Legalize it!

[Tomoko]

When I still lived back home in Japan, people could not easily speak their minds so freely on the subject of legalizing marijuana. In fear of being harassed by police and other people they would conceal their indentities especially if approached by people with cameras. I am glad I made the choice to move to a better country. I also think it should be legal..I'm not a drinker at all or have used any other illicit drugs..and yes I have smoked marijuana before.

 

[Tomoko]

I'll add this for some humor..even Tojo can't go wrong! lol a little photoshop work.

 

[d0gbreath]

I'd rather not.

I'm not satisfied that there is enough information to support the "harmless" nature of marijuana usage.

Yeah, it's only been around since before our ancestors knew that the American continents existed. Certainly not enough time for a study.

 

[Hoplite]

Politics is to government as psychology is to mind. How are you able to talk about politics without talking about politics? How are you able to discuss politics without discussing the role of government? As I pointed out earlier, how can you limit your discussion of drug policy on a single substance? When can we talk about other substances, their legality, and the role government has in controlling your personal decisions? If this was truly diverging from the topic, the moderators would have warned us. I INVITE ANY MODERATOR TO WARN ME IF I'M COMPLETELY GOING OFF TOPIC. I really don't think I am. I think it is a logical and fair argument to bring up the legality of other dangerous mind-altering substances while debating the issue of legalizing pot. When the evidence is clear that tobacco and alcohol are far more harmful to any individual, why can't I bring that up when I argue for the legalization of pot (and essentially the legalization of all drugs because I support the legalization of self-ownership)?

We cant say that tobacco and alcohol are more harmful because we dont have any solid evidence how harmful marijuana is.

I'm not interested in the legality of other things, the topic is marijuana and while I appreciate that you dont think you're going off-topic, I disagree.

Then you must have evidence that prohibiting the consumption of marijuana has come out with more gains than drawbacks. Illegal pot does benefit many people. It benefits the police, the drug lords, the government, and the private prison systems. But I would say these meager benefits for a small collection of such professionals is not the way to go. The government does not have any constitutional authority to prohibit, at a federal level, the individual's free choice to consume certain products. The prison and court systems cannot handle the effects of such laws. The purchase, possession, and/or consumption of certain dangerous products (whether they be alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, cocaine, or heroin) is a victimless crime. You cannot justify the prohibition of drugs on the frequency or singular acts of crime in other areas. Punish the real criminals severly, and let the druggies go.

I have already outlined why I currently oppose legalization.

Right, and what is the point? This debate is not about consumer safety, otherwise you would have to confront the motorcycle analogy again. My fundamental argument is that such people should have the freedom to do what they will with their own bodies. It's called self-ownership.

And I contend that that is an overly-simplistic way to look at things, things are just not that simple.

Should that be the ultimate criteria for prohibition? Consumer safety? Or should it be individual liberty?

The criteria, as far as I am concerned, should be a demonstrable lack of negative effects on the human body supported by an extensive array of independent tests and investigation.

NOTHING is harmless, and that is not justifiable proof to maintain prohibition. The most essential element of a human's existence, water, kills more people than marijuana.

I'm not asking for harmless, I'm asking for proof that it is minimally harmful when used responsibly.

Yeah, it's only been around since before our ancestors knew that the American continents existed. Certainly not enough time for a study.

Yes because the Ancient Egyptians wrote the BOOK on the scientific method.

 

[Binary_Digit]

Hoplite,

1. IF marijuana had the harmful health concerns you seem to think it might, then they would have been discovered by now. We know a lot about the harmful affects of meth, crack, heroine, etc. because those drugs actually have visible harmful affects. Did it ever occur to you that marijuana just might not be very harmful, and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case? Do you honestly think that some marijuana study will suddenly discover a significant health risk that somehow went undetected for this long?

2. For about the 10th time, the health hazards of using marijuana have NOTHING to do with you, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise, and therefore it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. How about IT'S MY BODY SO YOU NEED TO KINDLY MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS?

 

[Mensch]

Hoplite,

1. IF marijuana had the harmful health concerns you seem to think it might, then they would have been discovered by now. We know a lot about the harmful affects of meth, crack, heroine, etc. because those drugs actually have visible harmful affects. Did it ever occur to you that marijuana just might not be very harmful, and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence in this case? Do you honestly think that some marijuana study will suddenly discover a significant health risk that somehow went undetected for this long?

2. For about the 10th time, the health hazards of using marijuana have NOTHING to do with you, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise, and therefore it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. How about IT'S MY BODY SO YOU NEED TO KINDLY MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS?

He's right, Hoplite. No one will ask you to prove a negative. YOU show me the evidence that shows that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

It's kind of like the God debate. If you tell a believer that no such evidence exists that proves the existence of God, it is not logically coherent for them to respond with, "Prove that he doesn't exist." This is because you cannot, and should never be asked, to prove a negative.

 

[Hoplite]

He's right, Hoplite. No one will ask you to prove a negative. YOU show me the evidence that shows that marijuana is more harmful than alcohol or tobacco.

It's kind of like the God debate. If you tell a believer that no such evidence exists that proves the existence of God, it is not logically coherent for them to respond with, "Prove that he doesn't exist." This is because you cannot, and should never be asked, to prove a negative.

My point is there is not sufficient good information to support or invalidate the safety of marijuana, therefore I am uncomfortable with voting to legalize it.

1. IF marijuana had the harmful health concerns you seem to think it might, then they would have been discovered by no. Do you honestly think that some marijuana study will suddenly discover a significant health risk that somehow went undetected for this long?

Yes, I do. It happens frequently where we have something that we use constantly, only to find out with further testing that the item or substance is actually quite harmful. If there is nothing harmful to discover, then a comprehensive assessment shouldnt be a problem.

2. For about the 10th time, the health hazards of using marijuana have NOTHING to do with you, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise, and therefore it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. How about IT'S MY BODY SO YOU NEED TO KINDLY MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS?

I have already iterated my concerns to this end.

Smoking and smoking caused illnesses are the single biggest cause of preventable death in the US, over half a million people per year. Smoking a pack a day or more is expected to add over $25,000 more to a person's medical bills over the course of a lifetime and shortens that lifetime by almost 12 years.

My concern is a similar effect with marijuana. We have not yet determined if it truly has low or no long-term effects on a person's health. I dont want to see marijuana use adding to the statistics because it was legalized without proper study.

 

[Mensch]

My point is there is not sufficient good information to support or invalidate the safety of marijuana, therefore I am uncomfortable with voting to legalize it.

You are putting restriction before liberty. It reminds me of the people who claim that the bill of rights are things that the government can do, NOT what they specifically restrict the government from doing (the latter is correct). When in doubt, you should always side with liberty and not government restriction.

Yes, I do. It happens frequently where we have something that we use constantly, only to find out with further testing that the item or substance is actually quite harmful. If there is nothing harmful to discover, then a comprehensive assessment shouldnt be a problem.

I have already iterated my concerns to this end.

Smoking and smoking caused illnesses are the single biggest cause of preventable death in the US, over half a million people per year. Smoking a pack a day or more is expected to add over $25,000 more to a person's medical bills over the course of a lifetime and shortens that lifetime by almost 12 years.

My concern is a similar effect with marijuana. We have not yet determined if it truly has low or no long-term effects on a person's health. I dont want to see marijuana use adding to the statistics because it was legalized without proper study.

I'm sorry, but whether or not the legalization of marijuana adds to the statistics is irrelevant. Do you not realize that you are using the concept of public safety to justify the prohibition? And do you not realize that a lot more things can be prohibitied if all we're doing is trying to turn the tide of high deaths. Lots of people die from smoking tobacco, and that is their rightful decision. The government does not have the right to protect you from yourself.

 

[Ned Racine]

If it's genuinely decriminalized In California there is an element to the population that will initially enjoy rubbing many others the wrong way almost immediatly. I feel this is unavoidable.

 

[Caine]

You guys don't get it.

Hoplite's opposition to marijuana and the medical cost increase concerns is because Hoplite is a big supporter of the government universal healthcare idea.

 

[Hoplite]

When in doubt, you should always side with liberty and not government restriction.

Government restrictions can always be lifted if they are found to be un-necessary. Once something is out, it's extremely difficult to reel it back in.

I'm sorry, but whether or not the legalization of marijuana adds to the statistics is irrelevant. Do you not realize that you are using the concept of public safety to justify the prohibition? And do you not realize that a lot more things can be prohibitied if all we're doing is trying to turn the tide of high deaths. Lots of people die from smoking tobacco, and that is their rightful decision. The government does not have the right to protect you from yourself.

Ok, I dont know how much clearer I can make my position. I've repeated it several times.

You guys don't get it.

Hoplite's opposition to marijuana and the medical cost increase concerns is because Hoplite is a big supporter of the government universal healthcare idea.

While I do fully support universal healthcare, I dont oppose marijuana legalization for that reason.

 

[Mensch]

Government restrictions can always be lifted if they are found to be un-necessary. Once something is out, it's extremely difficult to reel it back in.

YEA RIGHT! Sure, they can be lifted, but are they? You again backwards. Once something becomes the property or the duty of the government, it's extremely hard to reverse that trend.

Ok, I dont know how much clearer I can make my position. I've repeated it several times.

Yes, and yet you don't understand the flaws of your argument. You CANNOT talk about prohibiting marijuana on the basis of public safety, and then ignore the general public safety debate.

 

[Hoplite]

YEA RIGHT! Sure, they can be lifted, but are they?

We repeated Prohibition with no problems. We enacted women's suffrage with little serious issue. Anti-interracial marriage laws fell and laws discriminating on the basis of sexuality are falling today. Repeal happens if there is a compelling reason.

Yes, and yet you don't understand the flaws of your argument. You CANNOT talk about prohibiting marijuana on the basis of public safety, and then ignore the general public safety debate.

I'm not ignoring the public safety debate, I'm ignoring your attempts at "Timmy can go play in the construction site, why cant I!?"

 

[Mensch]

We repeated Prohibition with no problems. We enacted women's suffrage with little serious issue. Anti-interracial marriage laws fell and laws discriminating on the basis of sexuality are falling today. Repeal happens if there is a compelling reason.

Have you read history? How long did it take for those things to occur? How long as the nation been in existence? Hundreds of years of restriction can be lifted, but damn it takes hundreds of years! Instead, side with liberty over government. In other words, side with the constitution over your own moralistic endeavors.

I'm not ignoring the public safety debate, I'm ignoring your attempts at "Timmy can go play in the construction site, why cant I!?"

You are ignoring the public safety debate, as well as the role of government debate. Your idea is that the law is in place, that is the status quo, and you cannot deviate from the status quo unless given a certain number and form of research material that YOU deem appropriate to change opinion.

 

[Hoplite]

Have you read history? How long did it take for those things to occur? How long as the nation been in existence? Hundreds of years of restriction can be lifted, but damn it takes hundreds of years! Instead, side with liberty over government. In other words, side with the constitution over your own moralistic endeavors.




You are ignoring the public safety debate, as well as the role of government debate. Your idea is that the law is in place, that is the status quo, and you cannot deviate from the status quo unless given a certain number and form of research material that YOU deem appropriate to change opinion.

Alright, it's quite clear you are ignoring what I'm saying and as such I have no interest in continuing a Sisyphean conversation.

 

[Mensch]

Alright, it's quite clear you are ignoring what I'm saying and as such I have no interest in continuing a Sisyphean conversation.

Just do me one quick favor. Show me where in the constitution it allows the federal government to prevent me from smoking weed?

Then, after you've become frustrated after not finding any justifiable basis for prohibition, please carefully read the 9th and 10th amendments of the bill of rights.

 

[Hoplite]

Just do me one quick favor. Show me where in the constitution it allows the federal government to prevent me from smoking weed?

Show me where in the Constitution it allows the federal government to prevent companies from putting rat poison in children's food.

Dont bring in Constitutional law if you dont understand it

 

[Mensch]

Show me where in the Constitution it allows the federal government to prevent companies from putting rat poison in children's food.

Dont bring in Constitutional law if you dont understand it

Are you diverting the topic? I thought you would never do such a thing! Did you read the 9th and 10th amendments carefully, like I asked?

 

[Hoplite]

Are you diverting the topic? I thought you would never do such a thing! Did you read the 9th and 10th amendments carefully, like I asked?

You seem to be claiming that if the Constitution doesnt specifically forbid it, it's fair game. I pointed out how ridiculous that logic is when it's examined carefully.

I dont know what more I can do to explain my position to you. I've explained and expanded it half a dozen times and you keep repeating the same kinds of things.

 

[Mensch]

You seem to be claiming that if the Constitution doesnt specifically forbid it, it's fair game.

Don't you believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights? What you've just described is exactly true, it is what the 9th amendment states (and the 9th amendment is a right under the unbreakable Bill of Rights), and it is what the founding fathers intended.

I pointed out how ridiculous that logic is when it's examined carefully.

You used a horrible example that is again based on the public safety concept. First of all, if the rat poison was intentionally put in the children's food, it is murder (and we all have a right to life). If the rat poison was unintentionally put in the children's food, then it is negligence (and our court system is suppose to reward damages to victims of negligence, fraud, and coersion). But in terms of personal decisions that affect only the individual, such prohibition laws are unconstitutional (ESPECIALLY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL - 9th amendment). Government is there to protect you from harm committed by others, not to protect you from your own decisions. The basis of the marijuana laws is public safety, and again how far can you go with that? If public safety was your only justification for prohibition, then it must expand to include other drugs, other products, and other decisions (like tobacco, motorcycles, and skydiving). Individual liberty is more important than public safety, and when an act from an individual does not harm any third party, then it is unconstitutional to punish those acts as "victimless crimes."

I dont know what more I can do to explain my position to you. I've explained and expanded it half a dozen times and you keep repeating the same kinds of things.

I believe if you don't respond to the issue of constitutionality, you've lost the political debate.

 

[Hoplite]

Don't you believe in the sanctity of the Bill of Rights?

No, I dont. It's not a piece of religious scripture. If it becomes a liability and needs to be changed, then we change it. If it cant be changed, then we get rid of it.

The points it contains are good and important aspects to our society, but they go beyond a simple piece of paper.

You used a horrible example that is again based on the public safety concept. First of all, if the rat poison was intentionally put in the children's food, it is murder (and we all have a right to life). If the rat poison was unintentionally put in the children's food, then it is negligence (and our court system is suppose to reward damages to victims of negligence, fraud, and coersion). But in terms of personal decisions that affect only the individual, such prohibition laws are unconstitutional (ESPECIALLY AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL - 9th amendment). Government is there to protect you from harm committed by others, not to protect you from your own decisions. The basis of the marijuana laws is public safety, and again how far can you go with that? If public safety was your only justification for prohibition, then it must expand to include other drugs, other products, and other decisions (like tobacco, motorcycles, and skydiving). Individual liberty is more important than public safety, and when an act from an individual does not harm any third party, then it is unconstitutional to punish those acts as "victimless crimes."

My basic point is that simply because something isnt specifically prohibited by the Constitution doesnt mean there's NO justification for making it illegal.

 

[Mensch]

No, I dont. It's not a piece of religious scripture. If it becomes a liability and needs to be changed, then we change it. If it cant be changed, then we get rid of it.

The points it contains are good and important aspects to our society, but they go beyond a simple piece of paper.

I didn't say they were pieces of religious scripture, but they do protect our natural, human rights from government tyranny.

And NO, you cannot change the Bill of Rights- that is what makes them so precious. The Bill of Rights are our basic human rights that no one can touch or amend. The Bill of Rights are untouchable by any political entity. Read the Federalist Papers.

My basic point is that simply because something isnt specifically prohibited by the Constitution doesnt mean there's NO justification for making it illegal.

That is false. We derive our political laws from the principles of the constitution. If you throw away the constitution as a basis of law, which you have clearly done here, then it becomes useless and citizens are at the mercy of whatever moralistic agenda a politican may possess.

 

[Laila]

Come on guys.

Can't we all just... get a bong... :mrgreen:

In all seriousness though.

Legalize it man. It don't hurt nobody. Not legalizing it is hurting a lot of people, and creating criminals.

I have always supported the legalisation and decriminalisation of it. The problem on this side of the Atlantic are those old middle class people who are alcoholics but preach how drugs will harm their children. :roll:

I'd support banning alcohol first over any other drug but if alcohol gets a pass, so should the others :shrug:

 

[Jetboogieman]

I have always supported the legalisation and decriminalisation of it. The problem on this side of the Atlantic are those old middle class people who are alcoholics but preach how drugs will harm their children. :roll:

I'd support banning alcohol first over any other drug but if alcohol gets a pass, so should the others :shrug:

NOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Then what will I use to drown my sorrow and work up the courage to beat my kids while I preach about the dangers of Islam, Obama, Socialism and the war on drugs?