Legalize it

[jarrod]

rights are more important than laws.

let me run this by you, if it's too personal, my apologies & don't feel obligated to answer.

in kansas, sodomy is still illegal. the definition of sodomy is expanded to include oral sex of any form. doesn't matter if you're in your own home or not. of course the law isn't enforced in privacy-of-your-own-home situations, but there is absolutely nothing on the books saying it can't be. so if you lived in the otherwise largely great state of kansas, would you abide by this law? or is it just nobody's damn business?

the law is the law, after all.

jf

 

[Joab]

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.

The problem with marinol or any pill is that it is often regurgitated by cancer patients who find marijuana helps alleviate nausea from chemotherapy. The smoke from smoking it doesn't upset the stomach like a pill can.

 

[jarrod]

in kansas, sodomy is still illegal. the definition of sodomy is expanded to include oral sex of any form. doesn't matter if you're in your own home or not. of course the law isn't enforced in privacy-of-your-own-home situations, but there is absolutely nothing on the books saying it can't be.

jf

just did a tiny bit of research, it appears this law is no longer on the books, at least in any heterosexual context. but let's pretend it is just for fun.

jf

 

[Joab]

just did a tiny bit of research, it appears this law is no longer on the books, at least in any heterosexual context. but let's pretend it is just for fun.

jf

It wouldn't matter if it was on the books because the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that sodomy can not be made illegal. However the Supreme Court interprets the Constitution is the law of the land, you probaly already know that.

 

[Big Don]

IF marijuana has a valid medical use, then it should be treated like morphine, demorol, codine and other narcotics. There is NO burning reason to legalize it just so people can get high. If THAT is the purpose, then the proponents of marijuana legalization should damn well be LOUDLY advocating the legalization for recreational use of morphine, demorol, etc.
But, if they did that, they'd alienate a ton of people.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Okay Bill, we get it. You HATE marijuana. I have a sneaking suspicion that if your personal experiences involved alcohol you would probably be lobbying to outlaw it as well.

We also get that you will blindly follow any law, regardless of whether it violates the principles of the founders. Those being that laws are intended to protect our freedoms and liberties, not inhibit them.

I recognize how difficult it is to separate personal experience and prejudice from one's ability to make rational decisions based on pure logic and sound reason. If it were easy, we wouldn't be having this discussion or many, many others. Nobody I know of is capable of doing this all of the time...but it's important to try.

We all "feel" that certain things are right and others are wrong, but where we part ways is what things we tell others, in all fairness, they can and can not do. That's where the concept of liberty comes in. Even the Golden Rule alludes to liberty; "Do unto others..." If you do not want government intrusion into your personal space, you must be against ALL government intrusion into anyone's personal space. One simple, very basic ideal underlying all that is this: You have absolutely no right to govern the actions or behavior of another where no harm is caused to another.

Some people get it...some people don't. Those that don't, are usually the contributers to endorsing legislation that violates personal freedom; from wire tapping to dictating what sexual positions a married couple can legally use when expressing their love for each other. From prohibition to racial profiling....the list goes on and on.

The difference between "us" and "them" is that "we", regardless of personal feelings recognize when legislation crosses the line and regardless of those personal feelings endorse what is RIGHT for ALL individuals.

Another personal example: I don't think homosexual behavior is normal. Why should I? I'm heterosexual. Seeing two men kiss makes me extremely uncomfortable. So what? It's none of my business. They are harming no one. At least they're kissing and not strangling each other! So, logic dictates that I should leave them alone. I don't want the government telling me what I can do in my bedroom, so I must endorse that they have the same right. It's that simple. Besides, I've discovered over the years that it's a good idea to be friends with gays...they help me shop for cool clothes because I have absolutely no fashion sense and if it were left up to me to dress myself I'd never get a date! LOL

And BTW....marijuana is NOT a narcotic. It does not fit the definition of what a narcotic is, so...the government can try to classify it that way all day long in order to further demonize it, but it doesn't change the facts. If marijuana is a narcotic, then so is alcohol and it should be illegal as well.

 

[jim777]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

 

[jim777]

And thank goodness we spent all that tax money on the Shafer Commision! :rofl:

 

[celtic_crippler]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

How dare they combat a social issue with common sense!!! It doesn't matter if it's working or not!! Drugs are evil and people that use them are evil and need to be destroyed!

...right.....

 

[JadecloudAlchemist]

.​

​

 

[Steve]

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.

I am not sure I agree with that. You've said it many times, but I'm not sure where you're getting that idea. You seem to be saying essentially that most people want it to be illegal because it's illegal. Am I missing something?

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.

I'll have to dig up the thread, because I'm pretty sure that's not quite how it happened.

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.

No one is arguing that weed is altogether healthful, although there are documented health benefits in some cases. Weed for recreational use would need to be controlled much as we control access to alcohol and tobacco.

Anything, if abused, will be damaging to your health. That goes for everything from alcohol to a juicy ribeye steak. Too much fat will kill you dead, just as surely as anything else will.

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.

I never suggested that you are a hypocrite, nor that you should change your opinion. I am simply saying that your opinion is clearly grounded in emotion. Many of our opinions are. What I can't understand is why you continue to try and argue your emotional position. This is why you keep falling back to "it's my opinion and I'm allowed to have it."

For people who believe in 'freedom' there sure is a lot of "you're not allowed to believe that" going on here.

Exactly the opposite.

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.

In the words of Perry Mason, "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case."

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.

Once again, not even close. My suggestion is that you be at least honest enough with yourself to admit that your position is emotional and not rational. Any arguments you make are attempts to rationalize your position, and "facts" are irrelevant because you will never change your mind. For example, now you're trying to argue from the position of the majority: "Most people want it to be illegal, so it is." But can you honestly say that if you were the only one in the country who felt as you do, you'd change your mind? I don't think so. I would suspect that if there were a clear minority of people who felt as you do, you'd throw out something along the lines of, "There was a time when the majority thought the world was flat."

 

[Steve]

The problem with marinol or any pill is that it is often regurgitated by cancer patients who find marijuana helps alleviate nausea from chemotherapy. The smoke from smoking it doesn't upset the stomach like a pill can.

This reminded me of Ricky Williams, the former NFL running back. I remember when he was drafted by Ditka to the Saints. He was a strange dude, doing interviews with his helmet on and frequently found sitting in his locker. Turns out, he was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and prescribed drugs. Long story short, the drugs they prescribed... paxil, IIRC, had severe side effects. Marijuana did not. He was quoted as saying that marijuana was 10 times better for him than paxil. Over the course of several years, he was fined and suspended for using a banned substance and eventually retired to Canada, where I believe he now teaches yoga.

At the time, I thought it was interesting that marijuana (clearly not a performance enhancing drug) was banned, and they were basically trying to force this guy to take a lab produced pharmaceutical that, by his account, didn't really work for him. It really made no sense to me at the time and still doesn't.

 

[celtic_crippler]

This reminded me of Ricky Williams, the former NFL running back. I remember when he was drafted by Ditka to the Saints. He was a strange dude, doing interviews with his helmet on and frequently found sitting in his locker. Turns out, he was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder and prescribed drugs. Long story short, the drugs they prescribed... paxil, IIRC, had severe side effects. Marijuana did not. He was quoted as saying that marijuana was 10 times better for him than paxil. Over the course of several years, he was fined and suspended for using a banned substance and eventually retired to Canada, where I believe he now teaches yoga.

At the time, I thought it was interesting that marijuana (clearly not a performance enhancing drug) was banned, and they were basically trying to force this guy to take a lab produced pharmaceutical that, by his account, didn't really work for him. It really made no sense to me at the time and still doesn't.

It makes sense when you consider some drug dealers are legal (like Phizer) and some are not (Like Billy-Bob on the corner.)

 

[Frostbite]

It makes sense when you consider some drug dealers are legal (like Phizer) and some are not (Like Billy-Bob on the corner.)

Which, in the end, is why drug companies don't want marijuana legalized--they can't patent it.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Which, in the end, is why drug companies don't want marijuana legalized--they can't patent it.

No doubt.

And God forbid the tobacco industry make a come-back by producing and selling marijuana ... I mean...who needs a job these days anyway?

 

[Steve]

No doubt.

And God forbid the tobacco industry make a come-back by producing and selling marijuana ... I mean...who needs a job these days anyway?

Instead of buying a pack of Marlboro reds, you'll get a pack of Marlboro Greens.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Instead of buying a pack of Marlboro reds, you'll get a pack of Marlboro Greens.

How about Virginia Pins? Or Doral Doobs? LOL

 

[Steve]

How about Virginia Pins? Or Doral Doobs? LOL

Marleyboros?

 

[jim777]

 

[Omar B]

No doubt.
And God forbid the tobacco industry make a come-back by producing and selling marijuana ... I mean...who needs a job these days anyway?

Dude, you know how great that would be, I would buy a pack of those for $20! It would be a safe, taxed product, we would be sure that we got our special blend, not some dirt weed and the money would being going in "Mom & Pop" and the state's pocket. Pre-rolled and ready to go.