Should Marijuana be legal?

[seeker_two]

I don't care about the legalities of pot, I won't be using it.  That said, I see the harm from the crusade against it as far greater than the damage from it.

Agreed....but I'd be more willing to support legalization if drug/alcohol testing for welfare was mandatory and child abuse/neglect were capital crimes........

[BrokenPaw]

Drug laws are racist, many were enacted to keep the black man from rapin' white wimmen.

In all fairness, the black men ought not be rapin' the white wimmen.  Or anyone else, for that matter.  Nor should men of any other shade of brown (or beige, or pink)  be rapin' wimmen.  Or men.  Or...or anything else, really.

How about we just prohibit the whole rape thing directly, and stop beating around the bush, so to speak.

With regard to the original topic:  Legalize them all, and make each and every intoxicating substance count as premeditation and an aggravating circumstance for any crime committed under the influence.

Drive home with BAC == 0.02?  Fine.  Kill someone with your car while at 0.02?  0.01?  Murder one.  Done. Make people rethink what they do while using drugs, rather than pretending to be able to make them not use drugs.

Also, for the purposes of debate, it is safe to assume that Rabbi is not going to listen to reason on this:  For Rabbi, all drugs are completely, unequivocally, inescapably evil, unless they're the ones he happens to like.  And he happens to like Tobacco and Alcohol.  His argument is that the other drugs are illegal, QED.  The fact that, were they legalized, they would no longer be illegal, carries no weight with him, because:  all drugs are completely, unequivocally, inescapably evil, unless they're the ones he happens to like.

-BP

[The Rabbi]

Not all drugs are equal.
Surely you can aknowledge that.

Legalization will lead to increased usage.  There can be no debate over that.

If we currently have problems with alcohol abuse and tobacco use, why would you want to make that problem worse by adding other drugs?

[mtnbkr]

In all fairness, the black men ought not be rapin' the white wimmen.  Or anyone else, for that matter.  Nor should men of any other shade of brown (or beige, or pink)  be rapin' wimmen.  Or men.  Or...or anything else, really.

No argument from me.  I was paraphrasing the motivation behind early drug laws. 

Not all drugs are equal.
Surely you can aknowledge that.

Neither are all forms of booze equal in potency.

Legalization will lead to increased usage.  There can be no debate over that.

What's your point?  Consumption of alcohol increased after Prohibition was lifted.  It appears smoking is down as regulations get tighter.  It only makes sense that if drugs were legalized consumption would increase. 

If we currently have problems with alcohol abuse and tobacco use, why would you want to make that problem worse by adding other drugs?

If alcohol and tobacco abuse is such a problem, we should ban them as well.  Oh yeah, we tried that (well, we did with the booze).

Chris

[BrokenPaw]

Not all drugs are equal.  Stipulated.  But all drugs are drugs, including socially-acceptable ones, and serve no purpose other than to cause the body to operate in a way that it will not naturally operate.

So if all drugs are drugs, and they are not all equal, then we can plot the magnitude of their effects along a continuum, with, perhaps, Tobacco at one end, and (I really don't know which is the most effective, so please bear with the example) PCP at the other end.  Everything else falls somewhere in the middle.  So what?  So if someone is stupid enough to smoke himself into emphysema or lung cancer, does it matter that tobacco was lower on the scale than PCP, or even below our notional "this is ok, this is not" threshold?  If someone is dumb enough to take PCP, he's dumb enough to do any of a number of other self-destructive things. 

My point is not that drugs are good.  My point is that declaring and enforcing prohibition on them has far greater economic and social detriment than the drugs those policies are supposedly trying (and failing) to protect "us" from.

In the interest of full disclosure:  I smoked cigarettes for about a month in college, until I realized it was stupid.  I drink occasionally, in moderation.  I have never in my life done an illegal drug of any sort.  I have a sneaking suspicion that my job wouldn't allow me to smoke pot, even if it were made legal, and even if I wanted to.  So I'm not a pothead lobbying for legalization because I'm trying to justify my habit.

I have no dog in the fight, except the one labeled "too much government control over individual freedoms".

-BP

[Joe Demko]

People committing illegal acts need to be prosecuted.

All illegal acts or just the ones you find personally distasteful?

[Finch]

People committing illegal acts need to be prosecuted.

All illegal acts or just the ones you find personally distasteful?

Jaywalkers would be right next to them on that plane to Saudi Arabia.

I have no dog in the fight, except the one labeled "too much government control over individual freedoms".

Ding Ding.

[Physics]

Yes, the dilated-pupils potheads at my university whose rooms smelled like incense and who invariably dropped out after a semester, and who talked...really...slow... They were fiction.

Right.

Like it or not, there are a lot of people who do pot, lie around doing pot, and...end up not doing anything else much. Short-term memory loss and cognitive impairment tends to be a career-killer.

This is what I'm talking about.  Nothing like stereotyping right?  All potheads are retarded... hmmm...  well, I may not be as socially brilliant as some posters in here, but I know for damn sure that smoking weed didn't keep me from getting a physics degree.  Wait a minute, I smoke weed, and yet can take Jackson's Electrodynamics??? HUH?!?!

Sorry, but I don't buy your stereotype, because I myself prove it wrong.  I guess I should ask, can you pass a 600 level physics class? 

[wooderson]

No, it shouldnt be legal.

Why?

[The Rabbi]

Legalization will lead to increased usage.  There can be no debate over that.

What's your point?  Consumption of alcohol increased after Prohibition was lifted.  It appears smoking is down as regulations get tighter.  It only makes sense that if drugs were legalized consumption would increase. 

If we currently have problems with alcohol abuse and tobacco use, why would you want to make that problem worse by adding other drugs?

If alcohol and tobacco abuse is such a problem, we should ban them as well.  Oh yeah, we tried that (well, we did with the booze).

But this topic was about legalizing marijuana, not banning alcohol.  If you want to debate banning alcohol go start another thread.

[mtnbkr]

You made the connection between the three.  The reason one can't be legalized is because the destruction caused by alcohol and tobacco indicates a similar path with marijuana.  Or does the statement "If we currently have problems with alcohol abuse and tobacco use, why would you want to make that problem worse by adding other drugs?" mean something else?

Chris

[BrokenPaw]

If this thread were to be purely about legalizing marijuana, then the only valid posts in it would be "Yes, it should be legalized" and "No, it should not."

In order to, you know, have a discussion about why we support a particular view, we have to bring in subjects that are related.  You know, like you did when you pointed out that some people already have a problem abusing alcohol, even though it's legal.  This thread isn't about alcohol, yet you used a reference to alcohol to make a point.  And then mtnbkr responded to your point, and then you dismissed what he said as irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You can't have it both ways.

-BP

[Scout26]

How about legallizing tobacco ??  Heck, it's practically outlawed these days.....

[The Rabbi]

If this thread were to be purely about legalizing marijuana, then the only valid posts in it would be "Yes, it should be legalized" and "No, it should not."

In order to, you know, have a discussion about why we support a particular view, we have to bring in subjects that are related.  You know, like you did when you pointed out that some people already have a problem abusing alcohol, even though it's legal.  This thread isn't about alcohol, yet you used a reference to alcohol to make a point.  And then mtnbkr responded to your point, and then you dismissed what he said as irrelevant to the topic at hand.

You can't have it both ways.

-BP

Of course I can.
But when I point out that marijuana is illegal no one wants to refute that.  People just want to draw irrelevant parallels to alcohol and Prohibition.  Those are completely off-topic.
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country, without mentioning alcohol or tobacco, I would concede the point.

[Ron]

In small amounts MJ is already basically decriminalized, it is not unlike getting a traffic ticket getting caught with small amounts.

[Mabs2]

No one will want drugs from gangsters if they can get clean and safe drugs from the gobmint, even if it's a few dollars more.

Not the government!  They'd be commercial, like Bayer heroin.  I love picking on Bayer because they hold the patent(expired) for heroin.

Er, yea, meant to say run like Tobacco and Alcohol is these days.  Basically, the only thing thing controlling them is the folks who make sure it's not poison.   Well, no more poisonous than it's spoda be.

[mtnbkr]

Of course I can.
But when I point out that marijuana is illegal no one wants to refute that.  People just want to draw irrelevant parallels to alcohol and Prohibition.  Those are completely off-topic.
If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country, without mentioning alcohol or tobacco, I would concede the point.

Nobody refutes the illegality of marijuana because it's the point of the discussion. 

"Should Marijuana be legal". 

The issue isn't really narcotics use per se, but personal freedom and responsibility.  The comparisons to other, legal drugs such as alcohol and tobacco come into play because they are drugs that can be abused to the detriment of the individual and society, yet they are tolerated.  There is no argument for the use of narcotics from the standpoint of the country at large, just as there is no such argument for the use of ANY recreational drugs, including alcohol and tobacco.  The three are fully intertwined.

Chris

[Brad Johnson]

When you talk about making something legal/illegal, what you are really talking about is protecting people from themselves.

The only "drug" I have with any regularity is labeled Bud Light.  None of that other stuff appeals to me in the least.  However, I have a problem with the "war on drugs" for the simple reason that it puts more emphasis on the product and less on the act.  If it were about actually curbing the negative outcomes of drug use, the crime would be an issue of the effect it had, not the actual possession.  The product has become so demonized that it cannot be seperated from simple bad behavior.

In other words, you punish the behavior and not the product just like alchohol.  So what if you want to stay at home and puff yourself silly.  I have no problem with that just like I have no problem with someone sitting on their back porch and getting sotted on their choice of booze.  What I have a problem with is when they become a danger to others (example: driving under the influence).  But sit on your back porch and get blasted by booze, all you might get is a neighbor yelling at you to stop peeing in the rose bushes.  Sit on your back porch and get silly on dope and you may have the SWAT team breathing down your neck.

Brad

[mtnbkr]

In small amounts MJ is already basically decriminalized, it is not unlike getting a traffic ticket getting caught with small amounts.

It depends on who's doing the catching (police and judicial combined) and who's getting caught.  A middle class white kid caught with a joint in suburbia is going to get treated differently than an urban youth with the same. 

Chris

[wooderson]

But when I point out that marijuana is illegal no one wants to refute that.

There's nothing to refute, it's a statement of fact - within most jurisdictions, marijuana is illegal.

It's not a statement of value that can be responded to or refuted.

People just want to draw irrelevant parallels to alcohol and Prohibition.  Those are completely off-topic.

No, they aren't - both are mind- and body-altering chemicals with some negative effects on the individual and on society.
If alcohol is illegal - why isn't marijuana? Is marijuana worse? Worse for the individual or worse for society? Should alcohol be criminalized?

Why is there a differing standard between marijuana and alcohol and how can it be justified?

Can you answer any of that, or will you just fall back on "it's illegal so it should stay illegal" - does the status quo never require justification?

If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country,

Marijuana isn't a narcotic, buddy.

But here's the compelling argument: as an adult, if I choose to smoke and don't drive or otherwise bring potential or actual harm on another, what right is it of yours to decide that's a jail-able offense?

[BrokenPaw]

But when I point out that marijuana is illegal no one wants to refute that.

Well, of course not.  That's an established fact.  Under most circumstances, in the US, Marijuana is illegal.  I concede to you that point.  Well done.

But that's not what this thread is about.  This thread is about whether it should be legal or not.

Your argument cannot simply be "it should be illegal because it currently is illegal".  Or I've been giving you far too much credit, this whole time.

By that standard, alcohol (there I go again, bringing irrelevancies into the discussion) should have, once prohibited, remained illegal.  Yet its illegality was rescinded.  Just as marijuana's could be.

-BP

[The Rabbi]

If someone can present a compelling argument why increased narcotic use is good for this country,

Marijuana isn't a narcotic, buddy.

But here's the compelling argument: as an adult, if I choose to smoke and don't drive or otherwise bring potential or actual harm on another, what right is it of yours to decide that's a jail-able offense?

That isn't an argument why increased drug use would be good for this country.  Go back to square one and start over.

[mtnbkr]

That isn't an argument why increased drug use would be good for this country.  Go back to square one and start over.

An activity doesn't have to be good for the country to be legal.  I could list many many things that are bad for the country, yet still legal and even encouraged in many cases.  Your premise is flawed. 

Why not tell us why one type of drug abuse is good for the country while another is not.

Chris

[wooderson]

That isn't an argument why increased drug use would be good for this country.  Go back to square one and start over.

That isn't an argument why increased drug use "would be bad for this country." Go back to yada yada yada. See, this is a fun game!

But it's an awfully interesting standard you've got there.

A government which is not limited by the rights of the people and protecting them from harm, but an active government whose role is to decide what is "good" for the people, whether they can handle freedom or not.

Weren't you cracking wise about "papieren bitte" just a few days ago?

[Firethorn]

Legalization will lead to increased usage.  There can be no debate over that.

Actually, there can be.

The per capita rate for the Prohibition years is computed to be 1.63 proof gallons. This is 11.64% higher than the Pre-Prohibition rate (Tillitt, 1932: 35). Based on these figures one observer concluded: "And so the drinking which was, in theory, to have been decreased to the vanishing point by Prohibition has, in fact, increased" (Tillitt, 1932: 36).

Another point

C. Decriminalization in Australian Territories Did Not Increase Use
Two of Australia's eight territories -- South Australia and Australian Capital Territory -- removed criminal penalties in 1987 and 1992, respectively, for possessing small amounts of marijuana for personal use. Offenders face only a small fine or a "caution." An Australian government-funded survey published in 1996 found no substantial difference in reported usage rates.

If we currently have problems with alcohol abuse and tobacco use, why would you want to make that problem worse by adding other drugs?

Because problems like violent crime increased during prohibition and dropped off when it ended?