Maurijania Legalization

[Iplayboard]

An acquaintance from college was recently arrested for possession of marijuana as well as drug paraphernalia.

My question is how could anyone possibly oppose legalization of pot?

Several legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco result in the deaths of thousands of people each year. It is physically impossible to consume enough marijuana to kill oneself.

Marijuana produces several short-term affects such as reduced motor skills and memory loss, similar to alcohol. However, unlike alcohol, weed does not cause individuals to become belligerent. For example, during Euro 2004, the largest international soccer tournament in Europe, police were told not to arrest fans who were smoking pot, as the drug would actually calm fans, thus producing fewer riots.

Look at examples in other countries. Pot is a gray area in Canada, similar to online poker in this country. In the Netherlands, simple possession is not an offense and pot shops are legal. In England, possession has been reduced to a Class C drug, a non-arrestable offense in the same category as steroids and anti-depressants.

Mandatory minimum sentences associated with pot destroy justice. After a person is convicted on three separate drug charges, they can be sentenced to life in prison. Mark Young was arrested for brokering the sale of 700 pounds of marijuana. There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime. The jury had NOT been informed that a life sentence might apply. He was convicted on all charges. His two prior felony convictions--one for attempting to fill a false prescription, the other for possession of a few amphetamines--were more than a decade old. For each of these convictions he had received a suspended sentence with no jail time and a one-dollar fine. On February 8, 1992, Judge Sarah Evans Barker gave Mark Young a life sentence, as mandated. "Mr. Young, it's a sad day for everybody in the courtroom," she concluded.

I have a huge problem with the anti-drug commercials sponsored by the Center for National Drug Control Policy. In one commercial a teen kills an old man by hitting him with her car when she is high. Fine, make driving under the influence of marijuana illegal just as it is for alcohol. Another one features a teen stealing money from her grandma in order to buy pot. Some people steal from loved ones to buy clothes but it doesn't mean buying clothes should be illegal. Yet another ad shows two teens smoking in a restroom who get busted with the line, "Pot can get you arrested. Harmless?" That is circular logic in its worst form. Pot is illegal because it is harmful. It is harmful because it is illegal.

Another argument for the legalization is the lessons learned from the prohibition of alcohol. Consumption of alcohol during this time period actually increased. All it did was create a black market thus empowering cartels. With government regulation of marijuana, consumers would be assured that the product they were buying is safer.

[sirio11]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is how could anyone possibly oppose legalization of pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

Beats me. I'm yet to see a good reason.

[Bodhi]

I agree 100% that pot should be legal. If someone wants to get stoned, go ahead and let them. It's their body and their choice.

[ripdog]

[ QUOTE ]
It is physically impossible to consume enough marijuana to kill oneself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guessing that you're talking an overdose here, in which case I agree. However, I have experienced some severe hacking due the the intake of massive amounts of weed when I was in high school. I actually hacked up a large black chunk of resin. So I think that you can eventually kill yourself with marijuana. That said, I don't see any reason that it shouldn't be legal.

[whiskeytown]

because Jesus hates potheads, gays, and liberals and therefore it's my duty to do so and try to make them conform to what I think is a holy lifestyle - that's why it should be illegal /images/graemlins/grin.gif

and after all, doing something right for the wrong intentions is just like being holy, right? - or is that hypocricy....I forget sometimes - let's assume they're the same.

(so just kidding, but you get the idea - that's a nice summarization of why they wanna take your rights away from you)

RB

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]

My question is how could anyone possibly oppose legalization of pot?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you are for the legalization of pot, then you will be painted as "soft on crime." And we all know what that means for your election chances.

Will

[renodoc]

[ QUOTE ]
My question is how could anyone possibly oppose legalization of pot?



[/ QUOTE ]

Because they sell beer and liquor?

[fimbulwinter]

if you are against the decriminalization of pot you are wrong.

if you are against the decriminalization of all drugs while being for the decriminalization of pot you are wrong.

if you don't get the above concept in both directions, don't respond to this post.

fim

[Cyrus]

Suppose drug use is legalised and organised by the state tomorrow. Who loses ?

1. The D.E.A. We are talking about an agency that feeds, like a vampire, on the blood of the druggies and the dealers and those caught in the middle. Let's also haul here all the law enforcement agencies, such as state police, federal police, intelligence, etc, that feed on the War On Drugs budget.

2. The Crime Organisations. Extremely powerful and transnational corporations in all but name, doing business with governments and legit corporations to the tune of billions of dollars every year. Kinda killers, too.

3. Crooked politicians from both backward and advanced countries, that do the bidding of the drug cartels. Names will not be mentioned (see 2).

4. Organised Religion. The monotheistic religions deny Man any rights over his body and soul. They both belong to the Lord (or Allah or Yahveh). The Churches will never allow free choice in the matter of sex, drugs, or rock and roll.

5. Conservative politicians are taking the religious fundamentalist view of things. They essentially trump with the "scare card" any rational discussion of the problem and push for more and more anti-drug crusades. (Which is as fine for the drug dealers as alcohol prohibition was for the Capones.)

All those guys have some pretty big interests in the matter. You'd need to overcome their "objections" before you win, wouldn't you say?

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

1) The US has about 2 million people in prison. Approx. half of those are incarcerated for non-violent drug offenses.

2) A significant portion of the gun violence in the US is directly related to the illegal drug trade. People aren't shooting each other (or being shot by or shooting cops) over beer distribution territory.

3) Each year, the feds appropriate an obscene amount money from taxpayers for the "war" on drugs.

It's clear that drug prohibition costs us a lot, both in money and lives. Is drug use good for you? No, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal.

[vulturesrow]

Since when is a right to use drugs enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights? I actually lean more towards the decriminalization of marijuana myself. But its borderline moronic to claim it 'taking away your rights', a charge that gets thrown around too much. And your distortion of religion (Jesus doesnt hate anyone just for the record) is both ignorant and offensive.

[jack spade23]

I dont really have a problem w. people smoking. But when I hear this argument: "alcohol and smoking are legal and they kill millions legally, so isnt pot legal?" i think "ok, so there are two things that kill people and are legal. So we want to make a third thing legal that could kill just as many." (in ddrug related accidents, i dont think its poisonous or anything. By the first argument, we should want to go back to the prohibition.

[whiskeytown]

I would argue that there are elements within the religious right who believe it is their duty to make the United States a Theocracy and that they should criminalize any behaviour they disagree with. (see: America should criminalize online poker - somewhere else here in OOT)

Some of these people walk around with signs saying "God hates fags" - and since Jesus was God in conservative Christianity, ergo, Jesus hates fags, in their opinion.

I was making a slightly elevated satircal point, but it ain't that elevated from guys like Randall Terry and priests who suggest that those who vote Democratic are going to hell, and if it offends you, may I suggest you spend some time getting your house (Christianity) in order instead of griping to me about how I perceive hate-mongering by it's most vocal leaders.

In fact, I think the average person who reads my comment would find a vicious attack on people who practice their Christianity like a Pharisee, but no condemnation of Jesus whatsoever. But I've also learned satire is useless when dealing with Churchanity. However, that was not my intended audience to begin with.

And yes, I know what I'm talking about - 4 yrs of bible college and a Biblical studies minor.

RB

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Since when is a right to use drugs enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a right to regulate drugs enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

[InchoateHand]

Be careful, the last guy to start this exact thread ended up stealing money from Granny Mae. I'm not giving you squat.

[vulturesrow]

Whiskey,

You are right in that I misread your post slightly, my apologies. But I do think it disingenous to characterize all people who would like to keep marijuana illegal as people who think Jesus hates potheads. Just because a minority portion of a group is vocal, doesnt mean they represent the whole.

I like your Pharisee reference, your educational background shows.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing that you're talking an overdose here, in which case I agree. However, I have experienced some severe hacking due the the intake of massive amounts of weed when I was in high school. I actually hacked up a large black chunk of resin. So I think that you can eventually kill yourself with marijuana

[/ QUOTE ]

On a similar note, let's imagine we're talking about outlawing McDonald's instead of marijuana. I'll replace marijuana with McDonald's in your post. I'll put my edits in bold.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm guessing that you're talking an overdose of McDonald's here, in which case I agree. However, I have experienced some severe bowel movements due the the intake of massive amounts of McDonald's food when I was in high school. I actually hacked up a large black Chicken McNugget. So I think that you can eventually kill yourself with McDonald's.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, should we prohibit McDonald's?

[Zygote]

i suggest you get a vaporizer. they are highly effective, but you need to spend a fair bit.

[Dead]

He already said that he supports legalization.

[Zygote]

what religion belives in Yahveh?

[DVaut1]

I misread his last line. My apologies to ripdog.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since when is a right to use drugs enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is a right to regulate drugs enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes!! Loose constructionist vs. Strict constructionist. I call Thunderdome!!! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[bholdr]

the legalization/ decrim posts are alwasy the biggest non-arguments in this forum.

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
if you are against the decriminalization of pot you are wrong.

if you are against the decriminalization of all drugs while being for the decriminalization of pot you are wrong.

if you don't get the above concept in both directions, don't respond to this post.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

By far the best post in this thread.

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]
If you are for the legalization of pot, then you will be painted as "soft on crime." And we all know what that means for your election chances.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup...the republicans want to be in charge of your body, so they won't vote to legalize it, and the democrats would get killed in the next election if they did, so they won't vote for it either.

Personally, I'm not dumb enough to use it, but if somebody else wants to I don't really see where it's any of my, or the government's, business.

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you are against the decriminalization of pot you are wrong.

if you are against the decriminalization of all drugs while being for the decriminalization of pot you are wrong.

if you don't get the above concept in both directions, don't respond to this post.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

By far the best post in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is by far the worst post in this thread.

Drugs should be made illegal based on the potential harmful impact they might have on society. To wit: drugs like marijuana, alcohol, nicotine, LSD, and various others should not be prohibited because the potential negative impact on society is minimal. In essence, the value derived from the recreational, medicinal, and other non-substantial uses of these drugs significantly outweighs the number of deaths and harmful incidents stemming from their use.

On the other hand, most opiates need to be strictly controlled due to the high potential for addiction and the significant potential impact on society as a result of that addiction. In fact, the proper argument here is that the more physically addicting and harmful the substance, the more potential for negative impact on society it posesses. This is why, for example, heroine is concidered significantly more harmful than nicotine even though both exhibit extraordinarily addictive properties. Heroine's addictive properties combined with its physically detrimental effects (namely the ease with which one can overdoes) are what makes it so dangerous. Whereas nicotine in its naturally existing form (i.e. tobbacco) takes a very long time to kill the user. Moreover, accute withdrawl from opiates has the potential to kill the user whereas withdrawl from most currently legal (or borderline legal) subtances is minimal at worst.

The above arguments, combined with personal experience, are why I will never support the legalization of drugs like crystal methamphetamine, PCP, or heroine.

Anecdotally - I smoked opium a couple of times back in college. I'm extremely glad for my own sake as well as others' that it's illegal.

You might also ask any ex meth-heads you know whether or not they'd favor the legalization of that drug.

[Iplayboard]

Well thought out post, you raise many good arguments.

Is there some inherently logical flaw in wanting to decriminalize some drugs but not others?

Don't you have to draw the line somewhere. Today the federal government does by allowing people to consume alcohol and tobaco. I think it's hard to argue for the criminalization of marijuania, but a better argument would be which drugs should be legal. Should all drugs be legal? Is it the responsibility of the federal goverment to access a risk/reward scenario for each drug? Or should the individual user be able to do whatever he/she wants to his/her body?

[adios]

He's just looking for a hill he climb up on.

[adios]

So you're saying that you believe 50+% of voters oppose legalization of pot?

[adios]

The line is arbitrary. Pot has a lot of benefits for those undergoing chemo treatments. To make people in this situation criminals for using it is unconcienable. My wife had breast cancer and I actually had to find pot for her when she was receiving her treatments. I have no interest in doing pot or any other drugs but I had to commit a crime to help her through the treatments. As a parent and grandparent doing pot would be way down there in my list of problems with them. If you look at the history of how pot became illegal, it's laughable really. At one time cocaine and pot were legal in the U.S. As another poster wrote though, there aren't many that post here who believe pot is evil.

[wmspringer]

How is that even implied in my post?

No, I'm saying that they'd likely lose enough votes to swing the election. These days, 5% could do it.

[fimbulwinter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
if you are against the decriminalization of pot you are wrong.

if you are against the decriminalization of all drugs while being for the decriminalization of pot you are wrong.

if you don't get the above concept in both directions, don't respond to this post.

fim

[/ QUOTE ]

By far the best post in this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. This is by far the worst post in this thread.

Drugs should be made illegal based on the potential harmful impact they might have on society. To wit: drugs like marijuana, alcohol, nicotine, LSD, and various others should not be prohibited because the potential negative impact on society is minimal. In essence, the value derived from the recreational, medicinal, and other non-substantial uses of these drugs significantly outweighs the number of deaths and harmful incidents stemming from their use.

On the other hand, most opiates need to be strictly controlled due to the high potential for addiction and the significant potential impact on society as a result of that addiction. In fact, the proper argument here is that the more physically addicting and harmful the substance, the more potential for negative impact on society it posesses. This is why, for example, heroine is concidered significantly more harmful than nicotine even though both exhibit extraordinarily addictive properties. Heroine's addictive properties combined with its physically detrimental effects (namely the ease with which one can overdoes) are what makes it so dangerous. Whereas nicotine in its naturally existing form (i.e. tobbacco) takes a very long time to kill the user. Moreover, accute withdrawl from opiates has the potential to kill the user whereas withdrawl from most currently legal (or borderline legal) subtances is minimal at worst.

The above arguments, combined with personal experience, are why I will never support the legalization of drugs like crystal methamphetamine, PCP, or heroine.

Anecdotally - I smoked opium a couple of times back in college. I'm extremely glad for my own sake as well as others' that it's illegal.

You might also ask any ex meth-heads you know whether or not they'd favor the legalization of that drug.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow, it's hard for me to imagine a person intelligent enough to operate a computer yet stupid enough to completely miss the point of the entire drug debate.

you sir, are one in a million. good show.

fim

[fluxrad]

[ QUOTE ]

wow, it's hard for me to imagine a person intelligent enough to operate a computer yet stupid enough to completely miss the point of the entire drug debate.

you sir, are one in a million. good show.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aparently I don't "get it" when it comes to your original post so please, please correct my absolute raving idiocy. I am but a humble beggar waiting for the vast and cleansing light of all that encompases your titanic and incomparable body of knowledge in all things.

[Felix_Nietsche]

I've heard the argument that; although there are more dangerous drugs than MJ, MJ should NOT be re-legalized because it is a 'gateway drug'. They never seem to realize that *IF* MJ is truly a gateway drug to more dangerous drugs it is BECAUSE it is illegal.

In basic marketing strategy if you want to maximize sales. grouping like products together can increase revenue. E.g. Placing Flashlights (torches for you Brits) next to the battery display can increase the sales of both. If you go to the liquor store to buy alcohol they often sell cigarettes at the same location. So could we call alcohol a gateway drug for nicotine?

People who sell illegal narcotics often offer a selection with marijuana being one of the choices. After a relationship is established a sales pitch may or may not be given for the MJ smoker to experiment with something else. IF MJ is re-legalized, then that gate gets shut....and I would argue drug use from TRULY dangerous drugs (MetaAmph) goes down....

The USA find out the hard way there is LESS problems with LEGAL alcohol than there is with illegal alcohol. As a result, alcohol was re-legalized. For those of you who want to continue the drug war, then remember Otto von Bismark's advice for war...'he who defends all defend NOTHING'.

[sirio11]

Wow, a post by Felix I agree with. Never thought I'd see the day.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
MJ is truly a gateway drug to more dangerous drugs BECAUSE it is illegal.

In basic marketing strategy if you want to maximize sales. grouping like products together can increase revenue. E.g. Placing Flashlights next to the battery display can increase the sales of both.

People who sell illegal narcotics often offer a selection with marijuana being one of the choices. After a relationship is established a sales pitch may or may not be given for the MJ smoker to experiment with something else.

The USA found out the hard way there is LESS problems with LEGAL alcohol than there is with illegal alcohol. As a result, alcohol was re-legalized.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Dead]

Nice post Felix.

I wholeheartedly concur.

Prison guard unions deserve a lot of the blame for the drug war. So do police unions, as well as the whole criminal justice industry.