Are you for legalization or against it? (marijuana)

[rn79870]

You're right Z, I'd lock it but it really hasn't digressed to a flame fest by either side, so we'll let it slip off into eternity on it's own. Typically, in this forum, neither side does much to convince the other to change the position of the other, but there are the lurkers who may form an opinion based on this stuff.

[Qwerty1942]

Interesting in that I never said it either.

When you couldn't find a death that was attributed to mj smoke, you decided to try a different angle and started citing car fatalities, even though most of the drivers of said fatalities were under the influence of alcohol as well.

listen, until you can find a death that was caused by years of smoking mj you will always lose this argument.

"b-b-b-ut MORE STUDY IS NEEDED!11!!!"

[Qwerty1942]

They don't care. They just want it legalized so they can supposedly get it cheaper and not have to worry about cops or drug tests. Sorry, if I were an employer I would not want someone who may come in high working for me. Same as I would fire someone coming in drunk.

Legalization would result in what TMS said:

Removal of the criminal element. Look at the rise in the criminal element in the production, traffic and sale of alcohol during prohibition. The same can be said for gamb|ing and prostitution. Whenever something is pushed into the shadows criminals benefit from that and "consumers" are endangered.

Do you disagree with TMS? I absolutely agree with him on this point.

[srellim234]

I'm sure you'll be happy to trash the results because you don't like them, but here:

http://cache.search.yahoo.net/...tl=us

Deaths involving marijuana.

Rationalize all you want. Z is right. Anything further isn't worth persuing until the new results and numbers come out.

[Qwerty1942]

Quote »Drug Watch International is a volunteer non-profit drug information network and advocacy organization that promotes the creation of healthy drug-free cultures in the world and opposes the legalization of drugs. [/quote]great source! First NORML now this!

[srellim234]

Rationalize away.

http://pediatrics.aappublicati.../e365

[96Qowner]

Wow, this thread really exploded over the weekend!

Yeah, there's no point in continuing the discussion this way - it's gotten all polarized. I see this entirely too often these days. Arguing at the extremes isn't all that constructive. The constructive part of a debate is learning things from your opponent and adjusting your views to take the new information into account.

In my opinion, the most rational case for the harmful effects of pot was in Bob's quote from the NIH. In my experience, all that is true. It's not an extreme condemnation; it simply points out what every pot smokers knows. And as in Beancooker's case, yeah, 1/4 ounce a day will cause MAJOR problems. That's clear abuse, just as in anything else in life - bad idea. But I know for an absolute fact that an ounce a month for 30 years won't cause any ill effects in MOST people.

But all this is really beside the point of the thread. The question is whether it should be legalized. Or the flip side of that question. How illegal should it really be? It's actually a good symbolic question, because it illustrates political principles. To say it should be legal is Libertarian. There has been a strong trend in the past couple decades to empower the federal government to help "insure" citizens from harm. This always removes freedoms from a large portion of the population. There have been efforts to ban trans-fats, for instance. There has been a strong push to protect people from the dubious harms of secondhand tobacco smoke. All this "insurance" costs our society money and efficiency. It tends to make people less responsible for their own health.

If we were starting from scratch, I can't believe this society would be in favor of the present draconian laws. I don't believe the electorate would think it should be lumped into the Federal code that applies to heroin. But we're not starting from scratch and it's natural for people to simply resist change.

So, we've had our back-and-forth; we've argued the extreme and the details. I'm for decriminalization. I think we should start with what I call the Threshold Principle: What happens in your home stays in your home. You can grow it, consume it, share it with friends, etc, but you can't take it out of the house and you can't sell it. I understand there's a huge problem enforcing that, but there's already a huge problem. If someone is selling, the Feds are within their rights to bust you in the same way they do now - bust a buyer and turn him. If you're consuming 10KW of electricity, you better have a legal explanation. If you're carrying, fine, it's the same misdemeanor it always was. Ditto for drug screens. This would take all the good citizen smokers out of the system, and leave the whacked-out losers to the benevolent "insurance" of the Federal government. Oh, and I'm against letting teenagers buy it - bad idea.

So how 'bout a vote?

1.) Legalization - liquor stores, IDs, etc

2.) My idea - in home only

3.) Medicinal only - pharmacies, doctors

4.) No change

[srellim234]

Thanks for moving this along in a constructive way.

I would vote for a combination of 2 and 3, with 2 to be revisited as more complete long-term studies come in.

[rn79870]

Great idea.Format.1.) Legalization - liquor stores, IDs, etc

2.) My idea - in home only

3.) Medicinal only - pharmacies, doctors

4.) No change

1. Legalization. I would be more in favor of this, if combined with #3 and under the care of a licensed physician. There is enough evidence of problems associated with abuse not to need a MD overseeing the use.

2. In home use. The government has no need to peek into a persons home. If the person grows, and consumes his own product, and doesn't offer it in the free market, then it's fine. That assumes that s/he doesn't abuse it and do things that are unfavorable to society, like drive, go hunting, etc.

3. See #1.

4. I think there is enough evidence to support limited use for specific medical conditions. Changing it merely for a persons right to get high may not be in the best interest of the country.

Finally, we haven't discussed the cost to families for marijuana abuse. They certainly don't benefit from it. If nothing else, the opportunity cost to a family for smoking pot is something that precludes legalization.

[srellim234]

Opportunity cost applies to everything, though. Government shouldn't be making that judgement for the family or individual, only for the opportunity cost to the government. Measurable things like taxpayer funded increased healthcare costs and the like.

Based on opportunity costs you could make a great argument against alcohol and tobacco, but we know how well a ban on those would work.

[HashiriyaS14]

Fighting a war on cocaine or heroin is a big expensive solution to a big, serious problem.

Fighting a war on marijuana is a big, expensive solution to a silly little problem.

The ROI just doesn't work. We're not attaining enough societal good for the amount of money we're spending, and in fact, we're making it easy for terrorists and other criminals to make money. The more things are illegal, the easier it is for the criminals of this world to raise funds.

Legalize marijuana, let ConAgra grow it and let Pillsbury sell weed brownie mix. Regulate it and make it part of the system, just like alcohol and tobacco.

Why are my tax dollars paying to keep some kid in jail just because he bought or sold a little weed? It's idiotic, it doesn't represent a serious threat to society.

Obviously, cocaine and heroin represent serious threats, effect a MUCH tinier portion of the population, and thus should continue to be illegal.

[audtatious]

Sounds like a plan