Should Marijuana be legal?

[Gewehr98]

Wooderson, how the hell did I know you'd ask that question next?

As a matter of fact, I don't, even though the shelf in the kitchen has all sorts of stuff.  I have an alcoholic stepson, and lost an older brother to a drunk driver many years ago.  If alcohol disappeared from this planet, it wouldn't affect me at all, and I have never smoked a day in my life, so tobacco's demise is no skin off my nose, either.  (Since that was the next thing you were going to ask...)

I live a sheltered life, eh?   

[gunsmith]

I think Marijuana is a stupid, dangerous and addicting drug.
Like alcohol and tobacco is.
Legalize everything! Put the real thing back in coke, let crack heads buy safe
cocaine cola and chew coke gum , like those people that chew nicotine gum.
The war on drugs is really the war on civil rights and capitalism.

Of course I don't advocate anyone ingest that garbage, but its your life.

[gunsmith]

I also want to add that MJ destroyed my life and it has taken years to overcome
the ill effects.  One of those deleterious effects was admitting to my drill sgt in 1977
That I had smoked it, I lost my top level security clearance due to honesty.
It sent me on a downward spiral of knowing that honesty is not the best policy
and made me paranoid about sgt's and authority figures, out to screw me for no damn good reason.
That drill sgt instilled a hatred of all things conservative till I quit smoking that crap 20 years later!
lots of democratic votes because of one jerk.

[Physics]

Wow!  Just think how far you could've gone had you not been a stoner - maybe a PhD or three!

Yes, I can pass a 600 level physics class - the degree on my office wall says so.  I also have a TS/SCI security clearance, and a Lifestyle polygraph that wouldn't have been possible had I decided I needed to alter my brain chemistry through drugs.  I understand the brownies are good, though...

The security clearance issue does REALLY bum me out.  I really wanted to go into weapon design for the military.  I still do if I could swing it, but from what I understand, any past use at all disqualifies you.  Unfortunately, I was screwed on the polygraph at 15, before I ever knew what I wanted to be.  It seems silly to me that they won't give you a clearance because of pot, but I guess "Reefer Madness" type thinking is still somewhat prevalent. 

I'm guessing the issue is because they think potheads would just give away secrets for weed.  Seems strange considering you never hear mention of an alcohol-abstinence requirement for government service, and I consider drunks to be far more dishonest than any pot smoker.  To be quite honest, it really bugs me that people judge me because I smoke.  I am still honest, speak my mind, and do everything I can to be a good citizen of my community.  I honestly just don't see what the big deal is, it's just weed!  I mean come on, how is it even as bad as alcohol, much less worse. 

On a side note, I didn't particularly like the brownies, they were waaaayyyy too strong. 

[The Rabbi]

I also want to add that MJ destroyed my life and it has taken years to overcome
the ill effects.  One of those deleterious effects was admitting to my drill sgt in 1977
That I had smoked it, I lost my top level security clearance due to honesty.
It sent me on a downward spiral of knowing that honesty is not the best policy
and made me paranoid about sgt's and authority figures, out to screw me for no damn good reason.
That drill sgt instilled a hatred of all things conservative till I quit smoking that crap 20 years later!
lots of democratic votes because of one jerk.

There we go.  If for no other reason, legalization would lead to more Democrats getting elected.
Anyone want to advocate it now?  Huh?

[mtnbkr]

Physics, I know for a fact past use does not disqualify you for at least a TS level clearance.  I don't know about the SCI with Poly level since I have had a reason to apply for that clearance yet, but the TS was no problem.

It probably helps that I have led a squeaky clean life in addition to having perfect credit and have never tried to hide anything from the investigators.

It might be a different story if you're still smoking or it was an activity you were involved in until very recently.

Chris

[cordex]

Ah, Rabbi ... at least you're consistent in your inconsistency.

[Tecumseh]

I also want to add that MJ destroyed my life and it has taken years to overcome
the ill effects.  One of those deleterious effects was admitting to my drill sgt in 1977
That I had smoked it, I lost my top level security clearance due to honesty.
It sent me on a downward spiral of knowing that honesty is not the best policy
and made me paranoid about sgt's and authority figures, out to screw me for no damn good reason.
That drill sgt instilled a hatred of all things conservative till I quit smoking that crap 20 years later!
lots of democratic votes because of one jerk.

There we go.  If for no other reason, legalization would lead to more Democrats getting elected.
Anyone want to advocate it now?  Huh?

  I never see potheads starting fights with others, where as I see alcoholics fighting all the time.  Thus my theory is, with more democratic potheads we would not be starting wars with others, and with more alcoholic republicans we would start fights. 

[MechAg94]

What I notice is that everyone reacts to alcohol differently.  I am a pretty laid back happy drunk personally.  If I get buzzed, I am happy to just kick back and relax.  I think it all depends on what people are hiding behind their inhibitions.  I don't have any experience with people who smoke pot so I couldn't say much on that.   


I just think it would be interesting if they decided to make it legal for pharmaceutical companies to use the active ingredient in MJ for prescription drugs.  What would they end up doing with it?  Maybe in the future your aspirin would come with thc instead of caffeine.    If it was accepted as beneficial, it would likely change the public perception a bit and open the door for acceptance of full legalization down the road.  Not an "I want it now" approach, but it might help. 

My own stance on legalization is more to the issue that we ought to consider a different approach than we are taking now, whatever that may be. 

[stevelyn]

Only if those who choose to use it are ineligible for welfare or any federal assistance.

I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.

Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.

OD or end up with health problems related to drug use and no medical insurance? Sucks to be you. Off to the soylent green pile with you.

[Tecumseh]

Only if those who choose to use it are ineligible for welfare or any federal assistance.

I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.

Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.

OD or end up with health problems related to drug use and no medical insurance? Sucks to be you. Off to the soylent green pile with you.

You guys do realize that the biggest recipient of the government dollar is...



















children. 

I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do?  Feed the kids?  Let them starve?  Hmm...

These issues are much more complicated than we imagine.  As for the whole thing, it seems "Reefer Madness" is still around.  Marijuana was first criminalized in Arizona so they could deport the cheap Mexican labor left over from the Bracero program and Operation wetback.

[cordex]

You guys do realize that the biggest recipient of the government dollar is...
[...]
children. 

I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do?  Feed the kids?  Let them starve?  Hmm...

Through miracles and resources under his control, or through bloated, festering, inefficient government agencies rife with corruption utilizing confiscated money taken at gunpoint?
Hmm....

Because only the government can feed the needy, and even if someone else could do it, only the government could do it well.  Right?

[Firethorn]

There we go.  If for no other reason, legalization would lead to more Democrats getting elected.
Anyone want to advocate it now?  Huh?

The way I read it, if MJ had been legal he wouldn't have lost his clearance for admitting to using it and wouldn't have voted D for 20, costing them quite a few votes.

On the other hand, it seems democrats are more likely to actually use the stuff, so if it's legal, how many will bother to haul themselves over to the polling places while potted?

I just think it would be interesting if they decided to make it legal for pharmaceutical companies to use the active ingredient in MJ for prescription drugs.

Already been done, just look up 'Marinol'.  Problems with the pill form is reduced effectiveness at 100X the cost.  The smoked form, from some semi-official studies* and a number of personal attestments is more effective at suppressing nausea than the pill.  The common side effect of increased hunger dovetails rather well with chemotherapy side effects - one of which is hunger supression.  In some cases smoked MJ has been the only effective drug for both suppressing nausea so the person can eat and increasing their appetite so they actually want to.

Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.

Or at least funded through taxes on the drugs themselves.  You can run a number of treatment centers rather easily that way.  Remember:  They're cheaper than prison.

*Because they came up with the wrong answer.

[The Rabbi]

Only if those who choose to use it are ineligible for welfare or any federal assistance.

I don't want my tax dollars going to support those who choose to burn out their own brains and then expect they can lie around on the public dole.

Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.

OD or end up with health problems related to drug use and no medical insurance? Sucks to be you. Off to the soylent green pile with you.

Those who abuse will be burdens on society one way or another.  Drug addicts lose the ability to work, thus their ability to earn money.  But they dont lose their penchant for drugs.  Where will they turn?  Hmmm.  Let's think about that one.
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?

[CAnnoneer]

Not only that, but all safety nets should be removed so those who abuse can't become a burden on society.

Ah, but that's the rub, isn't it? Druggies will inevitably be a burden on society. You cannot remove all safety nets because there are plenty of non-users who will scream their lungs out about "fairness", "compassion", "humane treatment", etc. It is politically impossible to push something through when the socialists and the religious join on a certain issue. And complete legalization is bound to increase the number of druggies, at least in the first decade or so.

Also, consider the effects on criminality. Now you have more druggies trying to get their fix. Yes, the drugs are available and probably far cheaper, but when they quit their jobs over drugs, who will pay for their living and habit? So, criminality increases. The common citizen will feel the pinch. You simultaneously have to remove all restrictions on gun carry (a good thing) but will end up with a society where druggies and armed citizens shoot it out in the streets far more often than now. That will mean that a bunch of laws about justifiable homicide will have to be changed as well, the bottom line being much higher mortality among druggies (probably a good thing) but also among civilians (a bad thing). Then again you hit the above argument about bleeding hearts, and you end up back at square one.

That's why a compromise is probably better - the division between soft and hard drugs. Soft drugs legalization will empty a lot of space in our legal system and prisons as well, when a bunch of local yokels do not get thrown in jail over a bag of grass.

[The Rabbi]

I finished reading a book on the Opium Wars not too long ago.  China had a terrible drug problem in the 19th century, largely fostered by the British for complex economic reasons.  Interestingly the arguments between them sounded like today.
Anyway, the society was falling apart.  Generals were too stoned to make good decisions.  Even the Imperial court was affected.
When Mao came to power he eradicated it.  Every addict was offered state of the art treatment the first time.  The second time they were thrown in jail.  Dealers were summarily executed.
It worked.
We need to try that here.

[mtnbkr]

Those who abuse will be burdens on society one way or another.  Drug addicts lose the ability to work, thus their ability to earn money.  But they dont lose their penchant for drugs.  Where will they turn?  Hmmm.  Let's think about that one.
Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?

How is this different than any other addictive substance (other than tobacco)?  Alcoholics lose the ability to work if their addiction interferes with their jobs (it wouldn't even get that far if booze was illegal).  Same goes for those abuse prescription drugs.  While the drugs themselves are legal and controlled, they are still subject to abuse and deviant behavior in the search for the next "high". 

What does "good for this country" have to do with individual rights? 

Chris

[The Rabbi]

So your solution is to make things worse?  What kind of sense does that make?

[mtnbkr]

I finished reading a book on the Opium Wars not too long ago.  China had a terrible drug problem in the 19th century, largely fostered by the British for complex economic reasons.  Interestingly the arguments between them sounded like today.
Anyway, the society was falling apart.  Generals were too stoned to make good decisions.  Even the Imperial court was affected.
When Mao came to power he eradicated it.  Every addict was offered state of the art treatment the first time.  The second time they were thrown in jail.  Dealers were summarily executed.
It worked.
We need to try that here.

Certainly.  We can start with alcohol.  Drunks barely function in society, if at all.  Alcohol related auto accidents are epidemic.  Alcohol is the root of many evils on college campuses and economically depressed areas.

All I want is some consistency.  During the course of my life, I've known probably 5 serious drunks for every serious user of illicit drugs (maybe more, those are just the ones that don't try to hide it).  The only real difference is that society accepted the drunk and even gave them pass with a wink and a nod.  It doesn't matter which drug you use, if it affects your professional and personal life, you should rethink your involvement with it.  If it doesn't interfere with work and home life, what does the manner of consumption matter?

Chris

[CAnnoneer]

All I want is some consistency. 

Consistency only makes sense when the level of impairment and the social costs are comparable. Many more people drink than use drugs, and for the most part, they are not a social problem. Only a few hardest cases, true alcoholics, can compare to what hard drugs do in short order. The distribution is very different among druggies - hard drug users are overwhelmingly impaired and a much larger social burden; most cannot function normally in society at all.

Consistency in treatment of a pea-shooter and a howitzer does not make practical sense.

[mtnbkr]

So your solution is to make things worse?  What kind of sense does that make?

You are making an assumption that things will be worse.  Plenty of people, if pot were legal, will use it no less responsibly than they currently use booze.  The folks that would abuse pot are likely already abusing it or other drugs (including booze).  There is a middle ground between abstinence and abuse.

Chris

[mtnbkr]

Consistency only makes sense when the level of impairment and the social costs are comparable. Many more people drink than use drugs, and for the most part, they are not a social problem. Only a few hardest cases, true alcoholics, can compare to what hard drugs do in short order. The distribution is very different among druggies - hard drug users are overwhelmingly impaired and a much larger social burden; most cannot function normally in society at all.

Consistency in treatment of a pea-shooter and a howitzer does not make practical sense.

I would submit that the reason for this is the fact that only the hardcore put forth the effort to get those drugs.  The "light" or "social" users would control their use just as they do with booze.

Chris

[Nick1911]

Remind me again why increasing drug usage will be good for this country?

For the sake of argument, we'll say it won't be good for this country.  What's your point?

[macadore]

Wooderson, how the hell did I know you'd ask that question next?

As a matter of fact, I don't, even though the shelf in the kitchen has all sorts of stuff.  I have an alcoholic stepson, and lost an older brother to a drunk driver many years ago.  If alcohol disappeared from this planet, it wouldn't affect me at all, and I have never smoked a day in my life, so tobacco's demise is no skin off my nose, either.  (Since that was the next thing you were going to ask...)

I live a sheltered life, eh?   

Do you have any children? 

[Tecumseh]

You guys do realize that the biggest recipient of the government dollar is...
[...]
children. 

I often ask myself, what would 'lil Baby Jesus do?  Feed the kids?  Let them starve?  Hmm...

Through miracles and resources under his control, or through bloated, festering, inefficient government agencies rife with corruption utilizing confiscated money taken at gunpoint?
Hmm....

Because only the government can feed the needy, and even if someone else could do it, only the government could do it well.  Right?

  I just wanted to point out that the majority of people on the government dole are children.  Facts can only help the discussion.  I agree very much that others can do a better job, but I wanted to more information to the discussion.