The Legalization of Marijuana

[Tgace]

I have yet to see a marijuana "user" do time out of my court. Heck most controlled substance "users" dont get time for simple possession. The time (in my court at least) comes from the crimes the subjects commit while they had dope in their possession.

Most users get channeled into "drug court" in my jurisdiction. They go through a series of counseling sessions, tests, sometimes residential treatment, and "sanctions" (week long jail stints) when they test "hot" while in the program. In exchange their charges get reduced to ACD's or other lesser charges and/or probation.

Even then its amazing how many people just cant stop smoking pot for the time it takes to complete the program. Many come in knowing they are going to test hot and go to jail for a week.

 

[Schtankybampo]

Mmm, and here is why I usually avoid serious topics...I'm about to toss a question out there that will completely contradict my stance...

Every single time we step onto the mat with eachother, we are literally placing our trust and our lives into eachothers' hands. The things we do and practice in our training are dangerous. If drugs, even marijuana were legalized (and I believe they will be soon, at least here in Cali) how are we all going to feel realizing that the person we're about to spar/practice with could be using?

I'm allowed to waffle, just by virtue of the fact that I woke up breathing this morning.

 

[Tgace]

Mmm, and here is why I usually avoid serious topics...I'm about to toss a question out there that will completely contradict my stance...

Every single time we step onto the mat with eachother, we are literally placing our trust and our lives into eachothers' hands. The things we do and practice in our training are dangerous. If drugs, even marijuana were legalized (and I believe they will be soon, at least here in Cali) how are we all going to feel realizing that the person we're about to spar/practice with could be using?

I'm allowed to waffle, just by virtue of the fact that I woke up breathing this morning.

For all you know some may already be.......

 

[Ceicei]

Even then its amazing how many people just cant stop smoking pot for the time it takes to complete the program. Many come in knowing they are going to test hot and go to jail for a week.

So addiction comes into play here if they cannot stop for even a short time. Is that a good thing?

- Ceicei

 

[Tgace]

Point being that pot is (sometimes) argued as non-addictive.

 

[Ray]

Ray in bold:

Penalties for murder, for example, do not stop people from murdering but that doesn't mean it should be legalized.

Substitute "drinking" for "murder" and you quickly get a sense of the simplistic failure of that argument. Marijuana use and murder penalties are two separate issues, each with different social impacts.

No, there is no failure in my simplistic arguement. The logic used to justify legalized dope have been used to aruge the legalization of just about anything.

Murder, for instance, does not relieve chronic pain.

Euthanasia supporters claim that killing someone who has terrible, chronic pain should be allowed to kill them selves (or be killed at their request). Currently, this is classed as murder.

Murder is a crime against the person.

Murder is a human contrived defination. It had other definitions in the past, by other cultures, and likely will in the future. Society has definted murder and defines its penalties.

Smoking dope at best harms the user and perhaps someone exposed to second-hand smoke or the toxins of the marijuana. I suspect a fetus would be harmed just as it is with tobacco and alcohol.

So, it's murder is not as bad as smoking weed? Likewise it caries less of a legal penalties.

The issue of legalization is one of cost/benefit. There is no benefit to legalizing murder, and clearly harm. Legalization/decriminalization of marijuana has not been shown to cause harm.

There are those who would want to re-define some of the law against murder, as I mentioned above. And if those who were receiving expensive medical care were allowed to be killed by society, then there would be a cost benefit to euthanasia. Sophisticate not compliate (I think Parker said something like that). Marie Juanity isn't healthy; don't use, don't legal. Making something that is unhealthy and illegal into something legal doesn't help.

In the Netherlands the GDP grew 2.4%....

Surely you're not suggesting that GDP grew because people were were toking on a doobie?

Here's a fact sheet on usage rates among the Dutch...

It's either a fact sheet or an advertisment.

Their overdose rates are the lowest in Europe. Our usage rate is double theirs.

Why? Because they are getting dope that is medical save? Or is it because they have become able to with-stand more? Or because they're smoking less?

So...we dump a bunch of money into the drug war, much of it specifically targeting marijuana. We arrest dealers. We arrest users. We use D.A.R.E. Now we have more people using it than a country in which it's legal.

I agree that the "drug war" is mis-handled. We either need to be serious and make it a real war or stop it.

The balance of your response doesn't seem to make much sense to me. So, if it's legal then less people will do it? Driving while drunk is a crime, but drinking without drinking is legal --- so if we make drunk driving legal then people will stop?

 

[kid]

If some drugs were legalized, potency of those drugs would be regulated. Plus think of the govt. tax benefits of this? Job openings would becom open. all the big stoners would become store clerks or whatever to support their habit. and the really cool part is think of all the great music that would be made? Just about all my favorits songs were created by people that were seriously messed up on drugs. I don't use put thats my choice and if i make that choice other people will also. Just remember to raise your kids well,and teach them how to make a decision.

 

[tsdclaflin]

What exactly is the question:

1) Is it right to use pot?

2) Are there circumstances where marijuana would be beneficial and therefore should be legal?

3) Does it make judicial or economic sense to legalize pot in the USA?

All the answers are values-based. Even the taking of a life is sometimes "justified". Fortunately/unfortunately the laws of this country are about "majority rules". I am personally opposed to legalizing "recreational use" of marijuana. But if it were possible, I would recommend making other "substances" and "activities" illegal as well. However, I realize that one cannot "legislate righteousness"; people have to "choose" to do right.

 

[Ray]

If some drugs were legalized, potency of those drugs would be regulated. Plus think of the govt. tax benefits of this? Job openings would becom open. all the big stoners would become store clerks or whatever to support their habit.

Check and see if smoking cigarettes is fiscally beneficial in America? Do taxpayers end up paying more to take care of people with lung cancer and such? Or do is the boost to the economy because of growing and selling tabacco a bigger benfit.

If the downside to cigarette usage is bigger than the advantage; what about the upside to marijuana versus the downside to maraijuana?

 

[kid]

Maryjane is not like cigarettes because its not chemically infused and sprayed with arsinic and all that crap. Its a natural plant, that doesn't need to be smoked to be used, now i know smoking it is more traditional, but you can also ingest it wich has the same effects. how many people have you heard of that died from smoking pot? Its not a halucinagen like acid,mushrooms, or payodi; so you don't hear about people thinking that they can fly or are bullet- proof. You need to have laws for it i think kind of like drinking. And who are we to tell people what they can and can't do? Just cause something is unhealthy doesnt give us the right to forbid the usage. Look at McDonalds for instance, how many people are over weight and have high colestorol from eating fast food? More than 2/3 s of the country is overweight but we don't try to regulate food concumption. Driving cars is also a very deadly thing, but with laws and regulations we are able to minimize the horrible effects of them. What about equall rights for every one? Are you just going to try and take care of youself and leave the other person to fend for themself? If your going to fight against something that causes harm to someone, fight for all of the reasons, not just one.

 

[Ray]

Maryjane is not like cigarettes because its not chemically infused and sprayed with arsinic and all that crap. Its a natural plant...

Hemlock is a natural plant and it is poison. Rocks are natural but not edible.

If your going to fight against something that causes harm to someone, fight for all of the reasons, not just one.

Do you mean: if someone wants to fight against something that is harmful then they should either fight against everything that is harmful or stop fighting against the one thing?

That's nonsense

 

[Gray Phoenix]

I am all for helping those who need it. However, I am unwilling to force people to give up their hard earned dollars to subsidize a users existance. ie. taxes/public funds. If someone wants to smoke, they can pay for their own lung cancer treatment. If someone wants to do drugs, we can teach beg and plead, but its up to that person and their family to carry that burden. Not everyone else.

 

[kid]

My bad, i said that wrong. You can fight for whatever you want but to neglect that other things are potentialy more dangerous to all around why not start at the top of the list and work your way down if your going to do it one at a time then fight for something thats going to save the most lives.


Rocks are natural but how many people try to smoke a peise of granit or eat it for that matter? I'm not familiar with Hemlock, but if its poisonous its no wonder why its not eaten, have scientist figured out another use for it? Most likly it has some service if not just Photosynthesis. Pot does not cause death when eaten or smoked,its by far the lesser of evils.


What about marijuana threatens you or your family that you think that its ok to take rights away from another?

 

[kid]

Ray sorry if i came on strong there, but its how i look at things; i enjoy your input so lets keep it rolling please.

 

[Ray]

My bad, i said that wrong. You can fight for whatever you want but to neglect that other things are potentialy more dangerous to all around why not start at the top of the list and work your way down if your going to do it one at a time then fight for something thats going to save the most lives.

I should fight against the serious stuff now and fight against the less serious stuff later? Why not fight for all that I believe in, at all times and in all places?

Rocks are natural but how many people try to smoke a peise of granit or eat it for that matter?

Now do you understand why "it's natural" is a bad justifier of things?

I'm not familiar with Hemlock, but if its poisonous its no wonder why its not eaten, have scientist figured out another use for it? Most likly it has some service if not just Photosynthesis.

Scientists job is to discover the truth of the universe. How does it all work; where did it all come from and where is it all going. It's up to technology, industry, soceity and individuals to discover how to use things more advantageously.

Pot does not cause death when eaten or smoked,its by far the lesser of evils.

So, you've identified it as an evil? And it's a lesser evil; so is dog poop but I'll bet you aren't eating that.

What about marijuana threatens you or your family that you think that its ok to take rights away from another?

There is no constitutionally enumerated rate to smoke dope. What social evils (lack of education, lack of health care, and so on) don't threaten us all? Do you think that we can afford to not take care of others and still have an abundant life (we in the US have relative material abundance when compared with others).

Who is worth saving?

 

[Flatlander]

Who is worth saving?

Whomever wants and/or asks to be saved. Here's a better question - from what are you saving them? Is the role of government to control, or to regulate? Who is responsible for the actions of an individual?

It seems to me that the govenment is already in the business of regulating drugs; this argument is about classification. The question is, why is marijuana classified as being more harmful than other perfectly legal, but regulated drugs such as alcohol and nicotine? What about caffeine? These are all available for recreational use.

My position is that anyone who smokes cigarettes or drinks alcohol, but disagrees with the legalization of marijuana is being hypocritical. Anyone who chooses not to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol because of their harmful effects, yet directs their energy toward the marijuana debate rather than attacking the legality of the other substances is misdirecting their priorities. I challenge anyone interested to demonstrate how natural marijuana is a more harmful substance than tobacco and its additives. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that the potential impairment of marijuana can manifest in a more socially destructive way than alcohol.

Essentially, what I'm saying here is that weed and booze and tobacco are all equally unhealthy. So, either accept them all and let people choose for themselves, or fight them all equally.

The "gateway drug" proposition is all that is left, and I find it to be invalid. Particularly from debators who haven't tried it themselves.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

I am all for helping those who need it. However, I am unwilling to force people to give up their hard earned dollars to subsidize a users existance. ie. taxes/public funds. If someone wants to smoke, they can pay for their own lung cancer treatment. If someone wants to do drugs, we can teach beg and plead, but its up to that person and their family to carry that burden. Not everyone else.

Your hard earned tax dollars are going towards the War On Drugs. In 2003 alone $19 billion was spent on the drug war. That's roughly $600 dollars a second.

I know a number of people whose children right now are struggling with addictions. Most of the families have reasonably good incomes and insurance programs, and their children are of an age where they're still covered.

A common lamentation I hear from them is that the insurance doesn't provide coverage for quality rehabilitation. Rehab costs, they say, are extremely high. They'll have to pay out of pocket if they're going to put their child through a good program.

Given that many addicts don't have familial financial support or insurance programs, they'll be caught up in the cycle of addiction and never be able to get out without government intervention. Is that so bad? Yes...because they'll end up either in prison--for which we pay--or end up stealing to support their habits--for which we pay--or end up killing someone while under the influence--for which we pay.

Ray in bold:

Euthanasia supporters claim that killing someone who has terrible, chronic pain should be allowed to kill them selves (or be killed at their request). Currently, this is classed as murder.

A red herring. The topic was not euthanasia. The topic was, and is, the legalization of marijuana. Put it into the context it was framed.

No, there is no failure in my simplistic arguement. The logic used to justify legalized dope have been used to aruge the legalization of just about anything.

It fails completely. You did not argue that the logic used to justify marijuana legalization was used to argue for "just about anything." Your original statement, which I refuted, was "Penalties for murder, for example, do not stop people from murdering but that doesn't mean it should be legalized." As I pointed out the two are completely different. You are arguing with a fallacious analogy.

And no, the arguments for marijuana legalization have not been used to justify the legalization of murder, which you suggest given the context.

So, it's murder is not as bad as smoking weed? Likewise it caries less of a legal penalties.

You suggest here that I am claiming a fetus' murder is not as bad as smoking weed. Again you try to steer the argument off course with an irrelevancy. We were not talking about the murder of a fetus, but exposure to toxins in utero. I made no mention of murder of a fetus, nor are we arguing the morality of that issue.

Surely you're not suggesting that GDP grew because people were were toking on a doobie?

On the contrary. Subtleties are somewhat lost on you, I see. I was suggesting that there seems to be no productivity decline in the Netherlands in spite of this apparent tear in their moral fabric. They seem to work just fine regardless of their free access to this absolutely evil and debilitating narcotic.

It's either a fact sheet or an advertisment.

I'm sure you find writing that easier than refuting the facts.

Driving while drunk is a crime, but drinking without drinking is legal --- so if we make drunk driving legal then people will stop?

I'm not sure if "drinking without drinking" is legal or not, but I'll assume you meant "drinking without driving is legal." In any case I think you know perfectly well what I meant.

Nobody is advocating for the right to drive while under the influence of marijuana. They're arguing for the legalization of its use, not for behaviors once it is used. Right now a 21 year old man in Kansas will face years in prison for having an ounce of marijuana in his home...but not if he has a six pack of beer.

Ray, you're comparing apples and oranges in attempt to spin your arguments. You use red herrings so as to move the topic off course and distract the reader from the issue at hand. When presented with data, you dismiss it without counterpoint.

I'm not sure I'll engage you in debate further, as you don't seem to know the fundamentals of argumentative reasoning.


Regards,


Steve

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Point being that pot is (sometimes) argued as non-addictive.

The fact that it is even argued as being addictive should tell us something.

Alcohol is addictive, and nobody disputes that. Alcoholism's impact on society is clearly adverse, as you well know having no doubt worked accident scenes and domestic violence scenes where alcohol has been involved. Yet alcohol possession and use among those 21 and up isn't illegal, and we don't tie up the courts or cram the jails and prisons full of people who merely use alcohol or possess it. Alcoholism itself isn't a crime, and we don't see courts forcing people into rehabilitation programs merely for being drunk or possessing alcohol in their homes. Nor do we spend billions a year of taxpayers money fighting alcohol use, possession, or addiction.

Alcoholism's addiction rate is at roughly ten percent in this country. In the Netherlands the constant use of marijuana--whether one could call it addiction or responsible casual use--is far below that. Studies here in the U.S. seem to reinforce that. The vast majority of people whio ever use it try it for awhile, perhaps smoke it recreationally for several years, and then drop it. There is no indication anywhere that this tendency to move on and away from the drug is due to its illegality. People simply outgrow it. Not so with alcohol.

My point is that should a drug be addictive, that in itself doesn't constitute a reason for it being made illegal. It is hypocritical to allow the consumption recreational drugs that have proven and severe consequences to the health of the user (nicotine and alcohol) and then forbid a recreational drug whose deleterious effects are a fraction of those of the legal ones.

TGace, your link to the Swedish drug program outline was interesting, but deceptive. It didn't mention the efficacy of the program, merely that it was illegal.

Sweden, granted, has half the recreational users that Netherlands has. However, their problematic user rate (read: addiction) is roughly the same.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3733/is_200407/ai_n9419548/pg_5

The article above has a number of interesting points related to this topic.

It ought be noted, too, that in Sweden possession of small amounts of cannabis result in a fine, and larger amounts result net coercive treatment programs. Marijuana offenses are treated far more gently than, say, in parts of the United States where one can face life imprisonment.


Regards,


Steve

 

[Tgace]

It ought be noted, too, that in Sweden possession of small amounts of cannabis result in a fine, and larger amounts result net coercive treatment programs. Marijuana offenses are treated far more gently than, say, in parts of the United States where one can face life imprisonment.


Regards,


Steve

Not an extremely different case than here. Recreational use in my state is a violation (not a crime) punished by a fine. As a Sgt. I cant even place bail on a rec. marijuana arrest. As to dealers and major "weight" arrests (read pounds:multiple) you need to be a major player to get any time, unless you get caught by the Feds or the local case gets routed to federal court. Most of these "recreational pot heads" doing life are "anecdotal" stories at best.

 

[kid]

The vast majority of people whio ever use it try it for awhile, perhaps smoke it recreationally for several years, and then drop it. There is no indication anywhere that this tendency to move on and away from the drug is due to its illegality. People simply outgrow it. Not so with alcohol.



Steve

I'm in total agreement here, I my self am living proof to this. I smoked pot since 13 years old, i smoked it just about everyday after i turned 16 and had a job to pay for it. Then i did that until i was 20 years old and smoked it for about 2 months on and off and just stopped smoking it. If i was at a social interaction (a party) and it was around i never felt compelled to use it. I have tons of funny stories about being high and the crap that happened, that i still tell to this day. But i dont use that anymore and it was easy to quit. Now also when iwas around 12 i started smoking cigs. When i was thirteen my friends and i where already having nic fits in junior high 7th grade. By the time i had a job i was chain smoking them, untill i was 22 yrs old. And there is not a day that goes by yet that i don't want one so if you ask me what is potentialy more dangerous its easy to tell you. they say that a joint has about as much tar in it as 5 cigs well the average cig smoker goes through a pack a day, thats four or five doobie snacks (joints). the average pot smoke doesnt even smoke joints anymore. They use pipes, (kind of like tobacco pipes just cooler looking) 1 joint would fill that pipe around 2 1/2 times. Now a cig smoker doesn't usually share a cigarette with 3 other people 4 if you include yourself. A pot smoker ussually doesn't smoke it alone its something that is shared between friends, maybe average 3 people 4 including the supplier. so there is even less tar going around. The average pot smoker would maybe smoke 3 to 4 bowls of weed from his/her pipe. It is done socially not alone, less tar per person, not addictive, not sprayed with poisons and addictive chemicals, smells good, and is being used for a purpose. Unlike cigs: which is used when alone, more tar per person, highly addictive, sprayed with
Acetanisole
Acetic Acid
Acetoin
Acetophenone
6-Acetoxydihydrotheaspirane
2-Acetyl-3- Ethylpyrazine
2-Acetyl-5-Methylfuran
Acetylpyrazine
2-Acetylpyridine
3-Acetylpyridine
2-Acetylthiazole
Aconitic Acid
dl-Alanine
Alfalfa Extract
Allspice Extract,Oleoresin, and Oil
Allyl Hexanoate
Allyl Ionone
Almond Bitter Oil
Ambergris Tincture
Ammonia
Ammonium Bicarbonate
Ammonium Hydroxide
Ammonium Phosphate Dibasic
Ammonium Sulfide
Amyl Alcohol
Amyl Butyrate
just to name a few and this is in alphabetical order and its only part of the A's. Smells Horrible, tastes horrible, and really does nothing for the person besides quell the addictive urge. Now why is one leagal and not the other. Pot is by far less harmful than cigs.