blame the pot smokers. They make the choice to engage in the illegal behavior, knowing that it is illegal, and knowing (as everyone must by now) that the drug lords that bring it to them engage in these crimes. That is a direct, bright, shining line of culpability, just like knowingly buying stolen property ties you to the thief, but the fact that the government makes stealing illegal does not transfer blame to the government.

The government did not make anyone choose to engage in illicit behavior. The responsibility is on the heads of the pot-smokers, dealers, and others in the direct line of the pot from grower to smoker.

And what about some hill-billy that grows it for personal use? Who are they harming?

I presume he is harming no one. I was careful in my choice of words.

I could easily argue that you are responsible because you support it being illegal and YOU are a killer.

You could argue it, but your argument is weak and specious. Would I then be culpable for pedophiles engaging in the sex trade and resulting harm to minors because I am in favor of laws prohibiting such behavior? No. The person who knowingly breaks the law bears the responsibility for their actions and for those actions which any reasonable person would or should know were caused by that action. They are an accessory after the fact of the murders and so on.

I could also argue that you are a killer because you allow alcohol and tobacco to be legal! People die from using those substances every day.

I could also argue that you are a killer because you allow people to eat fatty foods.

Same response as above.

All those arguments are ridiculous, including yours. That is, unless you are against Liberty and Freedom. If you are against individual choice and responsibility then you may well be within your rights to make that argument. Perhaps that is where we differ.

I am not against liberty or freedom. I am for the rule of law.

Pehaps...but definatley unfair when allowing personal opinion to be the your yardstick instead of the facts.

I am no different than anyone else in that. I just admit it openly.

It's a free...well still relatively free...country. When it comes up on the ballot to make cheesburgers illegal I may consider doing the same. I would hope that logic and reason would prevail; however, and I would take into consideration that people that eat cheesburgers are not a danger to me.

Yes you could, and that is my point.

I wouldn't say you're a bad guy, just mislead and close-minded. I actually respect your stance, but have yet to see any real evidence or legitimate argument against decriminalizing marijuana from you or anyone else.

I am close-minded on this subject. There is much to be said for close-mindedness on certain subjects. Open-mindedness on too many subjects can lead to one's brains falling out.

 

[jim777]

A short post

A little Penn and Teller from their TV show, '********' (this vid isn't work friendly, as it's from HBO tv. Lots of cursing so be advised)

http://vodpod.com/watch/1788640-penn-teller-********-the-war-on-drugs

 

[Joab]

Don't legalize it for recreational use. If it can be determined there are medical benefits to it's use, than yes, a medical doctor should be able to prescribe a certain amount for it's medical use only.

 

[jim777]

As I've said before, I believe it should be legal; regulated and taxed by the individual States the same way that alcohol is.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j9P7paNzS32m_gMI8AAEkpvjXNWwD99J8TPG0

 

[JDenver]

acckkkkk----my post got all messed up.

Ironic maybe.

 

[celtic_crippler]

And I am of the opinion that it should not be legalized, and my reason is because I am against it - no other reason necessary.

I have a feeling, like most folks, that your tune would change if it happened to be something you were in favor of...like ketchup.

No, not at all. The law does not treat like things equally, nor does it have to. Justice is supposed to establish fair treatment for the same crimes - not fair crimes for similar actions.

So...in Bill's world Justice wears contacts?

*I* cannot deny you anything - I am not the lawgiver. Society can, and does. If society chose to make cheeseburgers illegal, then that would be the law.

That's a contradiction to your assertion. Are you not part of society?

I can't deny that, but it's not germane to the discussion at hand.

Zee Germans aside, liberty and freedom is at the very root of this discussion actually. It's a shame you can't see that.

No, because I didn't post it. There is no reason to do so. You won't believe my 'facts' any more than I'll believe yours. Studies on both sides of the argument are guaranteed to be rejected out of hand by those who hold contrary opinions, so I won't bother you with mine.

More likely it is because you have nothing to back your assertions other than your opinion.

No, not at all. Again, *I* am not the lawgiver. But if society wants to pass a law that makes mustard illegal JUST because they don't like it, then that's the way it is. Gay Marriage in California ring a bell? The citizens shot it down - just because they don't like it. People on both sides of that argument are likewise uninterested in studies pointing to the pros or cons of gay marriage - they're either for it or against it for very personal reasons - and when it goes to the polls as a plebiscite, the majority wins and that is indeed the law of that state.

Gay marriage shouldn't even be on the ballot, and neither should marijuana. It's nobody's business but the people involved. Again, it's not and never has been for the majority to force morality or beliefs on the minority. Just because you and others accept it, doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it's constitutional. It just means the beliefs and principles of the founders of this nation have been perverted to the point where an otherwise rational human being can't see the forrest through the trees.

It doesn't matter whether you're for it or not, the government has no business legislating anything having to do with it. At least the government established in 1776 thought so anyway...

Yes, I am entitled to try to force my opinion on everyone else. And you are likewise entitled to try to force your opinion on everyone too. This is exactly what happens when people go to the polls and vote on initiatives, ballot measures, constitutional modifications, and other plebiscites. There is nothing that requires any citizen to have logic or science or public sentiment as their backing - they vote their conscience and that is good enough. We are a representative republic, but we have aspects of direct democracy built into our systems, and this is one of them. We are indeed free to attempt to enforce our biased, flawed, emotional, and logic-less opinions on everybody else.

I am not entitled nor do I try to force my opinion on anyone. I try to sway and influence people with logic and reason. I present facts to back up my argument. People that try to force their opinions tend to build ovens to put the rest of us in.

Our system has been perverted over time. When I go to the polls I try to vote someone in who wishes to restore freedom and liberty to the US.

Knowing people are flawed, the founders created the Electoral College. Though it didn't seem to help.

The fact is that marijuana is illegal for recreational use in most of the USA. The fact is that the people appear to prefer it to remain that way. Those are facts. There are no laws that require public opinion to adhere to the results of studies, nor are there any laws that prevent people from voting their opinion and nothing else.

Obviously! We had slavery for quite some time didn't we? Did it make it right? Was it ethical? Did it infringe on freedom and liberty? No..don't answer that question. Just think about it.

Studies - pro and con - are not facts. They are studies. They are valid means to attempt to reach a conclusion about the 'truth' but they are not facts in an of themselves. Even if they were - we as citizens are still free to absolutely reject them and hold contrary opinions anyway. That's life.

Studies are supported by facts.

And yes, you can believe in the Easter Bunny if you like. There's no law against that...yet.

Sure, which is why I do not cite the dangers of marijuana as the REASON that I hold my anti-marijuana opinion. It is just something I also happen to believe. My basis for disliking marijuana and wanting it to remain illegal is personal, which I have said repeatedly. It isn't based on fact or logic and it doesn't have to be. I have a bias. So do you. That is not hypocrisy. Live with it.

Well...I definately hope you and the "majority" don't suddenly take up the opinion that all non-whites are worthless and should be exterminated.

I do not agree.

You don't have to. But ethically, you shouldn't condemn others for disagreeing with you. Especially when their position does you know harm.

Misquotes and half-truths. I've read the quotes, and I've read the statements debunking those statements. You can believe what you like.

Did you poor some blood in a bowl of chicken bones and then spit in it to come up with that or do you actually have a legitimate source for your position this time?

I believe in liberty and freedom. What do you believe in?

The laws requiring it to be grown pertained to hemp, which is indeed cannabis, but without THC. It was not grown to smoke but to make rope, cloth, and paper. That's a misleading half-truth in the way it is commonly used by pro-weed people.

Wow...you really have done absolutely no research at all on this have you? Your entire position is simply based on heresy and personal opinion.

Many illicit drugs were at one time legal, like LSD and cocaine and so on. So what? They're illegal now and I'm glad of it.

Don't forget alcohol and how well that worked.

Not if they are arguing for or against speed limits. I am a law-abiding citizen in that I (and you too apparently) do not smoke pot; so when I make my argument, I do so as a law-abiding citizen. Those who argue against me who also smoke pot illicitly are not law-abiding. That's their choice, but I have to laugh at the idea of criminals pointing out my flaws. As far as morality goes, I hold the high ground in this debate.

What moral high-ground is that? Support of Liberty? Support of Freedom? Or support of oppressive government? Support of dictated morality?

No, I do not support making them illegal. As I have said repeatedly, which you appear either not to get or not to want to get, I am not using the argument that pot is injurious to health as the basis for my opinion. If I were, then I would agree that it would be hypocritical for me to be against one and not against all.

However, I should point out that the entire line of reasoning you're using is flawed, because it can be applied to ANYONE in ANY argument. If you're against abortion, you'd better be against capital punishment. It is very easy to make any comparison and claim the person is a hypocrite if they don't also support (or are against) x, y, or z. It's used as a distraction and does not go toward the argument at hand.

You do not support making tobacco and alcohol illegal, but support keeping marijuana illegal and that's not hypocritical?

Please elaborate on the flaws of my reasoning.

It would indeed be hypocritical of one that recognizes a fetus as "life" to endorse capital punishment while being against abortion. What's that got to do with my point? If anything, it further proves it!

Yes, I can indeed blame the pot smokers. They make the choice to engage in the illegal behavior, knowing that it is illegal, and knowing (as everyone must by now) that the drug lords that bring it to them engage in these crimes. That is a direct, bright, shining line of culpability, just like knowingly buying stolen property ties you to the thief, but the fact that the government makes stealing illegal does not transfer blame to the government.

You can blame the Tooth Fairy if you like, it doesn't change anything.

So you're saying that every time you buy a pair of jeans manufactured by child labor in a foreign country that you are personally responsible for the child's misery and possibly even thier death? Check your closet before you answer that one...

Or better yet...every time you wipe your butt you're contributing to the death of a lovely tree!

The government did not make anyone choose to engage in illicit behavior. The responsibility is on the heads of the pot-smokers, dealers, and others in the direct line of the pot from grower to smoker.

They didn't do much to help prevent it either. As a matter of fact they probably did more to perpetuate it than anything.

From child in cambodia to your local JC Penny then to you. LOL

I presume he is harming no one. I was careful in my choice of words.

So ...do you hate Jed too? You didn't say.

You could argue it, but your argument is weak and specious. Would I then be culpable for pedophiles engaging in the sex trade and resulting harm to minors because I am in favor of laws prohibiting such behavior? No. The person who knowingly breaks the law bears the responsibility for their actions and for those actions which any reasonable person would or should know were caused by that action. They are an accessory after the fact of the murders and so on.

Freedom and Liberty have no real value to you?

Your argument is moot. (1) The laws against pedophilia did not establish an environment conducive to creating a criminal fringe or black market (2) The act/behavior is criminal regardless because there is a VICTIM. ...hello? McFly?

Same response as above.

I see...

I am not against liberty or freedom. I am for the rule of law.

Yes...but...what about when the "law" infringes on those rights? Is that constitutional? Is that in line with the principles of our founders? Don't bother answering...I got this one: NO.

I am no different than anyone else in that. I just admit it openly.

Glad you're out of the closet. LOL. Seriously, you are different...at least from me that is. I admit that my feelings on certain things play a part in my decision making, but I always try to temper my opinion with fairness using logic, reason, and facts. A bit further back I admitted to this in regards to obesity. Not proud of it, but I've overcome that predjudice because I am able to think for myself. I still have a long way to go on many things, but the point is I try and part of that is keeping an open mind.

Yes you could, and that is my point.

But I don't, and that's mine.

I am close-minded on this subject. There is much to be said for close-mindedness on certain subjects. Open-mindedness on too many subjects can lead to one's brains falling out.

"Your mind should be as a parachute, because it only works when it is open." SGM Ed Parker.

Be close minded, my friend. I respect your stance but must disagree with anything that inhibits liberty.

A short post

A little Penn and Teller from their TV show, '********' (this vid isn't work friendly, as it's from HBO tv. Lots of cursing so be advised)

http://vodpod.com/watch/1788640-penn-teller-********-the-war-on-drugs

I love those guys. It's unfortunate that the concept of liberty seems to have become some abstract concept that people simply can't wrap their minds around any more.

How is it that people, over 200 years ago, saw it so clearly yet today we all as a society seem to be blinded to it?

Makes me sad...the world could be so much better and the potential is there but there seems to be more regression than progression.

...now I'm just depressed.

 

[Omar B]

LOL I assume you are talking about when it progresses past the weed phase. I have known SEVERAL people who did and do smoke and they have been fine. I have NEVER heard of anyone "turning tricks" for weed. If you mean after weed and they have started something else, then yes, I understand.

Ever seen that movie Half Baked when they were in the NA meeting. "Sit the hell down, nobody ever sucked d--- for weed!" LOL.

 

[Steve]

I honestly can't believe that we're re... ahem... hashing this same topic. There is absolutely no reason that marijuana is illegal for use by consenting adults. There is a lot that can be done with industrial hemp and as a recreational drug, weed is far less damaging than alcohol.

Bill, you in particular, surprise me. We went round and round on this a few months back and it seems to me that you finally admitted that your position was emotional and not rational. If you are opposed to the use of weed, great. Fine. Many people don't drink and have stories about how alcohol has ruined the lives of people they know. And yet, for most people, it's something they enjoy with a good meal.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

There is absolutely no reason that marijuana is illegal for use by consenting adults.

There is a very good reason, whether you agree with it or not. That reason is that the majority want it to be illegal for recreational use. That's a reason. Saying 'there is no reason' over and over again doesn't change what the majority want and got.

Bill, you in particular, surprise me. We went round and round on this a few months back and it seems to me that you finally admitted that your position was emotional and not rational.

It was not me 'finally admitting' it. It was me saying that it was my opinion, and being told over and over again that I could not have that opinion because I would not accept studies showing marijuana not to be harmful as the basis for changing my opinion. Being against marijuana was my opinion at the beginning and never changed. I'm willing to argue about what harm marijuana does - but it's pretty clear that studies done on one side or the other don't change anyone's mind. Certainly not mine.

If you are opposed to the use of weed, great. Fine. Many people don't drink and have stories about how alcohol has ruined the lives of people they know. And yet, for most people, it's something they enjoy with a good meal.

I am, as you say, opposed to the recreational use of weed. I'll say that to anyone who asks my opinion on the subject, and I'll vote that way everytime I get the chance. I reject any suggestion that I'm a hypocrite for believing that, or that I must change my opinion based on someone's posted links to studies that purport to show this or that. For people who believe in 'freedom' there sure is a lot of "you're not allowed to believe that" going on here. I do believe it, I'm going to keep believing it, and I'm going to continue to agitate for the continued non-legality of recreational marijuana use. I don't want to use it and I don't want anyone to use it.

Your suggestion is that while I may be entitled to my personal opinion, I have no right to try to subject others to it; that is not acceptable. I have every right to attempt to do just that, and I will. Others who feel differently have the exact same right, and if they can convince the lawmakers to make pot legal, then so be it. I'll still be against it, but it will be the law.

 

[jarrod]

by your rationale, slavery was okay so long as the majority supported it. what you're describing is known as tyranny of the majority, & it is one of the major pitfalls of trying to maintain freedom in a democracy. "the majority wants it" is not only not a good reason, it violates state's rights & individual liberties. besides, i haven't seen any data indicating that the majority does in fact want pot to be illegal, although i didn't read the entire thread. instead i suspect that it is illegal due to lobbying & misinformation.

jf

 

[Carol]

Don't legalize it for recreational use. If it can be determined there are medical benefits to it's use, than yes, a medical doctor should be able to prescribe a certain amount for it's medical use only.

Marinol is already available for medical use. It causes no harm to the lungs because it is not smoked or inhaled, it is a specific dosage and every patient knows exactly what is in it.