Decrim is up again

[Lohman446]

So if I want to own a machinegun and snort coke, I should be able to, right? I mean, it's a free country.

Even if I accept that regulation can and should be enforced I argue it to be at a state level only and not by the federal government. I don't beleive it should but thats a moral argument

[Sumthinwicked]

Because if you're doing that then you're not being productive... and if you're not being productive then you are dragging this country down.

ty!

[Steelrat]

Yes.

As long as you do both responsibly in a way that does not harm anyone else and are of age to be considered an adult yes you should be able to.

It's the age-old argument of individual benefit vs. risk to society. Is your ability to own, say, a submachinegun more important than the potential risk to society? Government has clearly said that it isn't, and so it heavily regulates our ability to own them. Same with cocaine. The effects on society are considered more important than any personal benefit you might enjoy.

Remember, it's not about YOU in particular, but everyone in general. You may be the most responsible person on the planet, but I know from experience that you would be the exception, not the rule.

For me, it's worth it to sacrifice ultimate freedom for some regulation of society. I mean, we really do it all the time. I could say I'm a professional race car driver, and so I should be able to drive at any speed I like. I might even be right in this, and wouldn't harm anyone else. But there are sure a lot of other people who WOULD harm others. When drafting rules and laws, you need to consider the lowest common denominator.

[Lohman446]

I have a problem with the federal government sticking its finger into a pie it has no place in. If there is any spot for legislation such as this it is at a state level and does not fall under the authority of the Federal government.

That being said: We don't legislate to the lowest common denominator. People are allowed access to harmful substances. People are allowed to do (or not do) things that directly harm the public health and tax the healthcare system. If we are going to legislate morality do we not need to legislate such things as sexual behavior, physical fitness, etc?

Why do we legislate some level and not others? It is not purely about harmfullness or risk to reward. The fact is we allow the Federal government to operate in an unconstitutional grey area that has grown its power to levels that would astound and alarm our founding fathers.

That being said big oil and the healthcare industry have shown that a purely libertarian policy would likely have incredibly negative consequences.

[Steelrat]

I have a problem with the federal government sticking its finger into a pie it has no place in. If there is any spot for legislation such as this it is at a state level and does not fall under the authority of the Federal government.

That being said: We don't legislate to the lowest common denominator. People are allowed access to harmful substances. People are allowed to do (or not do) things that directly harm the public health and tax the healthcare system. If we are going to legislate morality do we not need to legislate such things as sexual behavior, physical fitness, etc?

Why do we legislate some level and not others? It is not purely about harmfullness or risk to reward. The fact is we allow the Federal government to operate in an unconstitutional grey area that has grown its power to levels that would astound and alarm our founding fathers.

That being said big oil and the healthcare industry have shown that a purely libertarian policy would likely have incredibly negative consequences.

There is no set level. That's just the nature of government. When it hits a gray area, it usually goes to court, and the court decides. And sure we legistlate to the lowest common denominator. There's just a limit to what can be legislated. Obviously there would be a public outcry if you tried to legislate physical fitness. But cocaine? Not so much.

And, I'm sorry to say it, but the state governments ceded authority to the fed a long, long time ago. That ship has sailed. Being upset about it won't change it. The courts have made decisions on the matter supporting the Fed position, including the ability of the Fedral government to regulate and enforce it's laws on marijuana grown in California, for medicinal purposes, for consumption in California.

[Lohman446]

There is no set level. That's just the nature of government. When it hits a gray area, it usually goes to court, and the court decides. And sure we legistlate to the lowest common denominator. There's just a limit to what can be legislated. Obviously there would be a public outcry if you tried to legislate physical fitness. But cocaine? Not so much.

And, I'm sorry to say it, but the state governments ceded authority to the fed a long, long time ago. That ship has sailed. Being upset about it won't change it. The courts have made decisions on the matter supporting the Fed position, including the ability of the Fedral government to regulate and enforce it's laws on marijuana grown in California, for medicinal purposes, for consumption in California.

Oh, I understand it is highly unlikely the argument is going to change anything. And in the case of weed I really don't care as I truley beleive those making the argument that it is harmless are being idiotic and have no intention of ever messing with it.

That being said I still beleive the argument is right, even if being right doesn't matter.

[maxama10]

Hmm.

I had a friend, this friend smoked a lot of weed from a young age. Sure, you could say the positions he put himself into didn't help, however I feel he wanted to try other drugs.

My friend soon started using painkillers, muscle relaxers, anything he could get. (thanks erowids! ) Soon after he started doing coke, opium, and various other drugs of that nature.

Wow what fun stuff! Then he became physically dependent on pills. Lied constantly to everyone. Failing at school.

This is when he went to rehab, intervention, etc... ($$$$$$$)

Got out of rehab, new man!

Fell back into pills.

Kicked out of family.

Who knows?


No profit.





You may not believe it, but to many people pot is a gateway drug. People don't just start off popping pills or snorting coke.


I guess some people have more self control than others. Sadly, the people who don't, end up ruining their lives and in the process drag others down with them.


Edit: I forgot Heroin, heroin too!



Edit: I guess I was trying to say that it IS a gateway drug, legal or illegal I could care less, either way people will use it.


Cheers

[cdacda13]

For the gateway argument:
Buying Marijuana is illegal. It puts you in touch with dealers who mostly sell other controlled substances. If you don't feel guilty buying marijuana, then you wouldn't feel guilty buying hard controlled substances. It also puts you into a bad crowd of people.
Now, if you could go to the local wal-mart and buy, lets say a gram of marijuana, you wouldn't ever meet the dealers who could introduce you to harder controlled substances. You wouldn't feel into the bad crowd. (Theoretically speaking of course)
Counter Point:
Its still drugs. Some people will always be looking for something then gets them higher and you won't be able to get them to stop.

Steelrat is right. Getting someone to change their view-point on a subject over the internet is damn near impossible. But I must say, this debate (can we call it that?) has yet to lower itself into a name calling contest, which is nice.

[Hilltop Customs]

internet died last night or I would have posted this sooner:

yea you get the gist of my thoughts on the matter ...
just a few points to think on

i see the thoughts of legalisation of one drug whats to prevent the lobby of more

then all of the thoughts of keeping weed illegal still apply, and I doubt the supporters of those drugs those drugs will be able to formulate a logical opposition to the illegality of those drugs......but if they do, they should be heard and considered.

as to the decline : it would make weed easily accessible to the public which isnt a good idea( you know why)
when your party'in people like to try new things that are illegal or stupid that they usually wouldnt have tryed like : the driving thing, hookin up on other drugs, and the such that is far to much discussed on that matter

weed is already easily accessible by the general public....some people less than others, but I would think anyone who wanted to try smoking would have had the opportunity before high school ends. Anyone who wants to smoke as an adult and cant either just cant find a dealer, or are forced not to because of drug tests.

What your arguing here is decisions people might make....what they happen to be on at that time has little impact on the decision to conduct that activity. Smoking weed does not make you get high 24/7.....every person has a choice of when to smoke and when to do dangerous activities....if you choose to do both at the same time your stupid. Just like if you choose to drink and do dangerous activities at the same time...their stupid. Take sleeping pills and expect to function normally....yep you saw it coming, STUPID. Hooking up, yea its dangerous, doing it impaired???yea its stupid too.

they do have legal pot shops somewhere i forget ??? where they have a system that allows pot if you like it so much and America isnt good enough for you the way it is GO THERE

and what would all the pot dealers do your putting 100000s of people out of buisiness

So the huge industry supporting pot is the reason for keeping it illegal?? How about the 100000s of jobs created legally that would pay well and distribute the profits from weed more evenly amongst its workers(and back in turn to legitimate businesses) instead of siphoning money off to foreign drug lords and economies.

Hope that wink wasnt to me, I stay as far away as possible from the illegal transactions that are weed sales....that is what is dangerous about pot.

farmers making legal pot availible to the world ( yea the world gets alot of stuff from our farmers)

IDK where you were going with this? Illegal pot(as far as our government is concerned) is already available all around the world including in the US, the only thing that would change after it becomes legal would be the first 2 letters.....illegal->legal.

when the drinking age was dropped below 21 there were alot of kids drinking which = stupid things happening which equaled alot of deaths which is why its back up to 21 in most places

I agree, most kids are stupid. allowing them to use drugs which impair them would just allow their stupidity to show through even more. There should be an age limit for weed too, just like alcohol. IMO it could be younger because I believe pot impairs the user less than alcohol, but thats just from what ive seen. Most of the time it just impairs me to Call of Duty 4....which I do better at when I'm high. (game based highly on awareness and reaction time)

take all of the neg and stack them against the posititive and the neg outway the positives far to much i dont ever see it becoming legal here.... there are many more things of importance that we need to deal with than the legalities of weed LOL

[Sumthinwicked]

thankx for the entertainment while at work guys i know im not great at debates TEK SKOL student here but i do enjoy these

[ThePixelGuru]

Oh, I understand it is highly unlikely the argument is going to change anything. And in the case of weed I really don't care as I truley beleive those making the argument that it is harmless are being idiotic and have no intention of ever messing with it.

That being said I still beleive the argument is right, even if being right doesn't matter.

I haven't seen anyone make the argument that it's harmless. I've several people including myself said it's less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but I don't think anyone here is going to say it's harmless.

[kosmo]

Lets say person A gets high every day after work, and person B eats at Hardees getting a thickburger for every meal, smokes a pack a day, and gets drunk every night. Which one is worse?

[billybob_81067]

Lets say person A gets high every day after work, and person B eats at Hardees getting a thickburger for every meal, smokes a pack a day, and gets drunk every night. Which one is worse?

They both suck! Next question...

[Lohman446]

I haven't seen anyone make the argument that it's harmless. I've several people including myself said it's less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but I don't think anyone here is going to say it's harmless.

I think that people downgrade the long term effect of pot. As with most things its pretty hard to study without it being in a vacuum. We know nicotine is deadly, and we know in quantity it can be SEVERELY deadly. However, noone ever dies (noone might be a bad term) from nicotine poisoning, they die from the side effects of smoking. Personally I wonder if this is not simply from the effects of drawing smoke into ones lungs. Does the composition really matter? I'm sure to some degree but not to what.

In the end I think if pot was readily available, and smoked in the quantities cigarettes are you would find that it (and most anything else you can smoke) is just as deadly and likely has very similiar long term consequences.

Addictiveness is a hard thing to rate. I doubt anyone would argue that gambling can be addictive, and it in fact has very similiar physical withdrawal symptoms for those addicted as the "classic" addictions. Obviously there are not any foreign chemicals being introduced into the body by gambling. Most people who light up one or two cigarettes do not become addicted. Most people can responsibly handle alchohol. I would, from unprofessional, unscientific observation place weed into the same category. The vast majority of adults can probably handle it without dependency. Then again, I know for a fact that there are a lot of adults out there who can handle use of far harder drugs and seemingly stop cold turkey. I'm sure the anti-drug crowd does not want to hear that.

I'll support the idea that the federal government banning weed is a bad idea. Though I don't like a lot of the "logic" and "facts" thrown out by a lot of the pro-weed community.

[skife]

I think that people downgrade the long term effect of pot. As with most things its pretty hard to study without it being in a vacuum. We know nicotine is deadly, and we know in quantity it can be SEVERELY deadly. However, noone ever dies (noone might be a bad term) from nicotine poisoning, they die from the side effects of smoking. Personally I wonder if this is not simply from the effects of drawing smoke into ones lungs. Does the composition really matter? I'm sure to some degree but not to what.

In the end I think if pot was readily available, and smoked in the quantities cigarettes are you would find that it (and most anything else you can smoke) is just as deadly and likely has very similiar long term consequences.

Addictiveness is a hard thing to rate. I doubt anyone would argue that gambling can be addictive, and it in fact has very similiar physical withdrawal symptoms for those addicted as the "classic" addictions. Obviously there are not any foreign chemicals being introduced into the body by gambling. Most people who light up one or two cigarettes do not become addicted. Most people can responsibly handle alchohol. I would, from unprofessional, unscientific observation place weed into the same category. The vast majority of adults can probably handle it without dependency. Then again, I know for a fact that there are a lot of adults out there who can handle use of far harder drugs and seemingly stop cold turkey. I'm sure the anti-drug crowd does not want to hear that.

I'll support the idea that the federal government banning weed is a bad idea. Though I don't like a lot of the "logic" and "facts" thrown out by a lot of the pro-weed community.

i really like your argument.

I'm pro-weed, Its a social thing for me, but its always done responsibly and that is as far as i will take my drug experimenting.

not saying i'm the majority or anything, its just something i enjoy from time to time.

but none the less, i hate big brother telling me i can't do something.