Quoting:
Should It Be Legalized? - Yes.

I don't think it is any worse than alcohol. The government could place the same type of warning labels as those on alcohol and cigarettes and tax it.

I actually think it is better than alcohol. Some people who are inebriated tend to do some pretty stupid stuff and may also experience erratic personality changes, whereas people who are stoned tend to relax and be all peaceful. The most erratic thing a stoned person will do is raid the fridge for snacks when they get the "munchies".

Another point is the "street" pushers and distributors would be out of business, which has to be a good thing.

That's just my opinion though. ;D
End Quote

Yeah, what you said. ;D

Might as well legalize it, it's all over the place anyways.

Quoting:
I am deffinately for legalization. I am also for the medical uses too. People who have cancer and AIDS benefit because it does increase the appetite when chemo and other drugs decrease it. I also know that helps with glocoma by reducing the pressure on the eyes. It is also a good pain reliever. I use it occationally when I have a severe headache or other pain. I have personally seen what alcohol does to people, they get beligerant and obnoxious. I have never seen anyone who got stoned act that way-silly-yes, and even a bit stupid,  but not ready to rip someone's head off or get into a fight over nothing.
There is a movie out called "Weed" about how much the U.S. Government has spent on the "war against weed." That money could be put into schools, medical care, etc. Instead they put all that money into going after the person who smokes to releive the pain of illness or someone who just wants to sit back and relax and who is not bothering anyone. The Toyes has a song out that goes, "Hey, Uncle Sam, Leave us pot smokers alone."



Cat

End Quote

:) :)I agree it should be legalized for medical usage--people with glaucoma,multiple sclerosis and other diseases alleviated by this don't need a hassle,like Montel Williams at the airport last week.That,however,desn't mean i think people should use it for 'recreational' purposes---the same with any other drug,legal or not.Cheers!

Quoting:
I am deffinately for legalization. I am also for the medical uses too. People who have cancer and AIDS benefit because it does increase the appetite when chemo and other drugs decrease it.
End Quote

But how does taking a drug that lowers the immune system help somebody with a lowered immune system?  And there are drugs that use THC and give the benefits, without all the side effects.

Like any other drug, marijuana can be used for good reasons.  It is also known for relieving migranes.  But sadly, a lot of those on the "medicinal use" crowd (not all, but there are a lot of them out there) that want it legalized for non-medicinal use.

I still remember the first case of California's Medicinal use law.  It was a dumptruck driver who claimed that he was illegally fired for failing a drug test at work.  WHen he sued his company, he claimed he used pot for helping with his glaucoma.

Interestingly, he had been suspended for a similar charge twice in the previous 10 years.  The employer then brought in a representative from the state DOT, and showed that glaucoma legally prevented a person from getting a drivers license, and since at the hearing he said he had it, the official stripped his license permanently.

Without a drivers license, the employer won the lawsuit.  Since then, it came out that the guy never had glaucoma in the first place, he just used that as a convient excuse to legitimize his pot habit.

Also, the Military does not recognize the use of medicinal marijuana, and they have some of the best doctors in the world.  However, they do allow use of medicinal THC and marijuana derivative drugs, just not the use ot marijuana itself.

Quoting:I do not agree with legalizing something just because people do it.  The same arguement can be passed on to prostitution, gambling, pornography, pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, and yes, even Liberalisim (chuckles).End Quote

Man, do we share a brain or what? :D


Arguments can be made for both sides whether to legalise it or not legalise it.

But, like mr 80s, I think the theory of "since its already being done why not just legalise it", or "everyones doing it, so legalise it" is not a good reason to legalise anything.

Based on that theory, many of the horrible and vile things going on in the under-belly of society would have to become legal also.  Many things that are much much worse than just pot.  I'm not going to list them, but just use your imagination.

Bottom line:  the "since its already being done why not just legalise it" theory is not a good enough one.

Quoting:
If you own a gun, should you have to justify to others that it's useful?  Should you have to "prove" somehow that it's "not too harmful"?
End Quote

Your arguement has one critical flaw, in that my gun is legal, the drugs are illegal.

And it HAS been proven that they are damaging.  When Christianity, Judaism, and Islam ALL agree that they are bad, there must be something to that fact.  Not to mention that almost all other nations agree.

My owning a gun is perfectly legal.  My possessing drugs is not legal.  And a gun only has the potential to be used in a dangerous manner.  Remember, less then 100 years ago, a gun was almost a required tool for acquiring food and protection from wild animals.  In some areas, it is still used for that very reason.

Quoting:


Man, do we share a brain or what? :D


Arguments can be made for both sides whether to legalise it or not legalise it.

But, like mr 80s, I think the theory of "since its already being done why not just legalise it", or "everyones doing it, so legalise it" is not a good reason to legalise anything.

Based on that theory, many of the horrible and vile things going on in the under-belly of society would have to become legal also.  Many things that are much much worse than just pot.  I'm not going to list them, but just use your imagination.

Bottom line:  the "since its already being done why not just legalise it" theory is not a good enough one.
End Quote

Some of the language here is frightening.  Instead of making people justify why they should be "allowed" to do something, shouldn't the default position be that they're allowed to do whatever they want, and anyone who wants to deny that right is the one who has to justify that denial?  On what basis do you tell any adult what substances they are "allowed" to put in their body?

Quoting:


Your arguement has one critical flaw, in that my gun is legal, the drugs are illegal.

And it HAS been proven that they are damaging.  When Christianity, Judaism, and Islam ALL agree that they are bad, there must be something to that fact.  Not to mention that almost all other nations agree.

My owning a gun is perfectly legal.  My possessing drugs is not legal.  And a gun only has the potential to be used in a dangerous manner.  Remember, less then 100 years ago, a gun was almost a required tool for acquiring food and protection from wild animals.  In some areas, it is still used for that very reason.
End Quote

But why are drugs illegal in the first place?  Guns could just as easily be banned; as you well know there are plenty of people who would like to see them banned and anyone who has the "nerve" to own one--for whatever reason--would be considered a criminal and thrown in jail.  And drug use, whether you like it or not, is only "potentially dangerous" as well.  My point is that guns and drugs don't differ at all in principle.  They are both considered useful by the people who choose to have them, and they are both considered dangerous by many people who don't.  If we happened to have fewer gun owners, they would not be legal anymore.  Would you then consider yourself a criminal if you refused to give up your gun?  And regarding your point that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all consider drugs dangerous, I'm afraid that's not very useful to a person who actually thinks organized religion is possibly even more harmful than drug abuse in that it discourages independent thought and undermines accountability.

Quoting:

Some of the language here is frightening.  Instead of making people justify why they should be "allowed" to do something, shouldn't the default position be that they're allowed to do whatever they want, and anyone who wants to deny that right is the one who has to justify that denial?  On what basis do you tell any adult what substances they are "allowed" to put in their body?
End Quote

No, I think you missed my point.  I'm not trying to argue or justify anything here.

Let me say again:  Yes, there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue whether to legalise it or not.  Thats all I am going to say on that.

But, my only point was that simply saying "oh well people are doing it so just legalise it" is not a valid reason to legalise anything on its own.  Its just waaaay to broad and leaves the door wide open to all things that are illegal that could be legalised on the same basis.

That was my only point.

Quoting:


No, I think you missed my point.  I'm not trying to argue or justify anything here.

Let me say again:  Yes, there are valid arguments on both sides of the issue whether to legalise it or not.  Thats all I am going to say on that.

But, my only point was that simply saying "oh well people are doing it so just legalise it" is not a valid reason to legalise anything on its own.  Its just waaaay to broad and leaves the door wide open to all things that are illegal that could be legalised on the same basis.

That was my only point.
End Quote

I understand your point, but it still bothers me that most people seem to think of government as an authority in charge of us that can grant or deny our rights (or money) at will as if we are children, instead of as a highly flawed tool to help protect our rights.  Your comment seemed to reflect that tendency, and that's all I was reacting to.

Quoting:But, my only point was that simply saying "oh well people are doing it so just legalise it" is not a valid reason to legalise anything on its own.  Its just waaaay to broad and leaves the door wide open to all things that are illegal that could be legalised on the same basis.
End Quote

Even though I am for legalising pot, I agree that the "Alcohol is just as bad, so we might as well make pot legal too" argument is pretty weak.

I also don't buy the argument that legalising it and taxing it will put dealers out of business. Do you honestly think that someone is going to pay an arm and a leg for government controlled weed, when they will be able to get it cheaper from the dealer on the corner? All legalising it is going to do is bring the dealers prices down.

I guess I would just like to see it legalised for medicinal purposes. But as Mr_80s pointed out. There are ways of getting your dose of THC without having to smoke a joint.

Quoting: Frank Zappa and Gerry Garcia both died of Liver Cancer, and both were chronic users.
End Quote

Jerry Garcia died of a heart attack.

Quoting:


"oh well people are doing it so just legalise it" is not a valid reason to legalise anything on its own.  Its just waaaay to broad and leaves the door wide open to all things that are illegal that could be legalised on the same basis.

End Quote

But that is not what people here are saying is the reason to legalize it.  It's only one pioint that is made on the current availability of pot.  Read carefully and see the medical reasons, the low risk factor, the taxable revenues, ability for greater control of the criminal drug trade, and the needless strain on our police and prison system.  Those are good arguments.
Also, the point made of "The same arguement can be passed on to prostitution, gambling, pornography, pedophilia, necrophilia, beastiality, and yes, even Liberalisim (chuckles)." Is not completely true, yes, Prostitution could have similar arguments made but gambleing is pretty well established in my area (Washington State) and I'm sure other areas with all the tribal casinos opening up. Porn is readilty available to anyone over the net, even in the bible belt or Salt Lake City.  Pedophilia, necrophelia and bestialtiy arenot even in the same realm, they should clearly remain crimial because it is sex taken from others who can't or shouldn't give permission.  
Liberalism, well that just has to be grown out of ;)

Quoting:
For the record:  I'm also for legalized prostitution, gambling and pornography *AND* I don't need Uncle Sam to regulate my carnal activities with other consenting adults.  In regards to necrophilia, pedophilia and beastiality, the same arguments do not apply because cadavers, children and animals are not consenting adults.
End Quote

I couldn't have said it better myself. I totally agree 100%.

A little FYI. Pot was legal in this country up until the 1930s.  This is a bit about why it was banned.

http://www.angelfire.com/il/johnny99/hemp5.html


Cat

Quoting:
Jerry Garcia died of a heart attack.
End Quote

Sorry about the mistake, I was thinking of David Crosby.  And yes, alcohol was a major contributor to his liver failure, but so was marijuana.  In addition to the heavy metal content which concentrates in the liver, it also lowers the immune system.  Several studies have linked hepatitis and liver cancer both to marijuana use.

But others have died of Liver Cancer, including Allen Ginsberg, Jack Bruce, Brian Connolly, Ian Dury, and let's not forget Linda McCarthy.  When husband Paul was arrested in Japan for marijuna possession, it was really HER marijuana he was arrested for.

Quoting:I also don't buy the argument that legalising it and taxing it will put dealers out of business. Do you honestly think that someone is going to pay an arm and a leg for government controlled weed, when they will be able to get it cheaper from the dealer on the corner? All legalising it is going to do is bring the dealers prices down.
End Quote

Thats an excellent point.

Just because "we" (the USA) legalise it, doesn't change the fact there will still be an underground black market trade elsewhere in the world where it will still be illegal.  Like you said, if somene has the choice of either getting pot from a dealer, or paying the higher government-taxed price for the same product, it only makes sense the dealers will still be making a living off it.

Quoting:But that is not what people here are saying is the reason to legalize it.  It's only one pioint that is made on the current availability of pot.  End Quote

I know its not the core argument, but it seems many people inlcude it in their arguments as a reason to legalise it.  And I don't think it is a good enough or valid reason.

Quoting:
A little FYI. Pot was legal in this country up until the 1930s.
Cat
End Quote

Yes, and at one time heroin, opium, and even cocaine was legal.  Heck, cocaine was a common over the counter medicine.  But when the dangers became apparent, they took steps to attempt to control it.

I am not the kind that wants to ban everything.  But illegal drugs are something I will always be against.  I have worked on the "war on drugs" myself, and have seen the damage it does.  I have worked with recovering addicts, and I have seen the results in both deaths of friends, and their children.

I have changed a lot in the last 15 years.  One of them is this opinion.  I have gone from a "it is not hurting anybody" mentality to a "hell no" opinion on this topic.

Quoting:For the record:  I'm also for legalized prostitution, gambling and pornography *AND* I don't need Uncle Sam to regulate my carnal activities with other consenting adults.
End Quote

Regarding prostitution:  I guess if one "needs" to engage in it, they can go to Nevada where it has been legal for years.

Regarding gambling: Its already legal in many states, mine being one.  And has been for years.

Regarding pornography:  Its already legal so why is this even included in this issue?

Quoting:


Thats an excellent point.

Just because "we" (the USA) legalise it, doesn't change the fact there will still be an underground black market trade elsewhere in the world where it will still be illegal.  Like you said, if somene has the choice of either getting pot from a dealer, or paying the higher government-taxed price for the same product, it only makes sense the dealers will still be making a living off it.
End Quote

Excellent point!  And that is already visible in Los Angeles with cigarettes.

When the tax on cigarettes in California jumped up, a large underground market for cigarettes opened up.  I myself used to get them that way, because they were half the price of those from normal stores.

But right before I left LA, a news report came on that floored me.

The cigarettes I bought came from Armenia, and were sold at a Deli in Hollywood that was owned by Russian immigrants.  The report was about how the Russian Mafia was making huge amounts of money through bootleg cigarettes.

With cigarette prices at almost $5 a pack in LA, $3 a pack smokes are very attractive.  The Russian Mafia brings them in for a cost of under $1 a pack, and sells them, keeping the profits for themselves.

If this is going on now with cigarettes, does anybody think it will NOT happen with marijuana?  And what are we going to do after death, injury, and disease rates jump?  Put the money into health care?

What often puzzles me is we are told that cigarettes are bad, they should be banned, that people that smoke should be shot.  Yet a lot of the same people want to legalize another item that is smokes, that is far more dangerous.  TO me, that makes no sense.

I admit my cigarettes are bad for me, but I am not dangerous when I smoke them.  I can slam down a pack of cigarettes, and other then being sick, I am not a danger to others.  I can even drive perfectly safely.  Try saying that to somebody high on marijuana.

Then again, I have my own theory for the legalization drive.  I think it is really a plot by RJ Reynolds.  This is a two-fold attempt by them.  FOr one, with it legal, a lot of the heat will be taken off of them for producing cigarettes.  For a second reason, they also own Nabisco.  THis way, they will make much more money through the sales of cookies and other munchies.  :D

Quoting:


Regarding prostitution:  I guess if one "needs" to engage in it, they can go to Nevada where it has been legal for years.

Regarding gambling: Its already legal in many states, mine being one.  And has been for years.

Regarding pornography:  Its already legal so why is this even included in this issue?
End Quote

Personally, I have no problem with either of those 3 either, but I was making a point, that is all.

I see controlled prostitution as a good thing myself.  As long as the mob and criminal elements are out of it, there is no harm.  It is a natural act, that we are all designed to do.  Besides, I cen remember when I have paid more for dinner, movie, and the like then I would have for a hooker.

As for gambling, I was talking about the mob run street gambling, not the controlled gambling at casinos.  I see it as a good thing, unless somebody is not able to control themself.

And no, pornography is NOT legal everywhere.  Move to Alabama and you will see that.  And I see nothing wrong with pornography, as long as once again the person does not have a sex addiction, and it does not contain exploiting images.  I myself am an author of "erotica", and see safe pronography and erotica as a safe thing.  I can't remember anybody dying from it.

Quoting:


Regarding prostitution:  I guess if one "needs" to engage in it, they can go to Nevada where it has been legal for years.

Regarding gambling: Its already legal in many states, mine being one.  And has been for years.

Regarding pornography:  Its already legal so why is this even included in this issue?
End Quote

This is the most arrogant attitude I've ever seen.  Again, I ask:  If *your* state made *your* gun illegal, would you consider it acceptable if someone told you that if you really "need" a gun you can move to a state that allows them?  Your comment about pornography makes it pretty clear:  You have no sense of natural rights, only rights granted you by the government.  Are you unable to project the eventual result of such unprincipled policy?  Our rights are being whittled away one by one and the only way to stop it is to start limiting government in principle and stop using it to meddle in other people's lives.  I agree with Melhi's statement about not needing Uncle Sam to regulate personal activities, though I part with her on the heavy taxes and regulation bit.  My ideal government would be so small it would only need a fraction of the money it currently wastes.

Quoting:
Here in Canada it's been Decriminalized.  :)
End Quote

I don't think the bill to decriminalize pot has been passed yet.

Quoting:


Excellent point!  And that is already visible in Los Angeles with cigarettes.

When the tax on cigarettes in California jumped up, a large underground market for cigarettes opened up.  I myself used to get them that way, because they were half the price of those from normal stores.

But right before I left LA, a news report came on that floored me.

The cigarettes I bought came from Armenia, and were sold at a Deli in Hollywood that was owned by Russian immigrants.  The report was about how the Russian Mafia was making huge amounts of money through bootleg cigarettes.

With cigarette prices at almost $5 a pack in LA, $3 a pack smokes are very attractive.  The Russian Mafia brings them in for a cost of under $1 a pack, and sells them, keeping the profits for themselves.

If this is going on now with cigarettes, does anybody think it will NOT happen with marijuana?  And what are we going to do after death, injury, and disease rates jump?  Put the money into health care?

What often puzzles me is we are told that cigarettes are bad, they should be banned, that people that smoke should be shot.  Yet a lot of the same people want to legalize another item that is smokes, that is far more dangerous.  TO me, that makes no sense.

I admit my cigarettes are bad for me, but I am not dangerous when I smoke them.  I can slam down a pack of cigarettes, and other then being sick, I am not a danger to others.  I can even drive perfectly safely.  Try saying that to somebody high on marijuana.

Then again, I have my own theory for the legalization drive.  I think it is really a plot by RJ Reynolds.  This is a two-fold attempt by them.  FOr one, with it legal, a lot of the heat will be taken off of them for producing cigarettes.  For a second reason, they also own Nabisco.  THis way, they will make much more money through the sales of cookies and other munchies.  :D
End Quote

You're complaining about the health risks of marijuana, but continue to smoke cigarettes!?

Quoting:
But somebody had posted that while it can be easily detected that a driver's been behind the wheel under the influence of excessive alcohol consumption, it is definitely not so with marijuana use. This means drivers who've been inhaling are just as impaired as drunk drivers except they are far less likely to get caught, but just as likely to kill other innocent drivers and passengers including children :(  
End Quote

Well, almost right.

While you can detect the USE of marijuana, you can not in any way detect the amount of INTOXICATION of marijuana.  That is only really possible with alcohol, because of how it is metabolized through the body.

With marijuana, it semi-fat absorbant.  The amount that stays in the fat cells depends on how long you have smoked it, and weather you have gained any weight during that time.  If so, it is "burried" behind some fat, and stays in longer.  But an average length of time is 30 days after last use.

For a long time chronic user, it can stay for as long as 90+ days.  Of course, there is the hair test, which will detect any use during the time the hair was grown.

The problem is how we legally prove intoxication.  With alcohol, a cop makes a "field side sobriety test".  This will show if there is probible cause to arrest the suspect for DUI.  After the arrest, the suspect then takes either a blood, urine, or breath test to show the actual level of intoxication.

In court, the fieldside is shown for probible cause, the actual clinical test is used as the actual evidence of intoxication.  the fieldside test by itself is not enough for prosecution, because of several factors.

For example, how do you do a thorough fieldside test on somebody that is disabled or in a wheelchair?  Or has an inner ear problem which affects ballance?  Or a speach impediment which affects speech?  All of these things can prevent the accuracy of a fieldside test, but can be rules out through a chemical test of some sort.

But since we can't detect an "intoxication level" with marijuana, we would be back in the old days before breath tests, trying to prove when a suspect claims innocence, and having to prove he was stoned at the time.

And yes, I do smoke, but am trying hard to quit.  I am down to less then a pack a day of ultra-light cigarettes.

My family has a history of alcoholism, and when within a few years my fiancee died, I got laid off, and my mother died.  When facing that stress, I needed something or go crazy.  I made the choice to not drink, and to smoke instead.  Now that I am out of LA and the stress is slowly going away, I now have the power to quit smoking.

I actually quit 3 different times since then, and each time another stress came on, and I started smoking again.  Hopefully when I quit this time, it will be for good.

Quoting:

This is the most arrogant attitude I've ever seen.  Again, I ask:  If *your* state made *your* gun illegal, would you consider it acceptable if someone told you that if you really "need" a gun you can move to a state that allows them?End Quote

Well, if that ever happened, I can guarantee that that law would be thrown out of court within 48 hours.  This is because no state CAN declaire firearms illegal.  It is in the BILL OF RIGHTS of the U.S. Constitution.  It is called the 2nd ammendment, and can't be repealed.

The only way possible for that to ever happen is if we conveened a new Constitutional Convention, repealed the entire Constitution, and brought in a new one.  ANd I think I have a better chance of jumping to the moon then that ever happening.

In the Constitution, I have the right to bear arms.  There is no right to get high.

Quoting:Some of the language here is frightening.End Quote

 

Why? No one's swearing.

Quoting:Instead of making people justify why they should be "allowed" to do something, shouldn't the default position be that they're allowed to do whatever they want, and anyone who wants to deny that right is the one who has to justify that denial?End Quote

Claude, Liberty is a good thing when used reasonably. Without law and order, anarchy is not a better option. I see this is a continuation of the 'firearms' topic we discussed previously (no I'm not going to talk about them again).

Quoting:On what basis do you tell any adult what substances they are "allowed" to put in their body?End Quote

When an adult's actions affect another person. Nicotene and the harmful effects of passive smoking is an example of this.

Our rights have to be tempered with social responsibility.

Quoting:


Well, if that ever happened, I can guarantee that that law would be thrown out of court within 48 hours.  This is because no state CAN declaire firearms illegal.  It is in the BILL OF RIGHTS of the U.S. Constitution.  It is called the 2nd ammendment, and can't be repealed.

The only way possible for that to ever happen is if we conveened a new Constitutional Convention, repealed the entire Constitution, and brought in a new one.  ANd I think I have a better chance of jumping to the moon then that ever happening.

In the Constitution, I have the right to bear arms.  There is no right to get high.
End Quote

Okay, I'm gonna make an analogy now.  The Constitution is like a grocery list my wife makes for me.  The grocery list says, "Buy milk, bread and eggs.  Nothing else."  (yeah, she's a little bossy)  The Bill Of Rights is like another list saying, "That means don't buy cookies.  Don't buy beer.  Don't buy breakfast cereal with colorful marshmallows in it."  And so on.  The Bill Of Rights is nice to see, but it's technically unnecessary; all the laws it prohibits are already withheld from Congress in the body of the Constitution.  My point is that just because guns were popular enough to get a special mention doesn't mean that anything not mentioned is up for grabs.  The very limited rights given to Congress in the Constitution mostly involved defending the borders and whatnot; nowhere does it say that Congress has the right to bust into somebody's house and throw them in jail for smoking the wrong leaves.  You may be right that no one will ever outlaw your gun; I hope you are.  But as you know, there are an awful lot of people who would love to see them banned for the exact same reason you support the drug war:  They just don't like them.

Quoting:
Claude, Liberty is a good thing when used reasonably. Without law and order, anarchy is not a better option. I see this is a continuation of the 'firearms' topic we discussed previously (no I'm not going to talk about them again).
End Quote

 
My problem is with who decides what is "reasonable".

Quoting:
When an adult's actions affect another person. Nicotene and the harmful effects of passive smoking is an example of this.

Our rights have to be tempered with social responsibility.
End Quote

I agree; this is exactly like the firearms topic.  And believe me, I'm all for law and order.  But I'd prefer anarchy over complete authoritarianism, which is the inevitable result of abandoning the rule of law.  I think where we differ is the exact point at which one individual interferes with the rights of another.  My contention is that it's important to focus on the action that directly interferes--someone blowing their smoke in your face, for example.  Many people, however, in the name of "social responsibility", or "public safety", find it much easier to simply wave their hand and ban stuff they don't like.  Then they get all irritated when something they DO like has been banned.  Right now we have lawyers going after fast-food companies for "making people fat".  Eventually they'll be telling us what we can and cannot eat; it's not too far a leap, and what makes it possible is this insistence on doing things "for the public good"; which is so vague you're literally putting all your rights at another's mercy.

Quoting:
Hi again Bobby
 
My problem is with who decides what is "reasonable".
I agree; this is exactly like the firearms topic.  And believe me, I'm all for law and order.  But I'd prefer anarchy over complete authoritarianism, which is the inevitable result of abandoning the rule of law.  I think where we differ is the exact point at which one individual interferes with the rights of another.  My contention is that it's important to focus on the action that directly interferes--someone blowing their smoke in your face, for example.  Many people, however, in the name of "social responsibility", or "public safety", find it much easier to simply wave their hand and ban stuff they don't like.  Then they get all irritated when something they DO like has been banned.  Right now we have lawyers going after fast-food companies for "making people fat".  Eventually they'll be telling us what we can and cannot eat; it's not too far a leap, and what makes it possible is this insistence on doing things "for the public good"; which is so vague you're literally putting all your rights at another's mercy.
End Quote

Hello Claude.

I think one individual deciding laws is a dangerous thing. That's dictatorship and as bad as anarchy. As much as I harp on about 'social responsibility' there has to be 'political' responsibility as well.

You are right about lawyers V fast food companies. People eating habitually from these places have a choice which only they are accountable for. As their choices affect only themselves and ignorance is no excuse (unlike the tobbacco users of a certain generation who genuinely believed at the time that smoking was good for them) - that is totally different.

Thank you for your reasonable post, Claude. I'm not a fan of sentimental arguments.  ;)

Quoting:
Why? No one's swearing.
End Quote

Swearing isn't frightening language - usually it's quite the opposite (it's hard to take anyone seriously in an expletive-littered post).  The point Claude was making is that the language used was totilitarian, the State (with a capital 'S') deciding what you are allowed to do.  Now *that* is frightening, when people use that sort of rhetoric while having convinced themselves that they're being rational, even sensible.  It's more like Soviet Russia than any democracy I'd ever want to live in.

Phil

Quoting:
I admit my cigarettes are bad for me, but I am not dangerous when I smoke them.  I can slam down a pack of cigarettes, and other then being sick, I am not a danger to others.  I can even drive perfectly safely.  Try saying that to somebody high on marijuana.
End Quote

If you slam down a pack of cigarettes while you're driving, then yes, you are a danger to others: I've been driven by a smoker who was rummaging round to find a new pack at 80 on a busy motorway; I've been pillion on a motorbike with a regular pot-smoker who was a damn sight safer than almost everybody else on the road.  I know which was more of a danger to me, not to mention everybody else around.

Your point that pot impairs the the ability to drive is a valid one, but you're overstretching it to breaking point: pot doesn't cause overconfidence in your own ability to drive in the same way as alcohol does - you're much more aware of your own impaired judgement after a couple of joints than you will be after a couple of pints.

I've known a lot of pot-smokers over the years, so far no medical problems, no road accidents - OK, so it's probably not statistically significant, but the cumulative experience of a lot of people like me suggests your overly simplistic view is more like scaremongering.  Incidentally, although quite a few were regular tokers, they smoked a whole lot less than any of the nicotine junkies take.

Phil

Quoting:
Preamble to the US Constitution says we have rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  Suppose if pot makes ya happy...
End Quote

It is actually the Declearation of Independence that says that but I get your point.



Cat

Quoting:
Claude's position on this is so similar to mine, and he expresses himself so well, that I'm not going to revisit a lot of this, but to distil the argument even further:

We should not be asking the question "Why should people be allowed to smoke marijuana", but "what reasons (and they'd better be good ones) do we have for banning it"

I've always got really annoyed by people trying to tell me what I can and can't do "in my own best interest" - if I harm nobody else with my behaviour, why should anybody else have any influence over what I'm doing at all?

A few related questions for the "keep it illegal" brigade:
Millions of people are currently paying billions of dollars to the nastiest bunch of crooks in the world (I'm talking drug dealers, not lawyers).  Why are you happy with this state of affairs?  Why are you content to pay billions of your own money in the fight against it?  Surely the billions people are prepared to spend on drugs could be utilised better?

So far the only argument proposed for keeping it illegal which has any weight behind it is the lack of a test for current intoxication for drivers under the influence of pot - but it's not the caes for cocaine, heroin and the rest, so maybe those should be legalised?  This is obviously ridiculous.. but then again, so is the whole "keep it illegal" argument.


Swearing isn't frightening language - usually it's quite the opposite (it's hard to take anyone seriously in an expletive-littered post).  The point Claude was making is that the language used was totilitarian, the State (with a capital 'S') deciding what you are allowed to do.  Now *that* is frightening, when people use that sort of rhetoric while having convinced themselves that they're being rational, even sensible.  It's more like Soviet Russia than any democracy I'd ever want to live in.

Phil
End Quote

Once again, thanks for your support and never pass up an opportunity to rephrase the "mind your own business" argument.  You never know; it may sink in one day.  And thanks to you and many others for bringing up the ridiculous wasteful futility of the whole thing.  I get so caught up in the "natural rights" argument I tend to completely forget the overwhelming practical reasons for ending the madness.  As you said earlier, it's so obvious I can't even believe how many people still don't get it.  (something like that)

Quoting:


It is actually the Declearation of Independence that says that but I get your point.



Cat
End Quote

Quoting:
I've always got really annoyed by people trying to tell me what I can and can't do "in my own best interest" - if I harm nobody else with my behaviour, why should anybody else have any influence over what I'm doing at all?
End Quote

Absolutely right. I am in no way part of the 'keep it illegal' brigade as long as nobody else gets hurt by another's actions. That is the only one of two points I would like to make. The second is that people must understand the need for laws in general to protect themselves and other people. That is not being totalitarian or to be downright awkward, that is about being sensitive to everyone's well-being.

Quoting:
Swearing isn't frightening language - usually it's quite the opposite (it's hard to take anyone seriously in an expletive-littered post).  The point Claude was making is that the language used was totilitarian, the State (with a capital 'S') deciding what you are allowed to do.  Now *that* is frightening, when people use that sort of rhetoric while having convinced themselves that they're being rational, even sensible.  It's more like Soviet Russia than any democracy I'd ever want to live in.
End Quote

I suppose I was being a little facetious, Philbo. I was trying to illustrate that people are so easily affected by anothers opinions (being 'frightened'?) and Claude has a habit of using emotive language to strengthen his argument that's all (no offence Claude  :)). To compare people's opinions with Soviet Russia is to saying to me that, whether a point is right or wrong, it shouldn't be allowed - which is presumably the stance that Soviet Russia would have taken.

As for my stance on Marijuana, I'm not bothered whether people use it or not but I was kept up all night by a load of people using 'magic mushrooms'. I lived in shared accomodation and I heard them playing loud music, screaming and banging doors all night and this went on until 6:00 am! I am a reasonable person, and asked them politely to stop several times but they refused to listen to me. That is what I am talking about when I am referring to 'affecting people' even if it is done indirectly.

Quoting:
Once again, thanks for your support and never pass up an opportunity to rephrase the "mind your own business" argument.  You never know; it may sink in one day. End Quote

Claude, what kind of an argument is 'mind your own business'? Are you referring to marijuana or life in general? I mind my own business but I, and others, are allowed to make an opinion on the board regardless of whether it suits your ideals or anybody elses - that is what discussion is about.

Quoting:
Thanks for the corection, anyway, wasn't me that came up with the idea, it was Dr. Timothy Leary.


End Quote

Ahhhh. Good old Timothy Leary. "Turn on, tune in, and drop out."


Cat

Quoting:


I don't think the bill to decriminalize pot has been passed yet.
End Quote

I thought it has. Maybe I'm wrong.  ???

Quoting:Just because "it's all over the place" is not an excuse, just an irresponsible viewpoint.  That's like saying since all forms of porn are available on the net and curbing it is an excercise in futility, we might as well legalize it all.  I think not.End Quote

Thank you.  :)

I'm so glad you mentioned that, because that is exacly what I was trying to point out a few days ago here.

There are a lot of things that are illegal, and yes, people are still participating in them underground and illegally, and probably always will.  But, just because people are doing it doesn't give it grounds to just legalise it in some hope that it will make things better. ::)

Make pot legal? I don't know.  But legalise it becuase "everyones already doing it", no way.  That kind of attitude has such enormous potential for disaster in the future it sickening.

Quoting:


I suppose I was being a little facetious, Philbo. I was trying to illustrate that people are so easily affected by anothers opinions (being 'frightened'?) and Claude has a habit of using emotive language to strengthen his argument that's all (no offence Claude  :)). To compare people's opinions with Soviet Russia is to saying to me that, whether a point is right or wrong, it shouldn't be allowed - which is presumably the stance that Soviet Russia would have taken.

As for my stance on Marijuana, I'm not bothered whether people use it or not but I was kept up all night by a load of people using 'magic mushrooms'. I lived in shared accomodation and I heard them playing loud music, screaming and banging doors all night and this went on until 6:00 am! I am a reasonable person, and asked them politely to stop several times but they refused to listen to me. That is what I am talking about when I am referring to 'affecting people' even if it is done indirectly.
End Quote

"Emotive language"?  Ah, you Brits are so sensitive  ;)  Actually the part I want to comment on is the part about the people who were violating your rights by disturbing the peace.  When this sort of thing happens here, someone usually calls the police and they're told by someone with authority to keep it down or else.  It does not matter what they were doing; it was the noise, not the mushrooms, that violated your rights.

Quoting:


Claude, what kind of an argument is 'mind your own business'? Are you referring to marijuana or life in general? I mind my own business but I, and others, are allowed to make an opinion on the board regardless of whether it suits your ideals or anybody elses - that is what discussion is about.
End Quote

I think you misunderstood.  My contention is that too many people use government to meddle in the lives of others.  They see things they don't like:  Illicit drug use, private gun ownership, prostitution, pornography--you know, fun stuff--and since they don't personally indulge in a particular activity that offends their sensibilities, they see no reason to "allow" this activity to go on, whether it actually affects anyone else directly or not.  My problem with this is that it means that any activity may be banned according to this principle as long as enough people dislike it.  So when I mentioned the "mind your own business" thing I only meant that people should expect government to focus on real crime with actual victims as opposed to voluntary behavior between consenting adults, however distasteful they may feel it is.  Of course you're allowed to express your opinions.  I encourage it wholeheartedly, for if you don't, how will I know to tell you you're wrong?  :)  Cheers

Quoting:
That's like saying since all forms of porn are available on the net and curbing it is an excercise in futility, we might as well legalize it all.  I think not.
End Quote

It's a bit of a distraction in a way, but the porn argument bears some similarities: if nobody's being hurt in the making (and I'd include use of force/exploitation in that), and nothing illegal is happening (i.e. all participants are of an age to know what they're doing and be legal about it), there should be no reason for any kind of material to be illegal.  "Perverting public morals" is no kind of argument at all.

Quoting:
Any numbskull can see it's a stepping stone drug.
End Quote

I ain't no numbskull, and I don't believe it's a stepping stone drug - in fact, you've hit on possibly the strongest argument for legalisation: take it away from the pushers who'll try and force more powerful and addictive drugs onto the users.  There is no causality proven between taking pot and harder drugs - by exactly the same argument, you could say that alcohol is a gateway drug: pretty much everybody who's tried pot has had an alcoholic drink at some time in their lives beforehand... but that doesn't mean that alcohol causes pot to be taken, and you'd be laughed at if you suggested it seriously.

Quoting:
Besides, anything that f***s up the "family jewels" should be reason enough not to touch the stuff.  :o
End Quote

Reason for a personal decision either way - no reason for legislation.

Phil

Quoting:"Emotive language"?  Ah, you Brits are so sensitive  ;)  End Quote

Ha ha! No it's just me, Claude. I hear a lot of people arguing about subjects in Britain and use sentimentality to intimidate the listener ('I can't believe you just said that . . . ') and it's not nice.

Quoting:Actually the part I want to comment on is the part about the people who were violating your rights by disturbing the peace.  When this sort of thing happens here, someone usually calls the police and they're told by someone with authority to keep it down or else.  It does not matter what they were doing; it was the noise, not the mushrooms, that violated your rights.End Quote

What made it difficult was that the person in charge of the 'gang' was my friend. He lived below me and I thought that using the police would harm my friendship with him.  It was normal for me to have to ask him to turn his music down at 12:00 am but this time he said 'o.k we'll turn it down, sorry' and as soon as I got upstairs, the music was blaring yet again. However, I discussed with him privately about how I felt the next day and moved out. We are still friends.

Quoting:
I think you misunderstood.  My contention is that too many people use government to meddle in the lives of others.  They see things they don't like:  Illicit drug use, private gun ownership, prostitution, pornography--you know, fun stuff--and since they don't personally indulge in a particular activity that offends their sensibilities, they see no reason to "allow" this activity to go on, whether it actually affects anyone else directly or not.  My problem with this is that it means that any activity may be banned according to this principle as long as enough people dislike it.  So when I mentioned the "mind your own business" thing I only meant that people should expect government to focus on real crime with actual victims as opposed to voluntary behavior between consenting adults, however distasteful they may feel it is.  Of course you're allowed to express your opinions.  I encourage it wholeheartedly, for if you don't, how will I know to tell you you're wrong?  :)  Cheers
End Quote

Hmm! The only person I know to single-handedly use government in the way you mentioned was a woman called Mary Whitehouse (I suppose there are others). She censored a lot of TV. I'm not sure if she created the 9:00 pm watershed (when programmes not fit for children can be shown) but she was a swine by all accounts. I understand that kind of meddling is not acceptable. Watching telly hurts no one therefore shouldn't be messed with.

If what you and Philbo are saying is correct about marijuana (that it affects only the user), then it could be acceptable under certain conditions a.k.a should not be used while using dangerous machinery of all descriptions - that is merely common sense.

As for your last comment,well . . . the arrogance of the man . . .  ::)  :D

Quoting:

Okay, I'm gonna make an analogy now.  The Constitution is like a grocery list my wife makes for me.  The grocery list says, "Buy milk, bread and eggs.  Nothing else."  (yeah, she's a little bossy)  The Bill Of Rights is like another list saying, "That means don't buy cookies.  Don't buy beer.  Don't buy breakfast cereal with colorful marshmallows in it."  And so on.  The Bill Of Rights is nice to see, but it's technically unnecessary; all the laws it prohibits are already withheld from Congress in the body of the Constitution.  My point is that just because guns were popular enough to get a special mention doesn't mean that anything not mentioned is up for grabs.  The very limited rights given to Congress in the Constitution mostly involved defending the borders and whatnot; nowhere does it say that Congress has the right to bust into somebody's house and throw them in jail for smoking the wrong leaves.  You may be right that no one will ever outlaw your gun; I hope you are.  But as you know, there are an awful lot of people who would love to see them banned for the exact same reason you support the drug war:  They just don't like them.
End Quote

Actually, a surprising amount of what our government does is not allowed in the Constitution.  Some of these items are:

Federal Welfare System
Social Security
Federal Income Tax
Farm Subsidies
Foreign Aid
"Police Actions"

THere are many more, but that gives you the idea.  The Constitution is our mose misunderstood document.  It is also the easiest to understand.

The basis of it is quite simple: Unless it is proscribed, it is allowed.  Federal laws come before state laws.  Ammendments can be used to change it.  The first 10 Ammendments can't be changed.

The inclusion of the "Bill Of Rights" was done to help assure the Anti-Federalists that the Government would not take over all the rights that the states held.  In fact, the 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So actually, you are quite wrong, the part that says what can and can't be done is IN the Bill Of Rights.  And that is the one part of the Constitution that can't be changed.

Since there is no amendment allowing the right to use drugs, that is not a guaranteed right.  However, there is a right to freedom of religion, freedom of press, and freedom to bear arms.

If you remember the past, there was a amendment once that took away the once legal right to drink, that was repealed though.  However, in some areas, it is still illegal to drink.  Just because the Constitution does not forbid it, that does not mean that it can't be made illegal by other Federal/State/Local laws.

Quoting:

It's a bit of a distraction in a way, but the porn argument bears some similarities: if nobody's being hurt in the making (and I'd include use of force/exploitation in that), and nothing illegal is happening (i.e. all participants are of an age to know what they're doing and be legal about it), there should be no reason for any kind of material to be illegal.  "Perverting public morals" is no kind of argument at all.

I ain't no numbskull, and I don't believe it's a stepping stone drug - in fact, you've hit on possibly the strongest argument for legalisation: take it away from the pushers who'll try and force more powerful and addictive drugs onto the users.  There is no causality proven between taking pot and harder drugs - by exactly the same argument, you could say that alcohol is a gateway drug: pretty much everybody who's tried pot has had an alcoholic drink at some time in their lives beforehand... but that doesn't mean that alcohol causes pot to be taken, and you'd be laughed at if you suggested it seriously.

Reason for a personal decision either way - no reason for legislation.

Phil
End Quote

You make very good points in your response, Phil.

In my opinion, I don't think I've read strong enough reasons to keep it illegal.

Quoting:


Hmm! The only person I know to single-handedly use government in the way you mentioned was a woman called Mary Whitehouse (I suppose there are others). She censored a lot of TV. I'm not sure if she created the 9:00 pm watershed (when programmes not fit for children can be shown) but she was a swine by all accounts. I understand that kind of meddling is not acceptable. Watching telly hurts no one therefore shouldn't be messed with.

If what you and Philbo are saying is correct about marijuana (that it affects only the user), then it could be acceptable under certain conditions a.k.a should not be used while using dangerous machinery of all descriptions - that is merely common sense.

As for your last comment,well . . . the arrogance of the man . . .  ::)  :D

End Quote

Well, I didn't really mean singlehandedly.  There always seems to be a group of like-minded people happy to support legislation that forces others to do their bidding.  Just because a lot of people agree on it doesn't mean it's not meddlesome.  

To me, the point about marijuana has nothing to do with how dangerous it is; I feel the same way about all drugs.  The point is that if you are, for example, operating machinery recklessly, it doesn't matter WHY; it's the recklessness that I object to and that's what should be addressed.  To outlaw marijuana because someone might endanger someone else is like banning automobiles because my daughter might decide to drive.

Quoting:

Well, you are entirely wrong (except for the numbskull part  :)) about your entire statement quoted above.  Here in Canada studies prove it beyond a doubt, even the recovering addicts, and non-recovered ones have testified to it.  In fact, they're getting tired of doing more studies because it's becoming entirely pointless to debate it any longer as it is completely obvious.  Sorta like global warming... or that cigarettes are killing innocent people.  Pushers start off on the light stuff and gradually entice the buyer into harder stuff.  The rest is downhill from there.  They don't start with the hard stuff right off the bat to a new user.  It just doesn't happen.  Not here, anyways.  Perhaps in Amsterdam... and look at the problems they have.  :P  90%+ of all heroin addicts started with pot.  Pretty sad.

And i'm pretty sure that anyone supporting drug use in any form is a user, so that pretty much makes them biased and unable to infer an educated and responsible decision.  It doesn't mean they don't have a right to an opinion.

End Quote

Wow.  How many ways can one person be wrong?  Sorry, this is just a jaw-dropping message right here.  First, although I have used illicit drugs in the past, it's been a good twelve years or so since I've had anything illegal, and I know a number of people just in my small town who don't use drugs but can see what a fiasco the drug war is.  Second, there's a big difference between "supporting drug use" and "not supporting drug laws".  I happen to think it's generally a bad idea to use drugs.  But I also think it's a choice for the individual to make.  Lots of things are dangerous--guns, motorcycles, bungee jumping, Whoppers with bacon--you get the idea.  What right do we have to protect people from themselves?  Answer that question please.  And saying that it's obvious that marijuana leads to harder drugs is like saying that it's obvious that someone who enters kindergarten is doomed to graduate college.  Let's not even go into "global warming".

Quoting:


Actually, a surprising amount of what our government does is not allowed in the Constitution.  Some of these items are:

Federal Welfare System
Social Security
Federal Income Tax
Farm Subsidies
Foreign Aid
"Police Actions"

THere are many more, but that gives you the idea.  The Constitution is our mose misunderstood document.  It is also the easiest to understand.

The basis of it is quite simple: Unless it is proscribed, it is allowed.  Federal laws come before state laws.  Ammendments can be used to change it.  The first 10 Ammendments can't be changed.

The inclusion of the "Bill Of Rights" was done to help assure the Anti-Federalists that the Government would not take over all the rights that the states held.  In fact, the 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

So actually, you are quite wrong, the part that says what can and can't be done is IN the Bill Of Rights.  And that is the one part of the Constitution that can't be changed.

Since there is no amendment allowing the right to use drugs, that is not a guaranteed right.  However, there is a right to freedom of religion, freedom of press, and freedom to bear arms.

If you remember the past, there was a amendment once that took away the once legal right to drink, that was repealed though.  However, in some areas, it is still illegal to drink.  Just because the Constitution does not forbid it, that does not mean that it can't be made illegal by other Federal/State/Local laws.
End Quote

Another easily understood document is the Declaration Of Independence, which says that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights--life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness--and that in order to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men.  To me, this makes it very clear what the purpose of the Constitution is:  to delegate the power to protect individual rights to government.  The specific powers delegated are enumerated in Article I, section 8.  This very clearly limits government power all by itself, which means that federal drug laws, along with the other spending programs you mentioned, are unconstitutional in addition to being wasteful, ineffective, and just plain stupid.

Quoting:
To me, the point about marijuana has nothing to do with how dangerous it is; I feel the same way about all drugs.  The point is that if you are, for example, operating machinery recklessly, it doesn't matter WHY; it's the recklessness that I object to and that's what should be addressed.  To outlaw marijuana because someone might endanger someone else is like banning automobiles because my daughter might decide to drive.
End Quote

I'm likely to agree with you, Claude. My argument is not that I oppose potentially dangerous things in general it's just that I promote the 'responsibility' factor on all things, not just drugs, people should be aware of the effects recklessness can have on society - maybe I have been misunderstood.

Quoting:
What right do we have to protect people from themselves?  End Quote

I agree with that and have expressed it in previous posts.  :)

Quoting:
Pushers start off on the light stuff and gradually entice the buyer into harder stuff.  The rest is downhill from there.
End Quote

BINGO!
By your own argument, users are enticed into harder drugs by the pushers - that doesn't make cannabis a gateway drug, that makes pushers the main causal link in hard drug usage.

Surely you should be able to see that by your own argument the best way forward is to take the supply of drugs away from street-level pushers - and the only way to do that is to remove their profits: while there is profit to be made in selling drugs, you'll have pushers trying to sell more and harder drugs.

Quoting:
And I'm pretty sure that anyone supporting drug use in any form is a user, so that pretty much makes them biased and unable to infer an educated and responsible decision.
End Quote

er... that's complete and utter unadulterated crap, I'm afraid.  I have smoked pot in my time, though the last joint was many years ago.  Sure, that may make me biased, but "unable to infor an educated and responsible decision"????  I've just deleted my original response to that, as it would probably have been expunged, anyway... did you actually mean that, or are you just trying to wind me up?

Phil

Quoting:

Another easily understood document is the Declaration Of Independence, which says that we are endowed with certain unalienable rights--life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness--and that in order to secure those rights, governments are instituted among men.  To me, this makes it very clear what the purpose of the Constitution is:  to delegate the power to protect individual rights to government.  The specific powers delegated are enumerated in Article I, section 8.  This very clearly limits government power all by itself, which means that federal drug laws, along with the other spending programs you mentioned, are unconstitutional in addition to being wasteful, ineffective, and just plain stupid.
End Quote

I agree with this and this earlier quote -

I also think it's a choice for the individual to make.  Lots of things are dangerous--guns, motorcycles, bungee jumping, Whoppers with bacon--you get the idea.  What right do we have to protect people from themselves?

Such good arguments against marijuana illegality have been made, I find almost nothing else to contribute to the topic.

Quoting:

Wow.  How many ways can one person be wrong?  Sorry, this is just a jaw-dropping message right here.  First, although I have used illicit drugs in the past, it's been a good twelve years or so since I've had anything illegal, and I know a number of people just in my small town who don't use drugs but can see what a fiasco the drug war is.  Second, there's a big difference between "supporting drug use" and "not supporting drug laws".  End Quote

Claude, from someone (me,) who is on the "make it legal" side of this debate and who has never used illicit drugs, THANK YOU.  Its being illegal isn't what's stopped me from trying/using it and making it legal will not entice me into trying it.  

Information about the dangers should be provided to me, not to excuse or justify existing legislation but to aid me both in making an informed decision and raising my children to be  responsible, intelligent, informed adults who are capable of making their own decisions and willing to accept the consequences of their choices and actions.

The crumbling infrastructure, underpaid & overworked law enforcement and emergency response personnel and our mess of an education system are also dangers to society.  But time, money, manpower and other resources that are sorely lacking in those areas are being wasted on enforcing ineffectual drug legislation, instead.  

The legislation also adds to other societal dangers.  In addition to the obvious (organized crime, etc.,) these laws contribute to overcrowded prisons, overburdened court dockets and keeping our law enforcement stretched so thin that dangerous, predatory criminals are remaining at large. A society held hostage by fear is not a free society.

Intoxication is a legitimate argument.  I have one question, though.  In a fatal multi-vehicle accident, where the driver at sole fault is the only survivor, which of the following drivers would you, as a close relative of the victims, be relieved to learn was behind the wheel?

1.  A drunk driver.
2.  A sleepy driver.
3.  An incompetent driver.
4.  A joyrider who is high on the thrill.
5.  A driver in the throes of road rage.
6.  A driver impaired by marijauna.
7.  A driver who's completely distracted by talking on the cell phone, primping in the mirror and/or fiddling with the radio.

They're equally dangerous, equally responsible for their choices and actions and should be held equally accountable because their victims are equally dead.  

Look at it this way, for a moment:

If Jane Doe kills your young son because she was applying lipstick in her rear view mirror, instead of watching the road when he entered the crosswalk, you aren't going to be relieved and overjoyed to learn that she wasn't intoxicated.  If anything, you might be angrier because she was in full control of her faculties when she decided her looks were more important than an innocent life.    

What then?  Where do you direct your anger?  Do you try to outlaw lipstick and wage a "Citizens Against Painted Women" campaign designed to ostracize all women who wear lipstick?  Blaming the lipstick removes the responsibility from the moron driver.  THAT is very dangerous to our society because, on a subconcious level, it removes responsibility/accountability from all individuals.  

It results in this mentality, which, in growing measure,  already pervades our society:

Why shouldn't I apply my lipstick in traffic?  Blame Madison Avenue.  Their glossy ads and airbrushed models convinced me that I have to have perfectly applied lipstick, at all times.    

Why shouldn't I drink or do drugs and drive?  Blame the substance or societal pressure to loosen up and have a few or blame the addiction. I'm sick.  Heal me, don't prosecute me.  

Why shouldn't I use my car as a weapon when I've been cut off in traffic?  I'm just giving back what I get!   Blame the lack of respect and courtesy in our society or the jerk who cut me off, in the first place!

Why shouldn't I steal a cool car and take it on a high speed joy ride?  I grew up poor in a society of bigger is better and more is never enough consumerism!  I'm the real victim, here, you can't blame me!  

Why shouldn't I answer my cell phone when it rings?  Turn it off?  Hey, I have a right to free speech, buddy!  If cell phones are such a danger, why doesn't the government ban them, huh?

Why shouldn't I change stations if they're playing Barry Manilow? I'm entitled! I have rights! "Pursuit of happiness," baby!  That means I don't have to listen to music I don't like!  Fire the DJ, ban Barry Manilow records or ban radios from cars!  

...or worse...

If you didn't want me to hit your kid, you should have kept him at home, where he belongs.  You can bet your sweet bippy I'm suing you for the mental anguish your parental negligence has caused.  What kind of parent sends their kids to play in traffic, anyway?  Parents like you shouldn't be allowed to have children.  It's high time we enacted a Mommy License law to sterilize people like you before you get the chance to breed.  (shudder!)  

My point?  Legislating personal decisions perpetuates the very ignorance and lack of individual responsibility & accountability that supposedly made the legislation necessary, thus resulting in more and more such legislation....

All of the above is just my opinion.  Feel free to disagree while it's still legal to do so.  ;)

Quoting:

My point?  Legislating personal decisions perpetuates the very ignorance and lack of individual responsibility & accountability that supposedly made the legislation necessary, thus resulting in more and more such legislation....
End Quote

Beautiful :)  That's what I feel should happen, a smaller government and a better emphasis on personal responsibility.

Quoting:
I know that those that want it legal will ignore anything bad said about marijuana.  This is so totally wrong I feel.  I smoke cigarettes, and I aknowledge the harm that can come from it.  But a vast majority of marijuana users say that anything bad with THEIR drug is a lie, and want more and more people to use it.

If you add it all up, I see much more bad in the marijuana side then in the cigarette and alcohol sides.  But I know I will convince none of those that want it legal.  They are to self-absorbed in "what I want" instead of "what is best for the people".

End Quote

So would it bother you if cigarettes were illegal?  Or is that in the Bill of Rights too?

Quoting:
One thing that I find rarely mentioned are the bad side effects of marijuana.
End Quote

We're not ignoring damaging side-effects (you obviously haven't been reading the arguments in favour), but by what right do you decide what I can and cannot do when it in no way affects you whatsoever?  Please read Melhi's post properly - it is an excellent argument in favour of personal responsibility over the sort of nanny-state control you seem to be after.

The medical effects of long-term marijuana use are well known - they're very much on the same scale as smoking or drinking.  That doesn't stop people indulging in those habits, so why should it be used as an argument against legalization?

Phil

Quoting:

So would it bother you if cigarettes were illegal?  Or is that in the Bill of Rights too?
End Quote

If cigarettes were made illegal, I would simply stop smoking.  Much the same way that when alcohol was made illegal, most people stopped drinking.

In fact, I moved from California because of insanity like that.  There, smoking is right next to child molestation to most people, but a lot of them see marijuana as a safe and harmless "hobby".  That is the insanity I am talking about.

I ran a small computer business in the San Francisco area in the early 1990's.  That is when the first smoking laws came into affect.  I was at work (my garage) when a guy from the city enforcement department came in, and demanded to see my smoking and non smoking areas!  I told him "This is my garage, it is all smoking".

He said that no, it was not my garage, it was a place of business.  He gave me a citation, and said he would come back next week for another inspection.  He came back, and I had converted a small storage closet into a "non-smoking room".  He was not ammused, yet another citation.

A year later, the entire state went non-smoking.  He came back the next day, and saw me smoking in my own garage.  Now realize, I never did a high volume there.  I might have 10-15 customers a MONTH come in, and I would always ask first if it was OK if I smoked.  THe few that minded, I just waited them to leave first.  Most of the people that came over were friends, and a lot of us smoked.

But this weasel said it was a place of business, and I was now forbidden from EVER smoking in my garage again.  Even "after hours" when my store was "closed" was not allowed.  I got another citation.

That weekend, I closed my business.  I still did the work, but just did not allow customers into my garage.  This is the insanity I am talking about.  And the same state is forcing businesses to set aside "marijuana smoking" areas now!

Myself, I see marijuana as a very dangerous DRUG.  I have worked with addicts and recovering addicts.  I have yet to meet even ONE that thinks it shoudl be legal.  I have worked with people with IQs that are visibly lowered by marijuana.  These are very visible side effects.

I welcome anybody that thinks it should be legal, talk to those that know better, just "to get the other side".  GO to a few NA meetings.  Go visit a rehab facility.  Talk to those that know the other side.  As a former drug counselor, I see nothing good in this, and a LOT of potential harm.

Quoting:


Myself, I see marijuana as a very dangerous DRUG.  I have worked with addicts and recovering addicts.  I have yet to meet even ONE that thinks it shoudl be legal.  I have worked with people with IQs that are visibly lowered by marijuana.  These are very visible side effects.

I welcome anybody that thinks it should be legal, talk to those that know better, just "to get the other side".  GO to a few NA meetings.  Go visit a rehab facility.  Talk to those that know the other side.  As a former drug counselor, I see nothing good in this, and a LOT of potential harm.
End Quote

Personally, I have seen the effects of alcohol had done. But alcohol is still legal. And yes, I still have a drink once in while but that is because I use it RESPONSIBLY!!! They tried to make it illegal but that didn't work-just like having marijuana illegal is not working. Prescription drugs can also be harmful but yet, that is also legal. You are going to have people who abuse it no matter what-legally or illegally. Most of us are referring to people who smoke or even drink responsibly. Just because some people abuse it, does that mean it should be illegal? Some people drive very recklessly. Does that mean that all cars should be outlawed? I do understand the point you are making but you are referring to just a percentage of the poplution. I am sure that if they were to legalize it, I don't think that the ratio between the people who would use it/abuse it would increase.


Cat

Quoting:


If cigarettes were made illegal, I would simply stop smoking.  Much the same way that when alcohol was made illegal, most people stopped drinking.

In fact, I moved from California because of insanity like that.  There, smoking is right next to child molestation to most people, but a lot of them see marijuana as a safe and harmless "hobby".  That is the insanity I am talking about.

I ran a small computer business in the San Francisco area in the early 1990's.  That is when the first smoking laws came into affect.  I was at work (my garage) when a guy from the city enforcement department came in, and demanded to see my smoking and non smoking areas!  I told him "This is my garage, it is all smoking".

He said that no, it was not my garage, it was a place of business.  He gave me a citation, and said he would come back next week for another inspection.  He came back, and I had converted a small storage closet into a "non-smoking room".  He was not ammused, yet another citation.

A year later, the entire state went non-smoking.  He came back the next day, and saw me smoking in my own garage.  Now realize, I never did a high volume there.  I might have 10-15 customers a MONTH come in, and I would always ask first if it was OK if I smoked.  THe few that minded, I just waited them to leave first.  Most of the people that came over were friends, and a lot of us smoked.

But this weasel said it was a place of business, and I was now forbidden from EVER smoking in my garage again.  Even "after hours" when my store was "closed" was not allowed.  I got another citation.

That weekend, I closed my business.  I still did the work, but just did not allow customers into my garage.  This is the insanity I am talking about.  And the same state is forcing businesses to set aside "marijuana smoking" areas now!

Myself, I see marijuana as a very dangerous DRUG.  I have worked with addicts and recovering addicts.  I have yet to meet even ONE that thinks it shoudl be legal.  I have worked with people with IQs that are visibly lowered by marijuana.  These are very visible side effects.

I welcome anybody that thinks it should be legal, talk to those that know better, just "to get the other side".  GO to a few NA meetings.  Go visit a rehab facility.  Talk to those that know the other side.  As a former drug counselor, I see nothing good in this, and a LOT of potential harm.
End Quote

So you have to actually BE a recovering addict to have any credibility on this issue?  Do you need the lowered IQ too?

You've seen firsthand how intrusive government can be when someone else deems your personal habits unacceptable.  If you can't see the parallels, then you deserve every government intrusion on your privacy that occurs.  What a hypocrite.

Quoting:
I think "hypocrite" is probably going too far: simply somebody who believes in his own convictions too much to listen to any outside viewpoint: you notice none of the reasoned arguments put forward have been countered, merely the same ones reiterated.

I don't think this thread is going to go much further, somehow: however cogently we argue our case, some people will never be converted (their position being an emotional rather than rational one).  It would be heartening to think we had changed somebody's viewpoint in all this, though... any converts to the cause?

Phil
End Quote

very true.

Thats mainly why I just dropped out of this argument a while ago.  Much like the abortion issue, this is a topic we could argue over and over for months on end, and everyone will still probably walk away with the same convictions they had going in.

With that said, Claude Prez, your points are welcome, but I can't help but notice over the last few days on this topic, that you are being somewhat hostile to some people you don't agree with.  Thats no way to win a debate.  

Just my 2 cents.

Quoting:
If cigarettes were made illegal, I would simply stop smoking.End Quote

An overwhelming majority of smokers in the entire world find quitting quite difficult and it is because of the addicting nicotine and you should know that if you deal with addicts. There's nothing simple about quitting.

Yes, nicotine is also a deadly drug. There are also various other chemicals, including formaldehide (used to embalm the dead) in cigarettes which make them deadly.

So, in your opinion, what again makes nicotine filled cigarettes so much better than marijuana cigarettes and why do you think they should remain legal, by your logic?

Quoting:
Much the same way that when alcohol was made illegal, most people stopped drinking.End Quote

This statement has no basis in fact.

Quoting:
Myself, I see marijuana as a very dangerous DRUG.End Quote

Read my first response above.

Quoting:
It would be heartening to think we had changed somebody's viewpoint in all this, though... any converts to the cause?

Phil
End Quote

My viewpoint has changed from an intentionally selfless one to a selfish one. People can do what they wish as long as it is not in my house and I don't have to breathe any fumes (cigarettes or marijuana).

Quoting:
So you have to actually BE a recovering addict to have any credibility on this issue?  Do you need the lowered IQ too?
End Quote

No, that is not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that if you think something should be legalized, you should check with the other side of the coin.

I seem to be in the minority here, and I have no problem with that.  It is not the first time.  My own mother thought pot was a "safe drug", and even tried to get me to use it with her when I was 16.  I refused, because even back then, I did not like what I saw of people that used it.

But if you think it is a "safe and harmless" recreational drug, why not talk to some people that used to think the same thing, and have since stopped useing it?  After all, one of the main reasons I am quitting smoking was the death of my mother from it's affects.  Since then, I have gone from a pack and a half of Marlboro red to a half pack a day of ultra-light.  My goal is to have stopped by the end of the year.

Quoting:
You've seen firsthand how intrusive government can be when someone else deems your personal habits unacceptable.  If you can't see the parallels, then you deserve every government intrusion on your privacy that occurs.  What a hypocrite.
End Quote

Actually, that was NOT the point at all.  My point was to show the double-standard in effect.  They basically said "Look, this item which is illegal in most countries (including ours) is safe and legal to smoke, while this one which is LEGAL almost everywhere is bad and users should be shot".

And while many people see California as "enlightened", it is actually one of the most opressive states there is because of it's screwy laws.

Quoting:


very true.

Thats mainly why I just dropped out of this argument a while ago.  Much like the abortion issue, this is a topic we could argue over and over for months on end, and everyone will still probably walk away with the same convictions they had going in.

With that said, Claude Prez, your points are welcome, but I can't help but notice over the last few days on this topic, that you are being somewhat hostile to some people you don't agree with.  Thats no way to win a debate.  

Just my 2 cents.
End Quote

Maybe I do come across as hostile.  It's funny since I'm the most quiet, meek person you'll ever meet in real life.  I guess that makes sense, actually.  My intention is not to be hostile to people, though--just to the idiotic arguments they make.  

I'm doing it again, aren't I?  It's just that I feel very strongly about personal freedom--how connected your personal freedom is to everyone else's personal freedom--and all we have to do is agree to live and let live and most of what we call "society's problems" will automatically improve since they're really just a bunch of individual problems that can and should be solved individually.  I apologize to anyone who takes any of my rhetoric personally; I just think ridicule can actually be pretty effective sometimes (not necessarily to convince the person you're ridiculing, but perhaps others).  Thanks for the advice.

Quoting:


No, that is not what I am saying.  What I am saying is that if you think something should be legalized, you should check with the other side of the coin.

I seem to be in the minority here, and I have no problem with that.  It is not the first time.  My own mother thought pot was a "safe drug", and even tried to get me to use it with her when I was 16.  I refused, because even back then, I did not like what I saw of people that used it.

But if you think it is a "safe and harmless" recreational drug, why not talk to some people that used to think the same thing, and have since stopped useing it?  After all, one of the main reasons I am quitting smoking was the death of my mother from it's affects.  Since then, I have gone from a pack and a half of Marlboro red to a half pack a day of ultra-light.  My goal is to have stopped by the end of the year.


Actually, that was NOT the point at all.  My point was to show the double-standard in effect.  They basically said "Look, this item which is illegal in most countries (including ours) is safe and legal to smoke, while this one which is LEGAL almost everywhere is bad and users should be shot".

And while many people see California as "enlightened", it is actually one of the most opressive states there is because of it's screwy laws.
End Quote

You're not gonna get an argument from me that pot is harmless; that's beside the point.  But I'll bet you can't tell me what my point is, even though I've said it over and over again.

Quoting:

Legislating personal decisions perpetuates the very ignorance and lack of individual responsibility & accountability that supposedly made the legislation necessary, thus resulting in more and more such legislation....

All of the above is just my opinion.  Feel free to disagree while it's still legal to do so.  ;)

End Quote

This deserves another look.  Very well put.

Quoting:

Maybe I do come across as hostile.  It's funny since I'm the most quiet, meek person you'll ever meet in real life.  I guess that makes sense, actually.  My intention is not to be hostile to people, though--just to the idiotic arguments they make.  

I'm doing it again, aren't I?  It's just that I feel very strongly about personal freedom--how connected your personal freedom is to everyone else's personal freedom--and all we have to do is agree to live and let live and most of what we call "society's problems" will automatically improve since they're really just a bunch of individual problems that can and should be solved individually.  I apologize to anyone who takes any of my rhetoric personally; I just think ridicule can actually be pretty effective sometimes (not necessarily to convince the person you're ridiculing, but perhaps others).  Thanks for the advice.
End Quote

Personal freedom is good, but it needs to be kept in check with personal responsibility and not the government, so I agree with you there.

Personally (we're getting personal in this post eh?) I find your responses witty and sharp so I don't have a problem with you :)

Quoting:


Personal freedom is good, but it needs to be kept in check with personal responsibility and not the government, so I agree with you there.

Personally (we're getting personal in this post eh?) I find your responses witty and sharp so I don't have a problem with you :)
End Quote

Well, firstly thanks; it's good to know not everyone thinks I'm a drug-addled hippie.  I'm glad you brought up responsibility.  I think of freedom and responsibility as two sides of the same coin--you have the right to make your own decisions but you also have the responsibility to accept the consequences of those decisions.  What you don't have is the right to impose consequences on another, whether by poor personal choices (like driving drunk or otherwise impaired) or by supporting oppressive legislation.

Quoting:

Well, firstly thanks; it's good to know not everyone thinks I'm a drug-addled hippie.  End Quote

You're welcome :)  Some of my friends think I'm a right wing wacko, so s'all good ;D

Quoting:I'm glad you brought up responsibility.  I think of freedom and responsibility as two sides of the same coin--you have the right to make your own decisions but you also have the responsibility to accept the consequences of those decisions.  What you don't have is the right to impose consequences on another, whether by poor personal choices (like driving drunk or otherwise impaired) or by supporting oppressive legislation.
End Quote

I recall taking a course in classical moral philosophy and reading works by Kant and Hume about just what you are saying.  I think some of the people who are arguing against the legalization of marijuana are invoking these theories, in that people create laws to protect themselves from harm, because they don't want other people to take away their freedoms through violence or negligence (i.e. stoned/drunk driver kills a car full of midgets)--which is what you said--but there is a difference between illegalizing something because you don't like it, and illegalizing it because it is truly harmful.  I do not know enough about marijuana, so I'm sorta on the fence.

I believe the theory is called the "categorical imperative" but I'm too lazy to google it and I sold back my philosophy book years ago to buy new toys ;D  I just thought it was funny how the philosopher described it:

"Gee, I'd sure like to have funky sex with my neighbor's wife, but I probably wouldn't like it too much if he had sex with my wife...so maybe I should write a rule that precludes him from having sex with my wife, but then I wouldn't be able to have sex with his wife...dammit!"  ;D

That was paraphrased, btw.

Quoting:
To ask if Marijuana should be legalized is crazy. Mr.80s made some very good points first of all. I believe that we should never of even re-legalized alcohol for that matter! If something is: 1. Damaging to the Human Body,
                  2. Takes away your freedom,

Then of course it should be illegal!!!! When I say takes away your freedom, I mean, drugs, such as Marijuana or Alcohol, alter your brain. They make you a different person. You LOSE CONTROL OF YOUR MIND! Now why would any one want that???? I also know that the majority of people who want Marijuana to be legalized just want to smoke it and be high. Just like most people drink or smoke to experience a high or relaxant! Before you argue these points, answer this- Then why do people use drugs??? Drugs will DESTROY YOU! They only lead to pain and sorrow. Drinkers kill hundreds every year, Pot Heads do as well as fry thier brains thus making them useless to society, and smoking kills THOUSANDS! MARIJUANA IS SMOKING TIMES TEN! NO LEGALIZATION! DRUGS WILL ENSLAVE YOU OR CAUSE FUTURE PROBLEMS!

nuff' said.
End Quote

This is the part where I buck compassion and go with pragmatism.  

Using all that money to fight heroin or cocaine use is justified to me, but marijuana use is so pervasive that they probably shouldn't even bother.  Yes, they did abolish alcohol sales for a while, but they had to repeal the 18th Amendment because of all the skyrocketing crime and the fact that everyone drank anyway.  If people want something bad enough, they will find a way.  So if marijuana were legalized, then there would be one less thing for the government to have to worry about and police, and that money could come to me and I could buy more pizzas on the weekend ;D

As for being dangerous...people drink alcohol and smoke cigars and cigarettes (which are legal) knowing full well that they are dangerous and could cause cancer and cirrhosis and neural deterioration.  Nobody forces people to smoke or drink or do pot, it's a choice.  And frankly, if they choose to take themselves out of the gene pool even after all that research and info, I say good riddance to stupidity.

No offense or anything.

Quoting:
Weed is a cop out! Take time to "smell the flowers" Get high on life!  :D I know it sounds cheesy but non-the-less........
I'm also anti-abortion so what do I know?
I feel that Mr.80's tells it like it is. It's all a matter of choice anyway, like politics and religion. We all feel that we're right in what we believe in. May the last man win!
End Quote

That's the whole point: as we stand it isn't a matter of choice, it's been legislated for.  The evil Weed may be a cop-out, a way of shrugging your responsibilities, but then so is alcohol.

What it boils down to is that the state shouldn't be taking this decision for us - it is one for each one of us to make for themselves.  The counter to that that there are some vulnerable (or stupid) people who will abuse this responsibility is not a valid one - for example, there are people who abuse the responsibility given to them to drive, and they go round killing others which is way more irresponsible than killing yourself by overdoing the pot.

Quoting:
This is the part where I buck compassion and go with pragmatism.  

Using all that money to fight heroin or cocaine use is justified to me, but marijuana use is so pervasive that they probably shouldn't even bother.  
End Quote

Personally, I think the arguments for legalisation apply equally well to the more addictive drugs, but with one major difference: I'd like to see heroin and cocaine available on prescription (or similar licensed form) to all registered addicts, to cut down the money that goes to the bad guys - if they're not going to get a regular income stream for as many years as an addict can last, there's a lot less incentive for them to push the drugs.  The current head-in-the-sand "just say no" rubbish we've seen from the keep-it-illegal brigade hasn't worked, doesn't work and AIN'T EVER GOING TO WORK - how can I get that through to you?

Quoting:
My point?  Legislating personal decisions perpetuates the very ignorance and lack of individual responsibility & accountability that supposedly made the legislation necessary, thus resulting in more and more such legislation....
End Quote

I agree with Claude - this bears repetition.


Phil

Quoting:
Personally, I think the arguments for legalisation apply equally well to the more addictive drugs, but with one major difference: I'd like to see heroin and cocaine available on prescription (or similar licensed form) to all registered addicts, to cut down the money that goes to the bad guys
End Quote

You never heard of Methadone?  I have a very good friend that is on Methadone treatments for LIFE because of his long-time use of herion and other drugs.  In fact, I worked for him for several months earlier this year.  He lost over $250,000 in 3 years because of his addiction, and his night club was forced to close after he cleaned up.  It seemed that after he got clean, he realized his club had become a drug-haven.  Once he kicked out the dealers, all his business stopped.

And yes, he started with "harmless grass".  He is now trying to get his son to stop, who has been useing it "recreationally" for 2 years.  He sees nothing wrong with it, and has stopped talking to his father, because it is "none of his business".

I find it hard to imagine a "harmless" drug that tears up families like that.

Quoting:
Another thought has just occurred to me: these "isn't it dreadful" drug-related stories have all happened while the drugs in question are already illegal - and you want to keep the status quo when it obviously isn't working?  How can you be so incredibly blinkered?
End Quote

Well, I have LIVED in a country with totally different views on drugs.

I have lived in Japan, a country with a 0 tolerance law about the drug.  Over there, a single joint can get you 5 YEARS in jail.  And their laws are even more strict.

For example, if any urinalisys test comes out positive, it MUST be reported to the Police.  They also consider a positive result as possession of "less then one ounce", useing the assumption that you had to have had the drug in order to use it.

And don't forget, they mean it to.  In 1980, Paul McCartney was arrested with over 7 ounces in his possession.  He was released, but was banished from Japan, and can never again return.

It happened again in 1998 when US Olympic snowboarder Ross Rebagliati turned up positive after a urinalisys test.  It was only fast talking by the IOC and State Department that prevented him from being arrested.

I myself have seen 2 Marines removed from military bases after testing positive for Marijuana use.  In all 3 cases, the grass was used back in the states.  But remember, under their law, positive equals possession.  In all 3 cases, the Marines spent 1-3 months in a Japanese jail until their sentencing.  In all 3 cases, they recieved 3-7 years, then were released to Military authorities, and immediately deported.

But when you look ad Japan, it is far different then here.  You walk the streets, and rarely see trash or grafitti.  It is rare to meet a rude person over there.  And the kids tend to be very friendly and open.  A far cry from the rude behavior you normally see here in the US.

But Japan does have strict laws also, almost draconian compared to here.  But they WORK.  There is no denyting that fact.  So if anybody believes that drug laws do not work, just look there.

Quoting:
So you smoke, drink and use "Pot" and your 11 year old comes home with all the signs of having been useing one, if not all of the above, and what do you do or say? Tell he/she, "Don't do as I do, do as I say."  
End Quote

Which is exactly as things are at the moment.  It's not an acceptable state of affairs, yet you aren't prepared to try anything radical to change it.

I've already had the "what are drugs" discussion with my eldest, and I haven't taken the high-handed "just say no" - I've explained in as much detail as I can what the effects (both short-term fun and long-term problems) are likely to be.  She is perfectly capable of making up her own mind already, and has a very responsible attitude.

Whether she will be able to keep her mind on this when some pusher tries to sell drugs to her or her friends is something only time will tell - but the way things are at the moment, those pushers are going to be there: there is so much money to be made selling drugs, there will always be someone there no matter how many we lock away.  The only way - and I mean the only way - we are going to have any chance of cleaning up is to remove that profit motive from the pushers.  If you are going to be too closed-minded to see this, then I might just as well give up now.

Phil

Quoting:
But Japan does have strict laws also, almost draconian compared to here.  But they WORK.  There is no denyting that fact.  So if anybody believes that drug laws do not work, just look there.
End Quote

At last, a variation in the argument- a new point to counter:  but are you seriously suggesting that you'd prefer to be under the same sort of state control as they have in Japan?

You're starting from the wrong position again: the laws in Japan work because the population is used to having draconian measures forced upon them - they always have had them, and punishments now are mild compared with what they were, say twenty years ago.  There are conservatives in Japan bemoaning how liberal and "westernised" their culture is becoming - but their people are starting to get the taste for freedom: the freedom to eat Big Macs (and obesity is becoming a problem for the first time ever in Japan).

They don't have low drug usage because of draconian laws: they can get away with severe laws because pot and cocaine specifically are not part of the culture.  Heroin and opium are prevalent, but usually swept under the carpet - in Japanese officialdom, if you take heroin you're no longer a citizen and hence don't count in official figures.  And the Yazuka will happily supply drugs to anyone with the money to pay for it.

Saying "we can be like the Japanese" and have low drug usage by having a zero-tolerance attitude is not exactly an answer now, is it?  Do you want your taxes to go towards 20% of the population being put in prison overnight?

Phil

Quoting:but the way things are at the moment, those pushers are going to be there: there is so much money to be made selling drugs, there will always be someone there no matter how many we lock away.  The only way - and I mean the only way - we are going to have any chance of cleaning up is to remove that profit motive from the pushers.  If you are going to be too closed-minded to see this, then I might just as well give up now.
End Quote

...as said several pages ago, these "pushers" will always be there no matter what, even if it is legalised.

Sure, lets say the govt legalizes it, taxes it, and sells it.  So what, you think the dealers are going to just give up and go home?  No way.  They will just have new competition to deal with, and as a result the dealers prices will drop to compete with the "legal" pot, thats all.  

Legaliseing it will not get rid of dealers.

Quoting:


...as said several pages ago, these "pushers" will always be there no matter what, even if it is legalised.

Sure, lets say the govt legalizes it, taxes it, and sells it.  So what, you think the dealers are going to just give up and go home?  No way.  They will just have new competition to deal with, and as a result the dealers prices will drop to compete with the "legal" pot, thats all.  

Legaliseing it will not get rid of dealers.
End Quote

Exactly, I have said the same thing before.

A good example is California with cigarettes, and Las Vegas (and other big Nevada cities like Reno) and their prostitution problems.

In Nevada, Prostitution is legal, provided you go to a state licensed brothel.  Yet Las Vegas still has a huge prostitution problem.  Legalizing that vice did no good at all.

I for one am a fighter.  I do not believe in "rolling over and playing dead" just because something is hard.  To me, that is surrendering, and not acceptible.  ESPECIALLY if it is something that is a danger to the people in this country.  After all, is it not John F. Kennedy who said "We do this, not because it is easy, but because it is hard"?

Granted, he was not talking about drugs, but I believe in the sentiment.  Otherwise, if people just did what THEY thought was right, we would have anarchy.  If somebody wants anarchy and the right to do what they want, they really do not belong here IMHO.

Quoting:
Well, firstly thanks; it's good to know not everyone thinks I'm a drug-addled hippie.  End Quote

No I don't think you're a drug-addled hippie. I have no preconceived ideas as to who I argue with.  ;)

I had no real trouble with what you believed in, I was simply irritated by the way you expressed it, that's all.

I've finished with this thread now. It was an interesting discussion, Claude - thanks.