Should Marijuana be legalized for medical purposes/recreation?

[Eric Cartman]

marijuana is awsome... beer can do More damage to u than weed does... soooooo i say it should be legalized

See the kind of crap that gives you pro-legalization people a bad name?

Yeah, it's like trying to argue in favour of tougher immigration laws and the grand wizard of the KKK comes up and says "Yeah! Right on brother"
The kind of help you really don't need. Fortunately others have presented well thought out viewpoints on both sides of the argument.

Using any substance to alter cohesive thought, is stupid. While stupid is not illegal, consciously choosing to be so... should be.

Can I take this to mean that you have never gone out and quaffed a few ales with the boys? Maybe having a few wings watching the Super Bowl? Because I don't see anything wrong with that.

[trains are bad]

and you could also make the argument that you are putting yourself at risk by taking drugs. remember, suicide is illegal, even though its only hurting yourself.

It shouldn't be. A person's body and life and destiny should be his to control. If a person does not have complete control over his body then what other freedoms are even important? I'm sure nobody would argue this. It falls clearly under the whole 'life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, right of the people to be secure in their persons and papers'...thing.

Good Christ I hope that's a joke

Oh it was. However as rediculous as people can get with their faulty logic, I don't blame you for wondering.

Do you know why I gain freedom? Because I'm in the Majority. We rule this contry, not the minority. If the balance of power chances, I'll be in the minority. That's how it goes. So, really, if you don't like what the majority does, you are going to be the one that goes, not us.

Here is where you are simply wrong. Are you sure you are talking about the USA? Because, the USA is not a democracy. You seem to be thinking it is. The USA is [supposed to be] a constitutional republic. We have things like the bill of rights that prevent the majority from taking fundamental liberties from the minority. Every American is [supposed to be] guaranteed things like freedom of speech, freedom to own and operate property in the pursuit of his happiness so as to enhance or degrade his life however he sees fit, provided such does not directly infringe on other's right to the same. Surely you don't think that blacks don't deserve full civil liberties because they are in the minority do you? Yet in the same breath that's what you say. If the majority up and decide that [unconstitutional thing] should happen, and 98% of people agree.....well then tough doo doo. You can't trample on people. Majority has nothing to do with anything when it comes to fundamental liberties.

Get the feeling that I may be a Libertarian? Where does the Constitution spell out the right of the federal government to legislate against any drug? It doesn't, as such I do not beleive that they have the right. If you want to get high, get drunk, shoot a gun, drink poisoned kool-ade I don't care. Ethical hedonism, I don't care what consenting adults do... as long as it does not step on the rights of other people. Do I care if you get high, run from the police, and endanger everyone? Yes I do, but I do not beleive the crime was getting high (actually its obvious under today's law it is), it was running from the police.

*wipes tear*
beautiful man, simply beautiful, I couldn't have said it better. *sniff*Someone gets it. I should buy you a beer, or joint or pop or whatever. Things like this used to be taught in history and civics. Now so few people understand what america is actually supposed to be. Which is the first and most important thing that will cause (and has caused) its fall.

There is no good reason. The only actions that should be illegal are things that cause harm to other nonconsenting people.

Come up with way that smoking, growing, eating, or bathing in weed does, that is not already covered under more general and objective laws and I will listen.

I quoted myself because I'm just that good. If someone gets high and exposes himself in public, he should be charged with indecent exposure and possibly public intoxication. If someone gets high and kills someone, he should be charged with murder and possibly public intoxication. If someone gets high and steals something, he sholud be charged with stealing and possibly public intoxication. If someone gets high and plays Rez in his apt while listening to At the Drive In and eating cheesy poofs....that is his right as an american.

We will never see drugs legalized because thier being illegal increases government power and size. Government never gets smaller, it only seeks to increase its influence and power. Fact of history.

[Army]

Can I take this to mean that you have never gone out and quaffed a few ales with the boys? Maybe having a few wings watching the Super Bowl? Because I don't see anything wrong with that.

Sure I have. But, never have I conciously chose to get drunk. My one beer to wash down a plate of wings, will not put me over the legal limit of public intoxication.

Every pot smoker though, has but one goal....to get high, stoned, ripped, mellow, burnt, charred, or "poop" faced. As little as A bowl can/will get you fried. :rofl:

All you guys that say that it's no worse than alcohol...do you really want to add stoned people to the mix on the highways? There is little chance the drunks and stoners will take each other out at the same time.



BTW, prohibition was not repealed because of crime rates (the Al Capones were already established before the ban. Running booze simply added another income source.), but for tax revenues that the govt. was no longer receiving.

[WicKeD_WaYz]

Good cops can tell if someone is stoned. Im talking stoned enough for it to be a problem. Theres ways to do it and a good cop will always nail you on it. I dont know how well that would hold up in court though. Say a 21 year old legal smoker get pulled over for driving under the influence of THC. The cop says he was stoned, he swears he wasnt. The bloodtest said there was THC in his system but now its legal so its ok to have in your system.

[spantol]

All you guys that say that it's no worse than alcohol...do you really want to add stoned people to the mix on the highways? There is little chance the drunks and stoners will take each other out at the same time.

I don't recall anyone advocating driving under the influence.

In fact, I believe such activity is illegal in its own right.

[tsc]

I don't recall anyone advocating driving under the influence.

In fact, I believe such activity is illegal in its own right.

Most of the people in this thread have compared marijuna use to drinking. Several of them say alcohol is worse. I'd say it's reasonable they'd drive under the influence.

Prohibition (1920-33) was enacted a few years after women gained the right to vote. After that, who wouldn't want a drink? But seriously, prohibition tried to put an end to a thousands of year old tradition, in one of the most 'progressive' countries in the world. It wasn't met with open arms. Prohibition saw us through some of the worst years in history for the U.S. People were standing in breadlines and still losing family members to malnutrition. The country was on its knees. Prohibition was repealed not only to bring in some more tax revenue for the country, but to give a frightened and downtrodden country something in their lives to feel good about. It was a failure because the country took an incredible downturn, not because it was 'wrong'. Yeah, the speakeasys existed, yeah, there was crime...You mean in the infancy of a new law there were problems? psh.

Being able to get stoned is not a right, kids. And it's certainly not comparable to prohibition. If you still think it is...Well, to use one of the lines earlier in this thread "Just leave" People left during prohibition. Why don't you?

Why is the 'gateway drug' thing propaganda? You're telling me that the mindset of finding something biggerbetterfastercooler after you get that first taste doesn't exist?

It can be applied to anything. Cars, paintball, firearms, you name it. Now, I'm sure NONE of you advocating marijuana use have this mindset ( ), other people do. Period. You are not representative of the entire population.

If it's all propaganda, what about those of us who have seen it in action? Those of us who've lost friends to OD's, and watched in pain as they went from someone we loved to something entirely different. Just because YOU haven't had to live through it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The war on drugs is an incredible failure, I agree. That doesn't mean they should be legalized. Alcohol is controlled for a reason, despite the fact it's often abused anyway. Immature kids can barely make decisions sober, why add another roadblock in the rational thought process?

The government is obligated to protect its citizens. Marijuana use leads to impaired judgement and slowed reaction times, if we just take the example of driving under the influence. That can kill people, just as alcohol can. That's why it's illegal to drive with a certain BAC which has been proven to cause signifigant enough impairment to hamper driving.

Long post short: Smoke if you want it. But shut up about it. It's illegal, it always will be for a myriad of reasons, and we don't need to hear your rationalizations of why you waste your money.

[spantol]

Most of the people in this thread have compared marijuna use to drinking. Several of them say alcohol is worse. I'd say it's reasonable they'd drive under the influence.

And I'd say it's reasonable that the law deal with such activity harshly. Driving while high is already punishable under existing DUI laws.

Why is the 'gateway drug' thing propaganda? You're telling me that the mindset of finding something biggerbetterfastercooler after you get that first taste doesn't exist?

I'm saying it exists in a subset of the population, and it's independant of the substance. People who are physiologically more likely to become addicts graduate to harder drugs in greater numbers than those that are not. In these cases, it's simply the manifestation of a destructive behavior. If you're not prone to excess, the only negative consequences that will befall you relate directly to the drug's illegality.

Now, if you were making the argument that you're not likely to know into which camp you'll fall until you try it, I could support that. The appeal to emotion isn't nearly as convincing.

If it's all propaganda, what about those of us who have seen it in action? Those of us who've lost friends to OD's, and watched in pain as they went from someone we loved to something entirely different. Just because YOU haven't had to live through it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

No one has ever overdosed on pot. If said overdose was due to a harder substance, and the victim had been an avid marijuana user earlier in life, I would argue that you've seen an addictive personality in action, not any gateway effect of marijuana.

It's Occam's Razor. Marijuana does not need to have a magical gateway power to explain current drug trends:

The people who are predisposed to use drugs and have the opportunity to use drugs are more likely than others to use both marijuana and harder drugs. Marijuana typically comes first because it is more available. Once we incorporated these facts into our mathematical model of adolescent drug use, we could explain all of the drug use associations that have been cited as evidence of marijuana's gateway effect.

As Target Practice so eloquently put it, Correlation != Causation. Early marijuana use and later hard drug use are not causally linked; they are simply manifestations of an addictive disposition.

[tsc]

snipsnipsnip

If you don't try weed in the first place, it stands to reason you won't become addicted to it. Thus, laws are in place to stop the 'addictive personalities' from being able to manifest themselves.



Yes, those people were avid marijuana users. The last I saw of my best friend a few years ago, she had graduated from pot to PCP in the course of a year. The pattern is repeated over and over, in many people's lives.

The addicted users, I'd argue, are the ones who rely upon a substance to function, not those who seek a different/better high. The quest for a better high can affect those who do not become dependant upon a substance.

As you're so conveniently forgetting (as with many others in this thread) If you can't try it in the first place, there is a ZERO chance of you becoming addicted and going on to other, harder drugs. Period.

Edit: the appeal to emotion is all too convincing, how do you think the Iraq war had such approval?

[trains are bad]

The government is obligated to protect its citizens.

[spantol]

If you don't try weed in the first place, it stands to reason you won't become addicted to it. Thus, laws are in place to stop the 'addictive personalities' from being able to manifest themselves.

No, these laws pervent such personalities from manifesting themselves in this particular way. If not illegal drugs, something else will get them--you can't cheat Darwin.

Yes, those people were avid marijuana users. The last I saw of my best friend a few years ago, she had graduated from pot to PCP in the course of a year. The pattern is repeated over and over, in many people's lives.

And the pattern is suspiciously absent in the lives of many, many more. About 20,000 people a year die from illegal drug use. Each year, 2.6 million people try marijuana for the first time. About half that many--but not necessarily half of those--will try cocaine or heroin for the first time, and in doing so make themselves eligible for the 20k figure. Pretty good odds.

The addicted users, I'd argue, are the ones who rely upon a substance to function, not those who seek a different/better high. The quest for a better high can affect those who do not become dependant upon a substance.

Both are forms of addictive behavior. The quest for a better high is often attributable to dependence, as users build up a tolerance.

As you're so conveniently forgetting (as with many others in this thread) If you can't try it in the first place, there is a ZERO chance of you becoming addicted and going on to other, harder drugs. Period.

No one's forgetting that, it's just not terribly relevant to the issue of legality. Similar, equally irrelevant arguments can be strung together for other potentially destructive, but nonetheless legal activities. Watch:

If you can't try alcohol in the first place, there is a ZERO chance of you driving drunk. Period.

If you can't buy a gun in the first place, there is a ZERO chance of you committing a drive-by shooting. Period.

If you can't try cigarettes in the first place, there is a [minimal] chance of you dying of lung cancer. Period.

Edit: the appeal to emotion is all too convincing, how do you think the Iraq war had such approval?

Context is everything. I meant that the appeal to emotion wasn't as convincing--to me--as, say, logic and research. I am quite sympathetic for your loss, but you're using that as an unrepresentative sample for this discussion.

[drg]

This is a small tangential thought, but one reason for a large incidence (not correlation, I defy anyone to come up with such proof) of people using pot and later using other, harder drugs, is that both travel in similar, and sometimes the same, illegal channels. Remove marijuana from those channels and there's a likelihood that it will actually keep users from graduating to harder drugs.

[Eric Cartman]

Sure I have. But, never have I conciously chose to get drunk. My one beer to wash down a plate of wings, will not put me over the legal limit of public intoxication.

Every pot smoker though, has but one goal....to get high, stoned, ripped, mellow, burnt, charred, or "poop" faced. As little as A bowl can/will get you fried. :rofl:

I'd equate A bowl to the effects of having 2 - 3 beers, but it wears off more quickly than the alcohol. I wouldn't equate that slight buzz with being "poop faced", but mellow's about right. If you stop at one beer every time, then that's fine for you. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a few more. I'll still be walking straight and not slurring my words as I head home.

All you guys that say that it's no worse than alcohol...do you really want to add stoned people to the mix on the highways?

Why do we keep coming back to this? NO. I do not want stoned people on the roads, but guess what - they are out there already and laws are in place to deal with them just like the drunk drivers. It IS harder to detect, but it's also hard to detect the people who are sleep deprived while behind the wheel and they are arguably as dangerous as the drunk and high drivers. I don't feel that this justifies the illegality of marijuana use. Work on ways to detect people whose ability to drive is impaired by anything and deal with those people harshly when caught. Don't even get me started on cell phones!

BTW, prohibition was not repealed because of crime rates (the Al Capones were already established before the ban. Running booze simply added another income source.), but for tax revenues that the govt. was no longer receiving.

I never said it was because of crime. Prohibition was unreasonable. The prohibition against marijuana is unreasonable. The fact is that alcohol was still available during prohibition and that prohibition made criminals out of regular people who just wanted to have a few drinks. Marijuana is still available (and always will be) and the unjust laws banning it's use make criminals out of regular people who just want to have a toke, or drink a tea, or eat a cookie. Nothing said in this thread has made me understand why the government wants to keep banging it's head on this wall. They aren't fighting the good fight. This isn't a crusade against a great evil. No succesful argument can be made about why alcohol is legal while marijuana is not.

To all of you gateway believers out there, do you really think it's impossible for people to make the jump from alcohol to other substances? Not that it would be necessary as alcohol is enough to kill you all by itself.

No, these laws pervent such personalities from manifesting themselves in this particular way. If not illegal drugs, something else will get them--you can't cheat Darwin.

Indeed!

[Lohman446]

To all of you gateway believers out there, do you really think it's impossible for people to make the jump from alcohol to other substances?

This is a flawed argument - proving that alchohol is a gateway drug does not disprove that pot is a gateway drug.

[Eric Cartman]

This is a flawed argument - proving that alchohol is a gateway drug does not disprove that pot is a gateway drug.

But that's not my argument. I don't believe that alcohol is a gateway drug either. I should have been more clear. It was more in response to this:

As you're so conveniently forgetting (as with many others in this thread) If you can't try it in the first place, there is a ZERO chance of you becoming addicted and going on to other, harder drugs. Period.

People with addictive or destructive personalities are going to find ways to do themselves in. We can't restrict everyone else's freedoms to protect them from themselves. I think it's simple Darwinism.
You can have a person in the peak physical shape who is an upstanding contributing member of society who has nevr touched a drop of alcohol or used any sort of drug. But they can be adrenaline addicts - always searching for a greater rush. First it's a little cliff diving, then skydiving and then they move up to BASE jumping when they're bored of skydiving and one day S P L A T off of the Eiffel tower (just happened the other day didn't it?). I just think that's the way some people are wired. Take all of the mind altering substances awy and these people will still find ways to self destruct. Blaming the substance is not the answer.

[Eric Cartman]

This is a fine example of the help the decrimialization side deosn't need.

And that's the truth. If you want to convince a bunch of kids that pot should be legal, sure go ahead and quote all the lyrics you want. The problem is that you need to convince politicians, lawyers and uptight conservatives. Only well thought out rational arguments have any hope of doing that. Swearing and putting down cops for doing their jobs is not going to do anything but convince them that they are right and give a bad rep to all proponents of decriminalization / legalization. You want to represent your cause? Then think before you speak and keep your target audience in mind.