" @Gorillawhat: Truth. I have some crazy smart friends (I mean biochem, pre-med people) who smoke. They don't say anything like "Let's get baked and watch Family Guy all night!" or anything. It's more like "We've got some work to do, let's chill, smoke, and play some music while we study." They do well for themselves *cough*straight A's*cough* so I'm not one to think it makes you stupid unless you already were before you started. "My thoughts exactly. My dads friend is a very successful doctor who has made buckets and buckets of money buying and selling property in mexico. He's pretty much a millionaire, and has done pretty darn well for himself, and yet he smokes weed on a weekly basis. Weed isn't going to change your personality, if you're smart and going to do well in life, smoking weed isn't going to change that, unless it acts as a gateway to more hardcore drugs that are actually fucking horrible for you. In which case very bad.
POLL - Legalization of marijuana? Opinions?
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/basicfax3.htm" @Alex_Murphy: Link to the source of those figures and tell me how it was proved that tobacco was the clear cause of that many deaths of off with your head. "
I just searched for drug deaths, I don't know how they proved the tobacco deaths, but the numbers come from NIDA Research Monographs
Something else on the site but I'm not sure where these numbers come from;
The cost to put a single drug dealer in jail is about $450,000, composed of the following:
The cost for arrest and conviction is about $150,000.
The cost for an additional prison bed is about $50,000 to $150,000, depending upon the jurisdiction.
It costs about $30,000 per year to house a prisoner. With an average sentence of 5 years, that adds up to another $150,000.
The same $450,000 can provide treatment or education for about 200 people. In addition, putting a person in prison produces about fifteen dollars in related welfare costs, for every dollar spent on incarceration. Every dollar spent on treatment and education saves about five dollars in related welfare costs.
I couldn't care less if people want to smoke weed while theyre at home. Im all for people growing a few plants for themselves or whatever, as long as people aren't selling it or growing tons of it in their basment because thats just dangerous and stupid.
My issue with this whole idea is that inevitably as soon as you legalize pot, you are going to have a ton of people walking around smoking it. I would hate that, I really do not like the smell of pot at all, its just skunky yaknow, you don't really mind or notice it if your smoking it, but if you have to sit beside some dude whos baked and reeking at a movie for 2 hours its really frusterating.
So legal as long as its away from public places or just in your own home or whatever is totally cool with me. Just don't get high and sit beside me in a movie theatre, or ask me for some of my popcorn. >_>"
I voted C because in all honesty it wouldn't have any direct effect on me. It's the shitty, loudmouthed, (often) snot-nosed culture that comes along with it that really angers me. The whole "420" after your SN, bands singing about smoking it, and bragging about how people smoke it ticks me off.
As a side note, I have a sneaking suspicion that a significant amount of the people voting yes and stating their reasons as "taxing it and helping our economy" are full of shit and just using that line as an easy way out of the debate. Again, not that Iam going to debate anything...
Legalize far more pros than cons. There are no fatalities attributed to marijuana and significant amounts for alcohol and tobacco. Right now we are in a state of prohibition much like that of alcohol and we all know how well that worked out then and we can see the same now. Legalize and tax, its a simple and effective plan. Oh yeah and on the gateway theory. " CASA announced that marijuana users are 85 times more likely than non-marijuana users to try cocaine. However, as pointed out by NORML board members Drs. John P. Morgan and Lynn Zimmer, this figure is close to meaningless. It was calculated by dividing the proportion of adolescent marijuana users who have ever used cocaine by the proportion of cocaine users who have never used marijuana. The high risk factor is a product not of the fact that so many marijuana users use cocaine, but that so many cocaine users used marijuana previously.[8]
"It is hardly a revelation that people who use one of the least popular drugs are likely to use the more popular ones -- not only marijuana, but also alcohol," noted Morgan.[9]"
http://www.ukcia.org/research/gateway.htm
" @MrAwsum: I know people who have ruined their lives because of cough medicine....should robotussin be made illegal? @natetodamax: Pot Is hard to grow, a lot harder then a patch of begonias, believe me i know people who have tried. Not all places are able to grow it, and strictly regulating timed lights and grow chemicals is to big a task for most people to grow. I dont think that it would be an issue, not to mention the countless amounts of people that make their own brandy or wine, or hell, brew their own beer. With that being said, pot should be legal, a plant that has never directly killed anyone should be allowed to be used by anyone of a reasonable age *18 or older/ 21 or older* especially in a country where alcohol kills countless amounts of people weekly. to the people who were making comments about "smoking safely"..there is no way to smoke safely, but there is vaporization..which is AWESOMEE "Cannabis is extremely easy to grow. You could just plant them here and there (In the right seasons) ad they'll grow. Sure they won't be super high quality, but you'll still get high.
Where are you getting that number from? I looked around and the Journal of the American Medical Association, March 10, 2004, Vol. 291, No. 10, pages 1238 and 1241 said the number of people who die from alcohol every year is 85,000. MSNBC said in 2005 that the deaths from alcohol was 75,000. In 2001 the CDC said the number of alcohol deaths was 75,766." @Alex_Murphy said:
Last year 150,000 people died as a result of alcohol (US) "Alcohol kills about 80,000.
Well I'm going to say when I did try it, it had really bad effects on me and I will never try it again but for most people it seems like a relaxant, so why not?
Because this site can easily be mistaken for the political hack site "Breitbart", these "what kind of bullshit can I stir up by asking these stupid questions" threads make total sense. I know the first thing I do when I go hang out with people in a group is start asking "what do you think about abortion? religion? racism? drug legalization? prostitution?". People really appreciate that kind of thing, because those conversations are always so civil, filled with insight, and always lead to people switching positions because they're never so incredibly staunchly entrenched in their point of view going in.
It's interesting that smoking was once recommended by doctors for health, is now known to cause health problems, and is still legal, yet marijuana has some strong arguments for it's use medically and there's no sign of it becoming a legal commodity any time soon. It's completely backwards.
It should be legal. However i dont think we should just legalize marijuana and leave it at that. I beleive that all drugs need to be legalized.
" @SathingtonWaltz said:That's just plain inaccurate. It can have serious effects on people's mental health and regardless of any physical addictive properties, it certainly is very, very psychologically and emotionally addictive" I think it should be legal myself, but what do my fellow Giantbombers think about it? "It should be legal because it is not physically addictive and doesn't have many negative effects on people's health. "
This is medical,whatever about the normal guy walking down the road smoking for recreation but people in pain should be allowed to smoke their heads off,this is something i feel very strongly about.
You cant give somebody who is in severe pain morphine all the time because it is just too plain bubbly purple nice,hash isnt as effective but its close enough.
I remember i had gangrene for 8 months but i was off hash and i met an old buddy and he gave me a nodge,it was the first time in 8 months i felt no pain and felt like a normal person,it is a very very good alternitave to morphine.
Cancer patients have been pushing for it for a long time,its all well and good to sit in an ivory tower and say drugs are bad,war on drugs etc etc but pain is real tough to live with day in day out.
Its the right thing and the moral thing.
As a drug, it's relatively harmless and I believe it should probably be legal, even though I don't do that because it can lead to worse things potentially that I wan t absolutely no part of . However, as a fully decriminalized part of society, no, not it is not. It's absolutely uncontrollable. Saying they should simply legalize it is ignorant of the repercussions that action could have.
I say be more tolerable of it within society, but set up a series of guidelines where law officials can keep the issue of rampant weed smoking contained and off our streets. Don't sell it at a general store for the love of god, just make society's look at it and subsequent punishment less severe. It's not quite as bad as people would make you think it is, but as a widespread issue it could be. Don't let that happen.
" This is medical,whatever about the normal guy walking down the road smoking for recreation but people in pain should be allowed to smoke their heads off,this is something i feel very strongly about.
Cancer patients have been pushing for it for a long time,its all well and good to sit in an ivory tower and say drugs are bad,war on drugs etc etc but pain is real tough to live with day in day out. Its the right thing and the moral thing. "While I totally against the legalization of MJ, I do completely agree with these statements.
Should stay illegal. For every one person that may have a new job, farming and manufacturing the drug. Ten will decide to stay home and get high. Children will be exposed to it, even more so. Furthering the downward spiral. Its a DRUG.
It will create jobs, but mostly for the people who are most likely to do those types of labor. Immigrant workers from Mexico.
But I am for extremely restricted and regulated medical marijuana.
Edit: I also strongly believe that the drug will never be fully legal in the US. Because of the way hippy culture has taken it in. Hippies have permanently giving pot a bad face.
Also, the more people try to rationalize drug use, the more flagrant your denial and selfishness is. Yes, Herb can be used to make bad cloths, paper and all sorts of other things. That are already being made. We should put them out of business, because you want to get high? The harder someone has to sell it, the more obvious it is. That it shouldn't be sold.
Because lets face, its all about you. Getting high. There is more to life the quick fixes, kids.
" To the people who say tobbacco and alcahol are worse,,think for 2 minutes,,you do realise that arguement wont help legalise cannibas but will instead lead to the criminalisation of tobbacco and alcahol.,We'll have even less freedoms..its the way the world is going. "Government already tried that, read your history books. The obly thing that happened was ordinary citizens became criminals and the mob got super rich.
" Legal. It is a health issue, not a law one. It should not be sold for profit though, that should stay illegal,but if you want to grow a plant for your own purposes, it is no business of the government. I never ever use it and never will and I think it is entirely stupid to use it, but you can't legislate against stupidity and it is none of my business. Plus, it is far less dangerous to society than tobacco and alcohol, and they are legal and massive profit earners. "this
I want someone to explain the moral difference between growing for personal use and growing for commercial use. I know the political differences, that's not what I'm asking for, I'm asking for the moral difference.
Looking at you in particular, oldschool.
Anyways, I have found in my brief research into the subject (it was my culminating activity in my grade 12 Law class, several years ago...) that the vast majority of advocates don't really understand the history and politics behind the criminalization of personal choice. Like many issues where governments like to stick their nose, it's not a regional issue, but a supranational one. The People's Republic of China remember the Opium Wars. Millions of kilograms of Mexican silver (the de facto Chinese currency during the middle Qing) flowed out of the mainland, and into the coffers of political merchants, operating under the auspices of the British Empire. This is one of the ways foreign powers encroached into the Chinese sphere of influence, and so these events are a large part of the historical justification of the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. And while this UN Convention exists, no member state will dare to repeal their criminalization of drugs, fearing the reprisal and isolation from other member states.
Governments need only concern themselves with those who infringe upon their coercion monopoly, not those who wish to make choices for themselves, so of course I oppose the criminalization of any act, other than the various forms of the initiation of force: assault, fraud, murder, theft, and breach of contract; though the latter should be a matter for civil and not criminal law. My main argument for the specific legalization of freedom of escapist choices stems from the double standard in this realm. If television, religion, the internet, music, alcohol, video games, and sports are legal (and I don't see any reason why any of these things shouldn't be) then there is no ethical justification for the continued criminalization of the illegal forms of escapism.
" @oldschool: I want someone to explain the moral difference between growing for personal use and growing for commercial use. I know the political differences, that's not what I'm asking for, I'm asking for the moral difference. Looking at you in particular, oldschool."What are you looking me for ^_^
Really honest, I am not sure I can., but I will give a personal view.
Growing for personal use is a direct act of the individual for the individual. We all know it is potentially harmful, so the individual is only impacting on said individual. When you grow for commercial use, that intrinsic risk is is not moral as a profit motive. This very much applies to tobacco. Unlike marijuana, the odds are, it will kill you and it does in countless numbers. They are profiting from death. It is that hypocrisy I speak of that makes the laws bad. What an individual does for themselves inside their own private property that has no real bearing on society is not the governments business. It is the government that is acting immorally. It profits from that death in the form of taxes, but as a pragmatist, making tobacco illegal is useless, so taxes are a far more effective tool of control.
I am not ignoring the fact from a health point of view that people who harm themselves with drugs are a cost to society, through healthcare and diminished GDP, but this applies to far more areas of society than marijuana use and is dwarfed by the costs to the same things with alcohol.
Morals are an individual thing and are guided by religious and cultural templates. You can't govern all your laws by these morals though, if so we would still stone adulterers. A logical conclusion to this is that we can't frame our laws around morals, but on damage to others. Again I say, who is a marijuana user hurting? If you say he might hurt someone in a psychotic state, then those crimes should be viewed in its isolation.
That was a bit of a ramble, sorry.
" @Suicrat said:You didn't really address the point. And I admit that that's not entirely your fault, because the point I was asking someone to address is difficult for a pragmatist to conceptualize." @oldschool: I want someone to explain the moral difference between growing for personal use and growing for commercial use. I know the political differences, that's not what I'm asking for, I'm asking for the moral difference. Looking at you in particular, oldschool."What are you looking me for ^_^ Really honest, I am not sure I can., but I will give a personal view. Growing for personal use is a direct act of the individual for the individual. We all know it is potentially harmful, so the individual is only impacting on said individual. When you grow for commercial use, that intrinsic risk is is not moral as a profit motive. This very much applies to tobacco. Unlike marijuana, the odds are, it will kill you and it does in countless numbers. They are profiting from death. It is that hypocrisy I speak of that makes the laws bad. What an individual does for themselves inside their own private property that has no real bearing on society is not the governments business. It is the government that is acting immorally. It profits from that death in the form of taxes, but as a pragmatist, making tobacco illegal is useless, so taxes are a far more effective tool of control. I am not ignoring the fact from a health point of view that people who harm themselves with drugs are a cost to society, through healthcare and diminished GDP, but this applies to far more areas of society than marijuana use and is dwarfed by the costs to the same things with alcohol. Morals are an individual thing and are guided by religious and cultural templates. You can't govern all your laws by these morals though, if so we would still stone adulterers. A logical conclusion to this is that we can't frame our laws around morals, but on damage to others. Again I say, who is a marijuana user hurting? If you say he might hurt someone in a psychotic state, then those crimes should be viewed in its isolation. That was a bit of a ramble, sorry. "
What it comes down to is, there really is no difference from a person expending effort directly on the cultivation of a substance in order to acquire it, and a person who works in some other aspect of the economy, and by the power of currency, and the virtue of division of labour, they can still attend to their needs and desires. You brought up the notion that drug addicts are a net drain on GDP, well if that really were a concern for governments, they'd have to criminalize any costless form of escapism. But since it isn't, that argument holds little weight. Especially when you consider the fact that a person who grows a drug for personal use is contributing nothing to society, while a person who grows for commercial use is growing for every member of society who is also his customer.
Tobacco companies are not merchants of death, they are merchants of escapism. While it is true that the eventual outcome of this form of escapism, when it is abused, is lung cancer and death, that is not really the reason why governments tax those transactions to furnish the social safety net. They engage in nothing that a television producer does not engage, and if your concern is health-related outcomes, then the mental health disorders caused by digital escapism (i.e., video games, television) would also be a proper thing governments would have to contravene against, but communications and commerce are not the things a government should be deterring, it is the initiation of force that they should be deterring.
The problem is your conceptualization of society as an entity in and of itself. It's not. You will never understand that the only valid use of a government is the deterrence of the initiation of force, if you conceptualize the people among whom you live as cells in a body. People are individuals. They need to make choices for themselves, they can't be channeled and guided towards "optimum" behaviour and action because what is optimum for one will not be for another, especially in a democracy, where the "optimum" is subject to peer referendae. Moreover, this process of expanding the domain of the government into the realm of personal choice has far more deleterious consequences on economics than a laissez-faire attitude towards these drugs have. Because it turns the contest for the seat of government into the contest for a social driver's seat, and often the ideas that carry the most political weight are the ones with the biggest economic burden. (Note the 109 trillion dollar deficit over the next 75 years in American Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Insurance). Notice also how conservatives in the U.S. will use the same majority rule argument against sexual rights as the left will against commercial rights. Now, they may often be mistaken in their belief that the majority of people in a body politic agree with them, they may not. But the left hasn't a leg to stand on in those debates because they invoke the same clauses to over-ride their personal choice pet peeves: a louder, larger group believes this, therefore the quieter, smaller groups are forced to take heed. The result of this collectivization of society, and appeal to the largest of groups, is that instead of a government whose sole focus is not the administration of laws that deter coercion, you have a government that is being stretched in every direction by every interest group, and the end result is a fully-blanketed society, where choice is tossed aside in the name of prudence.
Be careful of the notion that the fruits of "sin" can be employed to service a social safety net monopoly. You do not eliminate corruption from an industry by giving a government a monopoly in this industry (for instance, the two chief executives of the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation were recently fired for corruption, and these were the same moral crusaders that drove political fervor towards giving the Ontario Provincial Government more control of the gambling industry), you simply make the monopolies a government has (which usually extend beyond the coercion monopoly) dependent on the proceeds of the sin taxes. What results is a social safety net monopoly that can only exist so long as the uneducated drug consumer is willing to purchase his form of escapism, instead of find a way to obtain it for free, or work toward the improvement of his own life.
Ethics is a guiding force in all actions, even the actions of the "ethically ignorant", because ethics is the science of understanding how outcomes are shaped by human actions. No one can pretend there is a unity of belief in ethics, but that is not the same as insisting that the laws of a society cannot have an ethical base. As I said, ethics is the science of understanding the outcomes associated with actions, hence an ethical conception of law (that is truly consistent internally and externally) is one that insists the law deters only initiations of force, and that no member of the power structure have a privileged position above the law, because any intellectually rigorous study of pragmatism in politics will produce the conclusion that it devolves into a contest of social mind control. The right wants to control you to keep you from sinning against God, the left wants to control you to keep you from sinning against "social justice". On the other hand, an ethically consistent conception of laws that is dedicated to the principle of individual rights has one of two outcomes associated with the difference between the commercial and private use of escapism: the first is to acknowledge no legal basis for a separation of commerce and the private (since transactions happen only on a voluntary basis in a society with a government with an effective force deterrent), the second is to acknowledge a separation of commerce and the private, in the sense that granting a person free use of his property to grow escapism relate to property law, and that granting another person free use of his property to sell escapism is the domain of contract law.
However, when "pragmatism" is the guiding "principle" (I use quotes because these words are essentially opposites) for the law, the only way to understand the purpose of law or any other government structure is in terms of political convenience. It is politically convenient to establish a monopoly in the provision of services for the poor when "socially-minded" people run the government and it is politically convenient for that monopoly to be eroded, and for religious institutions to be strengthened when a "conservative" government rules the roost. So instead of the poor having access to services that are dependent only on the willingness of the providers to provide them, you have a social safety net that is only as strong as the rest of the economy is weak, and vice versa. Pragmatism is not about principles, it is about how a government can control communications to make it seem that what they are doing is right, even though the only way for a pragmatist to understand the difference between right and wrong is by collective opinion, which is shaped through the education monopoly, on what is right and wrong, which is why pragmatism only feeds the expansion of power of government, and never the contraction of government power.
I am not surprised at all that you would be invoking pragmatism. I have noticed you promote the principle of collectives-first on pet issues of the left, and the principle of individuals-first on the pet issues of the right. If you want to have a consistent, functioning, and practical conception of ethics, and how it relates to the proper role of government, you need to abandon pragmatism, and make a decision. Is a mind one's own, or is it a cell in a hive mind? The answer simply is not "both".
Also, IT DOES NOT IMPAIR PEOPLE!!!
Here, i wouldn't call this proof, but it just backs up what I have known from experience and observation for years:
Just smoke it quietly in your own home and don't be stupid about carrying it. Legalizing it would probably bring more grief than anything.
If more countries in the world would legalise it then tourists would not have to travel to Holland to take it.I actually wish they'd bann it again so R-tards don't 'blow their minds' on it. Not cause I care so much, it just annoys me............... Fuckin stoners all over the place..... "
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment