Poll: Weed - Legal or Illegal?

[Twilight_guy]

I know that you cant stop it completely, but that doesn't mean we have to legalize it. With that attitude we mind as well remove the penalties for murder since people are just going to keep killing other people. The point is to keep it illegal so even if it isn't stopping anything its at least discouraging it and retarding its growth among people.

There is a clear difference, though; murder involves a serious violation of the rights of other people, smoking pot doesn't.

You aren't actually harming anyone but yourself by doing it, which should make it a fairly low priority for law enforcement. Instead, huge amounts of money and time are spent tracking down and imprisoning pot smokers, who harmed noone but themselves. Is this supposed to be a proportional response?

Thousands of people being murdered every year is something that we need to combat. A one percentage unit increase in the likelihood of schizophrenia after a lifetime of smoking pot isn't.

Your arguing a different point entirely. The point I'm making is that saying "we can't stop it so why make it illegal?" is a bad stance because its simply a defeatist attitude. I also didn't say I support huge funding into busting pot. Law enforcement and the laws themselves are 2 separate issues.

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

I was thinking more along the lines of incidents such as the obvious car crashes caused by increased inattentiveness on a weed high.

I keep addressing this point, but whenever I do nobody gives me an answer. I'll try again, then.

Aren't the people who are willing to drive while high the same idiots who are willing to drive while drunk? What makes you think those people, who don't mind driving while drunk, will be MORE likely to drive while under the influence if cannabis is legalized?

Or the drastically increased chance of lung cancer from second hand smoke.

You are overstating the risks associated with second-hand smoking.

Seeing as how this seems to be your only actual argument that holds water, though, do you think it is proportional to the problem caused by second-hand cannabis smoking to send hundreds of thousands of people to prison for it?

Regarding the first point, you would have to create and alter so many laws in so many departments so as to regulate what jobs cannot be carried out within a short period of smoking, and then all that would have to be regulated. The regulations with something like alcohol are something that have been established over a long period of time, this would be completely new and different.

Actually, no it wouldn't. The fact that you are using that argument just shows that you do not understand the issue. There are already laws regarding certain activities you are not allowed to partake in while under the influence of drugs, be it alcohol or not. You seem to think the legislation exclusively mentions alcohol and that it doesn't at all cover other drugs, which simply isn't true in any way, shape or form.

It is, for instance, already illegal to drive while high on any drug, and that would not change at all in any way if cannabis was legalized. Even if the laws exclusively mentioned alcohol, which isn't true, then any legislature has long since made prejudicative analogous interpretations regarding other drugs. Really, there is no need to change any such laws whatsoever, the argument is entirely moot.

The driving one was an example, because it is something everyone has to do. And you think people won't drive while high? Enough people die from drink driving.
The difference with weed to alcohol is that most people drink alcohol socially - they don't always drink to get shitfaced and have their judgement impaired.
People who are smoking weed are doing so because they WANT their judgement impaired, they want to relax to a different level.
So if people are high more often than drunk...I don't think its hard to see where I'm going with this.

And I'm overstating the risk of secondhand smoke?
Hmm, lets see, first hand tobacco smoke is one of my country's (Australia) biggest killers.
Second hand tobacco smoke is more harmful than first hand tobacco smoke.
...Marijuana smoke is more harmful than tobacco smoke by many times.
I don't understand your 'going to jail' point there...
People go to jail because they break the law. People aren't being put through some great injustice by being put in jail for breaking the law!
It is their choice to smoke an illegal substance, nobody's life is depending on it!
How you could compare the lives of innocent uninvolved people, to criminals spending time in jail is something I cannot comprehend.

And you didn't understand my point on legislature. I'm saying because marijuana is different to alcohol and other legal drugs of course it is not covered in the same way in legislature. There is no need for restrictions on it if it just all-out banned now is there?

 

[fenrizz]

I'm not against anything people choose to willingly subject themselves to if it doesn't negatively affect other uninvolved people, but I've thought about it and cannot justify to myself that weed only affects those who smoke it. I see it as being far worse than alcohol and tobacco in this regard.

[...]

It is shocking to see how many people genuinely think that weed is practically harmless.

I'd really like to know what these negative consequences for other people when someone smokes pot are.

Do people beat up their spouses after one too many joints?

Do they knife people in the gut on the street because they looked at them funny after one too many joints?

If we just forget about the harm done to the smoker him/herself, what exactly is supposed to be the harm to the people around him/her?

I was thinking more along the lines of incidents such as the obvious car crashes caused by increased inattentiveness on a weed high.

Or the drastically increased chance of lung cancer from second hand smoke.

Regarding the first point, you would have to create and alter so many laws in so many departments so as to regulate what jobs cannot be carried out within a short period of smoking, and then all that would have to regulated. The regulations with something like alcohol are something that have been established over a long period of time, this would be completely new and different.

I had others, but it's past 2AM and my brain isn't functioning.

First off, driving while under the influence is illegal.
And what do you mean by the "obvious car crashes"?

Second hand smoking from cannabis should be regulated along with tobacco, problem solved.

Your last point is, to me, invalid.
Having something be illegal because it's more convenient for the government is not a proper argument for keeping said things illegal.


Those who engage in recreational use of cannabis harm no one but themselves, and that "harm" is not all that severe.
There is no indication whatsoever that decriminalizing cannabis leads to more people choosing to smoke cannabis.
Thus there is no rational reason for it to still be illegal.

You honestly believe decriminalising cannabis would not lead to more people using it? How about the reason it would no longer be illegal? Price drops and no penalty. People who, I don't know, obey the rules would start trying it, and the people already on it can attain it more easily and up their usage. Pretty simple to understand.
And yes, the harm is more severe than everyone seems to be making out it is.
It's worse than cigarettes by a long shot, and you'd have to be stupid to smoke those.

The last point was more pointing out that any government couldn't possibly cover all bases sufficiently first try if they were to legalise a previously illicit drug, so there will therefore be holes in the law, and use will not be regulated sufficiently for some time - therefore causing unnecessary harm.

And what do you mean 'regulated with tobacco'?
First off, how is it regulated with tobacco? And also, there are only so many many ways to prevent second-hand smoke.
You going to make it illegal for people to smoke outside in public like in some countries with cigarettes? Fine, then only their growing children suffer from the second-hand smoke indoors. There is no way to sufficiently 'regulate' second-hand smoke.

Yes, I honestly believe that.
I quote the World Drug Report 2006 from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:
Per capita of people aged 15 - 64.

Norway (illegal): 4.6%
England & Wales (illegal): 10%
Australia (illegal): 13.3%

Netherlands (legal since the 60o's): 6.1%
Mexico (legal up to 5grams for personal use): 1.3%
Spain (Personal use is legal): 11.3%

And name calling is really uncalled for.

I meant regulated the same way tobacco is, at least in my country.
No showing the smoke in other peoples faces.

Smoking inside is largely a problem of the past here, as most smokers will go outside to smoke if the have kids.

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

I'm not against anything people choose to willingly subject themselves to if it doesn't negatively affect other uninvolved people, but I've thought about it and cannot justify to myself that weed only affects those who smoke it. I see it as being far worse than alcohol and tobacco in this regard.

[...]

It is shocking to see how many people genuinely think that weed is practically harmless.

I'd really like to know what these negative consequences for other people when someone smokes pot are.

Do people beat up their spouses after one too many joints?

Do they knife people in the gut on the street because they looked at them funny after one too many joints?

If we just forget about the harm done to the smoker him/herself, what exactly is supposed to be the harm to the people around him/her?

I was thinking more along the lines of incidents such as the obvious car crashes caused by increased inattentiveness on a weed high.

Or the drastically increased chance of lung cancer from second hand smoke.

Regarding the first point, you would have to create and alter so many laws in so many departments so as to regulate what jobs cannot be carried out within a short period of smoking, and then all that would have to regulated. The regulations with something like alcohol are something that have been established over a long period of time, this would be completely new and different.

I had others, but it's past 2AM and my brain isn't functioning.

First off, driving while under the influence is illegal.
And what do you mean by the "obvious car crashes"?

Second hand smoking from cannabis should be regulated along with tobacco, problem solved.

Your last point is, to me, invalid.
Having something be illegal because it's more convenient for the government is not a proper argument for keeping said things illegal.


Those who engage in recreational use of cannabis harm no one but themselves, and that "harm" is not all that severe.
There is no indication whatsoever that decriminalizing cannabis leads to more people choosing to smoke cannabis.
Thus there is no rational reason for it to still be illegal.

You honestly believe decriminalising cannabis would not lead to more people using it? How about the reason it would no longer be illegal? Price drops and no penalty. People who, I don't know, obey the rules would start trying it, and the people already on it can attain it more easily and up their usage. Pretty simple to understand.
And yes, the harm is more severe than everyone seems to be making out it is.
It's worse than cigarettes by a long shot, and you'd have to be stupid to smoke those.

The last point was more pointing out that any government couldn't possibly cover all bases sufficiently first try if they were to legalise a previously illicit drug, so there will therefore be holes in the law, and use will not be regulated sufficiently for some time - therefore causing unnecessary harm.

And what do you mean 'regulated with tobacco'?
First off, how is it regulated with tobacco? And also, there are only so many many ways to prevent second-hand smoke.
You going to make it illegal for people to smoke outside in public like in some countries with cigarettes? Fine, then only their growing children suffer from the second-hand smoke indoors. There is no way to sufficiently 'regulate' second-hand smoke.

Yes, I honestly believe that.
I quote the World Drug Report 2006 from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:
Per capita of people aged 15 - 64.

Norway (illegal): 4.6%
England & Wales (illegal): 10%
Australia (illegal): 13.3%

Netherlands (legal since the 60o's): 6.1%
Mexico (legal up to 5grams for personal use): 1.3%
Spain (Personal use is legal): 11.3%

And name calling is really uncalled for.

I meant regulated the same way tobacco is, at least in my country.
No showing the smoke in other peoples faces.

Smoking inside is largely a problem of the past here, as most smokers will go outside to smoke if the have kids.

Name calling?

And sorry, but in my book limited statistics don't improve an argument.
There's lies and there're statistics.

 

[fenrizz]

I'm not against anything people choose to willingly subject themselves to if it doesn't negatively affect other uninvolved people, but I've thought about it and cannot justify to myself that weed only affects those who smoke it. I see it as being far worse than alcohol and tobacco in this regard.

[...]

It is shocking to see how many people genuinely think that weed is practically harmless.

I'd really like to know what these negative consequences for other people when someone smokes pot are.

Do people beat up their spouses after one too many joints?

Do they knife people in the gut on the street because they looked at them funny after one too many joints?

If we just forget about the harm done to the smoker him/herself, what exactly is supposed to be the harm to the people around him/her?

I was thinking more along the lines of incidents such as the obvious car crashes caused by increased inattentiveness on a weed high.

Or the drastically increased chance of lung cancer from second hand smoke.

Regarding the first point, you would have to create and alter so many laws in so many departments so as to regulate what jobs cannot be carried out within a short period of smoking, and then all that would have to regulated. The regulations with something like alcohol are something that have been established over a long period of time, this would be completely new and different.

I had others, but it's past 2AM and my brain isn't functioning.

First off, driving while under the influence is illegal.
And what do you mean by the "obvious car crashes"?

Second hand smoking from cannabis should be regulated along with tobacco, problem solved.

Your last point is, to me, invalid.
Having something be illegal because it's more convenient for the government is not a proper argument for keeping said things illegal.


Those who engage in recreational use of cannabis harm no one but themselves, and that "harm" is not all that severe.
There is no indication whatsoever that decriminalizing cannabis leads to more people choosing to smoke cannabis.
Thus there is no rational reason for it to still be illegal.

You honestly believe decriminalising cannabis would not lead to more people using it? How about the reason it would no longer be illegal? Price drops and no penalty. People who, I don't know, obey the rules would start trying it, and the people already on it can attain it more easily and up their usage. Pretty simple to understand.
And yes, the harm is more severe than everyone seems to be making out it is.
It's worse than cigarettes by a long shot, and you'd have to be stupid to smoke those.

The last point was more pointing out that any government couldn't possibly cover all bases sufficiently first try if they were to legalise a previously illicit drug, so there will therefore be holes in the law, and use will not be regulated sufficiently for some time - therefore causing unnecessary harm.

And what do you mean 'regulated with tobacco'?
First off, how is it regulated with tobacco? And also, there are only so many many ways to prevent second-hand smoke.
You going to make it illegal for people to smoke outside in public like in some countries with cigarettes? Fine, then only their growing children suffer from the second-hand smoke indoors. There is no way to sufficiently 'regulate' second-hand smoke.

Yes, I honestly believe that.
I quote the World Drug Report 2006 from United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime:
Per capita of people aged 15 - 64.

Norway (illegal): 4.6%
England & Wales (illegal): 10%
Australia (illegal): 13.3%

Netherlands (legal since the 60o's): 6.1%
Mexico (legal up to 5grams for personal use): 1.3%
Spain (Personal use is legal): 11.3%

And name calling is really uncalled for.

I meant regulated the same way tobacco is, at least in my country.
No showing the smoke in other peoples faces.

Smoking inside is largely a problem of the past here, as most smokers will go outside to smoke if the have kids.

Name calling?

And sorry, but in my book limited statistics don't improve an argument.
There's lies and there're statistics.

I provided a small sample, as a wall of text with statistics would be a bit much.

Calling them lies is uncalled for, just because you disagree.

But no matter, this discussion is over for my part.

 

[dstoner]

1. your 1 reiterates my 3.
2. your 2 also reiterates my 3.
3. your 3 once again, reiterates my 3.
4. your after comment reiterates my 3 double so, and proves you do not know the difference between delusion, hallucination, and common sense by examination.

thats about as mature and intelligent of a response as, 'i kno u are, but what am i?'

this will be my last response to u... unless you take some time out of your porn searches to do some research on topics u, clearly, feel so strongly about... what was it? 90% of your class that stole from and assaulted others for marijuana? LOL