The Legalization of Marijuana

[Black Dynamite]

I would treat it the same as people that are drunk. The problem is that I rarely see people meandering around drunk, whereas I always see dumb college kids blazed beyond belief, and having no sense of self-control. So I'm more in favor of harshly responding to it until people can get a grip.

It might vary from place to place, but I see a lot more belligerent drunk people wandering around than I do stoned people. Not to mention stoned people (at least in my experience) never tend to get belligerent. And what do you mean by no sense of self control?

Seriously man. High or not, some friends' homes are permeated with it. If it's very weak it has a home-y smell to it, and can be a nice warm aroma. But more often, it disgusting and soaks in your clothes. I've come back from friends' houses and stunk up my home just from the stink my clothing was giving off.<br style="color: rgb(7, 55, 2); font-size: 13.333333969116211px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(239, 255, 240);"><br style="color: rgb(7, 55, 2); font-size: 13.333333969116211px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(239, 255, 240);">I'd say that's another argument against being outrageously high in public, since that stuff clings to everything like the smell of feces.

Masking the smell of marijuana isn't difficult. Not to mention that the way someone smells is hardly a logical argument to keep people from being stoned in public. At long as they aren't physically smoking in public, I don't see the issue. I've been around people with horrid body odor, but just because they smell bad doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to go out in public.

Ah - I hope you didn't take me the wrong way, perhaps I spoke too offhandedly. I don't mean that everyone who's working should never smoke pot. And I agree about the month thing, for the most part. Maybe I'm leaning a little too much towards favoring employers' rights VS workers rights now anyway. But I could imagine that an employer would want to use substance history, and use, in selecting and retaining employees - and having used pot, and been in different states as a result of pot use (btw, not any bad stuff) I think it'd be fair for an employer to be concerned about someone using pot. Obviously, use alone shouldn't be enough, and on the job performance should be a strong focus.<br style="color: rgb(7, 55, 2); font-size: 13.333333969116211px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(239, 255, 240);">

And for the most part, ya, I agree a month is too much. I guess I don't know much about "long term" effects on the brain, and there are certain critical, high pressure jobs I could imagine making a lack of substance use a priority, if not a policy. Like I said, imagine. It is true I've talked to a small number of people who were in corporate jobs who used drugs to enhance performance on the job. The one guy in particular I can think of said he didn't make much more extra money than the drugs cost.

I agree in the sense that going into work high could be grounds for termination. If productivity is high I think it's unnecessary, however. I think employers should have the right prevent their employees from working under the influence, though. Seeing as how employees represent the company, being drunk or stoned could negatively impact business, thus making it an employers right to set a standard for their employees mental state. Also, interesting side not, in Thailand they use methamphetamine to work long grueling hours and to try and be as productive and efficient as possible.

I don't at all. Aside from whether other drugs are bad or not, it does seem that a lot of people start with it - except insofar as they've often already used nicotine or alcohol. And I suppose that's the stupid thing - that cigarettes and booze aren't seen as gateway drugs. For my part, I used pot first because it seemed the most promising as far as possible dangers, and I did indeed have good times. I didn't progress much down the road past that (acid's the only other) and I'm pretty cool with that. I've known some people who have used heroin, crack and the like, I don't think it's a good idea. Legal or not is another thing. Don't have as good a feeling for the effect the laws have there.

I drank and smoked salvia before I smoked weed. If anything I'd say that alcohol is more of a gateway drug than marijuana, the only reason that marijuana gets the title is because it's illegal. Media propaganda has a strange way of trying to influence people to view marijuana in a negative way. I've done my fair share of experimenting, but a lot of it was because the information I had received about drugs had been incredibly biased and one sided. I had heard all these bad things about pot and psychadelics only to find out that they weren't nearly as bad as I believed. Realizing that I had been mislead, it made me curious about other drugs and how they affect you both physically and mentally. If people were more open and honest about drugs, I think that people would make safer, more educated decisions if they did decide to experiment past marijuana. I know people who have used hard drugs as well and have had 2 friends overdose as a result. People need to learn the difference between the drugs that stimulate your mind and the drugs that stimulate your body. I'm a big fan of psychadelics because they open your mind up and diminish your sense of ego without being physically addictive. Drugs like heroin, on the other hand, are obviously INCREDIBLY addictive which is one of the reasons that they're so dangerous. The addictive qualities in harder drugs are the big thing that make them such a problem, not the effects itself. Addiction is the thing that makes these drugs dangerous to the user, and to others. People who feel the need to steal and do grime things just to get high because they're addicted to a drug and their body depends on it. This is not the case for most people smoking pot, DMT, consuming Psilocybin or LSD, etc. If adults were honest about this from the get go then I think that young adults would be able to make the distinction between doing drugs that will or won't get them physically hooked, and help to diminish the theory of "Gateway drugs." I believe that dishonesty is one of the leading components of why people experiment, much more so than marijuana.

The thing is, the government is going to be responsible for any drug related crime anyway, even if it's not their fault. It's like two kids fighting on a playground, even if it wasn't the teachers fault, parents are going to blame them, so the school must accept responsibility over the kids. Just because a few people can handle it maturely, doesn't account for the majority, and the majority of pot smokers in my area, and that I see on the news, are irresponsible, and immature. People say they wish to handle these decisions themselves, but they don't understand, a lot of people aren't mature enough to know what's right for them, at any age. That is why we have authority, people who can make the right decisions when we're going to make the wrong ones.

Marijuana being illegal isn't really stopping anybody, though. I think if it were made legal that the number of people consuming it would still be similar to the number of people who are consuming it now. Look at the shit storm over gun laws. People handle guns irresponsibly. If people get shot, the government gets blamed. But is that reason enough to outlaw guns? No. Because if criminals want to obtain something, they will. But to have the laws on marijuana as they are now, people who aren't criminals are being prosecuted and put in jail in a failed attempt to prevent people from smoking marijuana. If people act immature, or are irresponsible, then that's on them. No ones going out hurting people while they're high on marijuana. If it makes you lazy, etc, then it's up to you to make the mature decision to stop. Don't rely on the government to baby sit you. America is founded on principles of personal freedom. The government shouldn't make decisions for us just because they believe it's the right decision. Humans should be allowed to make decisions for themselves and learn from these decision. They should be trusted to make the distinction of what is right and wrong. Marijuana isn't causing any drastic damage or harm, so I don't see why it's a federal issue. Also, what you see on the news is biased and one sided. As I've said, the media tends to group marijuana in with all the other drugs, which is the problem.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Black Dynamite

[Esau of Isaac]

It might vary from place to place, but I see a lot more belligerent drunk people wandering around than I do stoned people. Not to mention stoned people (at least in my experience) never tend to get belligerent. And what do you mean by no sense of self control?

When I say lack of self control it's two-fold: First, they can't simply wait to toke until they are in the privacy of their own home, thus forcing others to have to deal with them wandering dazed around a store, stinking the place up, and failing to find the door when it's time to close. They also lack the self-control to moderate to a level that would allow them to function like a normal human being.

Masking the smell of marijuana isn't difficult. Not to mention that the way someone smells is hardly a logical argument to keep people from being stoned in public. At long as they aren't physically smoking in public, I don't see the issue. I've been around people with horrid body odor, but just because they smell bad doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to go out in public.

It's not on its own the primary arguing point, but a supporting part of it. I was more speaking of confined areas, but an argument could conceivably be made towards general public as well.

[Black Dynamite]

I'm not too familiar with people acting like this when they're stoned, but I also tend to hang out with people my age who have been smoking for years and understand the effects that is has on them. I could smoke plenty of marijuana, and I would never be in a condition where I couldn't function. I agree that smoking should be limited to the confines of your home or designated areas though. As for what you do when you're stoned afterwards, that's your business. If you want to go out in public, etc, go for it. Hell, even under current laws it isn't illegal to be stoned in public (or really anywhere for that matter, except maybe in the driver's seat). They can only penalize you for possessing marijuana/paraphernalia.

[Knight]

Marijuana being illegal isn't really stopping anybody, though. I think if it were made legal that the number of people consuming it would still be similar to the number of people who are consuming it now. Look at the shit storm over gun laws. People handle guns irresponsibly. If people get shot, the government gets blamed. But is that reason enough to outlaw guns? No. Because if criminals want to obtain something, they will. But to have the laws on marijuana as they are now, people who aren't criminals are being prosecuted and put in jail in a failed attempt to prevent people from smoking marijuana. If people act immature, or are irresponsible, then that's on them. No ones going out hurting people while they're high on marijuana. If it makes you lazy, etc, then it's up to you to make the mature decision to stop. Don't rely on the government to baby sit you. America is founded on principles of personal freedom. The government shouldn't make decisions for us just because they believe it's the right decision. Humans should be allowed to make decisions for themselves and learn from these decision. They should be trusted to make the distinction of what is right and wrong. Marijuana isn't causing any drastic damage or harm, so I don't see why it's a federal issue. Also, what you see on the news is biased and one sided. As I've said, the media tends to group marijuana in with all the other drugs, which is the problem.

I didn't mean the government should make all decisions for us, but, for example, a plumber shouldn't decide where to launch a rocket, people shouldn't make decisions they have no experience in.

[eclipse]

There's people who can down a beer and be fine, and people who drink until they can't see straight (and drive on top of that). There's people who've smoked one cigarette and thought it was nasty, and others who smoking habits are measured in packs. People are different, and I think that's the point that's flying over everyone's head.

That being said, marijuana smoke offends both my sense of smell and my lungs (the latter's just stupidly sensitive to that kind of thing). Should it be illegal because it irritates my lungs (and by extension, negatively impacts me)? Probably not. My opinion is that thinking that marijuana is a miracle drug with no ill effects is as misguided as thinking that anyone who smokes a bowl should be locked up for the rest of their lives. I'd probably care more about it if both sides of the legalization argument were willing to acknowledge the flaws in their own case first.

Edited January 12, 2013 by eclipse

[Black Dynamite]

I definitely don't think it's some kind of miracle drug, or anything; there's a time and place for everything. I just think that making the private use of it illegal is dumb, and the government has no business doing it.

[eclipse]

Who says you're the only person in the world who wants marijuana to be legal? I've seen both sides, and I can't take either of them seriously.

[Black Dynamite]

Who says you're the only person in the world who wants marijuana to be legal? I've seen both sides, and I can't take either of them seriously.

I'd say more than anything else my argument against it would be that it infringes upon civil liberties. My political beliefs influence my support for legalizing it above all else. Obviously I'm not the only person who feels this way, nor did I infer that.

[Esau of Isaac]

I'd say more than anything else my argument against it would be that it infringes upon civil liberties.

So does banning heroin and PCP. Does this mean you are for the legalization of heroin and PCP?

So more or less what eclipse seems to be suggesting. The sitaution is grey, not black or white.

[Black Dynamite]

So does banning heroin and PCP. Does this mean you are for the legalization of heroin and PCP?

So more or less what eclipse seems to be suggesting. The sitaution is grey, not black or white.

People are dangerous and erratic on PCP. They can be a danger to not only their selves but to others as well. That's like comparing assault to first degree murder.

[Fenrir]

What are really the best point to keeping Marijuana illegal? The gateway theory is the only shit I've ever heard that makes sense. But even that is basically just do drugs to be cool and be little badasses. I think if you made it legal it would be like cigarettes or alcohol. Maybe some kids would still feel cool and it would serve as a gateway or some shit, but the majority of people aren't gonna be moving on to cocaine or heroin. I just doubt that anyone would go, 'smoked some pot today, tomorrow I'll go drop some acid. I mean, how bad can it be? I've done a legal drug that isn't even that bad for me.' People just aren't going to think that way.

I agreed with whoever said we need better drug education. That's critical. Education is always vital.

As long as they make it so that you can only smoke it in your own personal residence or in some kind of specialized pot bar, let them do as they please. Just keep that nasty shit away from me. Not that helps anyway since the smell sticks to everything.

Why the hell should that be a law? Should farting be only legal in bathrooms or personal residences because it smells bad? Or maybe we should make eating BBQ only legal in personal residences and at steakhouses. Someone may not like the smell, that would just be tragic if somebody didn't like the way something smells.

EDIT: I think all drugs should be decriminalized.(Not legalized) Is it to far off topic to talk about that? And I'd like to hear peoples opinions on keeping weed legal, decriminalizing it, or legalizing. At the least it should be decriminalized. (Are people traditionalists, moderates, or changists?[Hey I'm tired])

Edited January 12, 2013 by Fenrir

[Caliban of Sycorax]

I guess not all people, just everyone I know personally who smokes weed has the IQ of a monkey. I've just been surrounded by stupid stoners, I don't mean all people.

I have a genius-level IQ and smoke weed. My boyfriend has an even higher IQ and he smokes more than I.

Anyway, I never saw the criminalization of Cannabis products necessary. Tobacco cigarettes, which have been legal... forever... are far more deadly than cannabis. Not to mention it's decriminalized in many states anyway. Most cases are misdemeanors and a fine of sorts.

[Original Alear]

Fenrir's post makes me feel less like I should bother posting. Thanks fenrir, it's a good post. But, actually I'd like to disagree on somethin with him all the same.

Why the hell should that be a law? Should farting be only legal in bathrooms or personal residences because it smells bad? Or maybe we should make eating BBQ only legal in personal residences and at steakhouses. Someone may not like the smell, that would just be tragic if somebody didn't like the way something smells.

For some people, it's pretty goddamn easy to get a contact high. For people like me, there's apparently research saying the stuff doesn't mix well with the disorder (that I've taken some is a looooong story about how stupid I am, but off topic), and while I'm not super worried about it, I'd rather not smoke pot again, or risk the fumes (haven't for...almost 2 years now, but I feel confident in saying I wasn't addicted, so I don't feel like saying I've been "clean"). And it's not just me. There are other people who have valid concerns. Lumi I've seen complain about cig smoke in the past, and I've met quite a lot of peeps in person who feel the same way. So there are certain public spots it's probably - put it frankly - more hospitable and respectful to keep certain things out of. Why does that need to be a law? Well, I guess you could say its an expression and statement of support for the need for boundaries with certain kinds of activities, and creates an environment of enforcement against thoughtless people such as myself.

ALSO I guess they normally need to be plugged in, but vapes can allow you to get high, and not have a lotta smoke (well barely any? it burns real hot or something?). Dunno how expensive they are, but if an outlet or whatever is around, that might help in this hypothetical unillegal pot scenario.

And it's not gonna ever be entirely fair, or everyone can go everywhere if they have an issue with something. I just feel like, in the same way fires are restricted to varying extents, smoke producing activities should be restricted - and not just because of smoke alarms.

...Don't take the italics as some sorta code. I'm just trying to make it obvious why people would find smoke particularly unpleasant.

That is why we have authority, people who can make the right decisions when we're going to make the wrong ones.

No one is saying, overthrow the government, kill the popo, fire teachers, close schools, etc. That seems to be the entire point of your post, and I don't understand why you posted it. I know that sounds critical, and I'm sorry, but I still would like to know.

I didn't mean the government should make all decisions for us, but, for example, a plumber shouldn't decide where to launch a rocket, people shouldn't make decisions they have no experience in.

So what decision are you referring to, and what person who lacks experience in it are you talking about? I didn't realize this was elect joe the plumber for president thread.

[redturtle806]

Marijuana is NOT physically addictive.

No. Smoke a lot (half a oz of swag or 2gs of some dannnnkkk) everyday day for a couple years or so, and your gonna notice some fucking effects when you quit. That's about how much I smoked from 2009-2011 and quitting was hell. I couldn't sleep or eat for about a week. Granted I was using a "knockout bowl" to go to sleep everynight, but weed's effects can be bad if you smoke out. Not to mention that burnt out feeling you get, where everything seems harder and all that you care about is getting high. It's also not as bad as alchol, hard drug, or tobacco withdraw but it isn't fun. Also kid's shouldn't smoke, it should be 18+ only. I really wish I hadn't of starting smoking pot in high school.

Even though I don't smoke anymore and probaly won't anytime as long as it's illegal, I think it should be legal. If it was legalized it would be a huge blow to organized crime, which would also weaken the cartels importing things other than pot. Also it's safer than alcohol or most pharmaceutical drugs.

This is, hands down, the best documentary about weed. And I've seen a lot of them ;). Whether you are for or against pot, at least watch the first 4 minutes. That will given you a quick history on weed in the US and Canada, and hopefuly show you that it's not one of those stupid stoner propaganda documentaries. I can't even tell you how many highly intelligent people (and parents lol) have watched this, and then changed their view of marijuana. Pretty much any pro-marijuana debate I get into, I usually end up just quoting this movie the whole time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jO_ncXj7RE

I don't at all. Aside from whether other drugs are bad or not, it does seem that a lot of people start with it - except insofar as they've often already used nicotine or alcohol. And I suppose that's the stupid thing - that cigarettes and booze aren't seen as gateway drugs. For my part, I used pot first because it seemed the most promising as far as possible dangers, and I did indeed have good times. I didn't progress much down the road past that (acid's the only other) and I'm pretty cool with that. I've known some people who have used heroin, crack and the like, I don't think it's a good idea. Legal or not is another thing. Don't have as good a feeling for the effect the laws have there.

Keep in mind the gate way drug is partially caused by a black market. When you have a dealer dealing in pot, lsd, H, etc. You're more likely to try those because he'll push those drugs on you, often by giving you a couple doses for free. He can make money much easier selling harder drugs, so of course he'll want to sell you that.

Obviously this doesn't apply to every dealer, your friendly college kid buying only one ounce at time probably isn't pushing black tar heroin.

EDIT: I think all drugs should be decriminalized.(Not legalized) Is it to far off topic to talk about that? And I'd like to hear peoples opinions on keeping weed legal, decriminalizing it, or legalizing. At the least it should be decriminalized. (Are people traditionalists, moderates, or changists?[Hey I'm tired])

I think is is an absolutely horrible idea. Meth and Herion change good people into absolute monsters. One of my friends got into meth/H after high school, and he had nver gotten into a fight/been arrested before. 6 months later, his grandparents were pressing charges because he had robbed them and pawned off all their family heirlooms/jewelry for a couple hundred dollars of meth. He went to jail, did a year, got out, and od'd in less than 2 weeks. His grandparents didn't even go to his funeral. (and they raised him not his parents).

However should we send non-violent users (not dealers) to mandatory treatment instead of jail? Absolutely.

Edited January 12, 2013 by redturtle806

[redturtle806]

ALSO I guess they normally need to be plugged in, but vapes can allow you to get high, and not have a lotta smoke (well barely any? it burns real hot or something?). Dunno how expensive they are, but if an outlet or whatever is around, that might help in this hypothetical unillegal pot scenario.

Vapes have no smoke. It heats the pot to temperature were the THC crystals vaporize off the plant without any burning any plant matter. There's little to no smell, and it doesn't linger like cigs/bongs/joints do. They typically need elcetricity, but they make handheld ones too. Me and my friends used to take hits every time we went to the movie theater, and our non-smoking friends sitting right next to us couldn't even tell lol. Even when we would tell afterwords they were like, "damn I had no idea." We were some sneaky stoners.

[Black Dynamite]

What are really the best point to keeping Marijuana illegal? The gateway theory is the only shit I've ever heard that makes sense. But even that is basically just do drugs to be cool and be little badasses. I think if you made it legal it would be like cigarettes or alcohol. Maybe some kids would still feel cool and it would serve as a gateway or some shit, but the majority of people aren't gonna be moving on to cocaine or heroin. I just doubt that anyone would go, 'smoked some pot today, tomorrow I'll go drop some acid. I mean, how bad can it be? I've done a legal drug that isn't even that bad for me.' People just aren't going to think that way.

I agreed with whoever said we need better drug education. That's critical. Education is always vital.

Why the hell should that be a law? Should farting be only legal in bathrooms or personal residences because it smells bad? Or maybe we should make eating BBQ only legal in personal residences and at steakhouses. Someone may not like the smell, that would just be tragic if somebody didn't like the way something smells.

EDIT: I think all drugs should be decriminalized.(Not legalized) Is it to far off topic to talk about that? And I'd like to hear peoples opinions on keeping weed legal, decriminalizing it, or legalizing. At the least it should be decriminalized. (Are people traditionalists, moderates, or changists?[Hey I'm tired])

I agree with you completely about decriminalization. Drug use should not be putting people away for years if not decades.

[Esau of Isaac]

People are dangerous and erratic on PCP. They can be a danger to not only their selves but to others as well. That's like comparing assault to first degree murder.

That's not relevant to the point you were making. You stated it infringes on civil liberties. It also infringes on civil liberties to ban people from consuming cocaine, meth, etc.

Once you see why these are banned it's easy to understand the thought process of today's traditionalists, even if you don't agree with them.

For some people, it's pretty goddamn easy to get a contact high.

The contact high is in actuality a myth. The best way to explaing it would be both because of oxygen deprivation on account of poor ventilation in cramped areas, and social responsibility to mimic acceptable behavior from the intoxicated person.

No. Smoke a lot (half a oz of swag or 2gs of some dannnnkkk) everyday day for a couple years or so, and your gonna notice some fucking effects when you quit. That's about how much I smoked from 2009-2011 and quitting was hell. I couldn't sleep or eat for about a week. Granted I was using a "knockout bowl" to go to sleep everynight, but weed's effects can be bad if you smoke out. Not to mention that burnt out feeling you get, where everything seems harder and all that you care about is getting high. It's also not as bad as alchol, hard drug, or tobacco withdraw but it isn't fun. Also kid's shouldn't smoke, it should be 18+ only. I really wish I hadn't of starting smoking pot in high school.

It is not physiologically addictive. What you just described can happen to anyone with potentially anything. Addictive tendencies must always be watched out for, but in this case the thing in question does not inherently produce addictive tendencies because of what it is made of. It might commonly produce addicts because it is mind altering, but not because of the chemicals it is made of.

[I don't play for turns]

Alcohol probably is more harmful in large doses, but having one drink per hour actually causes little to no side effects. The only reason we keep alcohol legal is really because it's completely infused into our culture. The reason weed is arguably worse is a: I believe it is more harmful in small doses, but I'm not sure, and b: You don't get hammered after one shot, but you get high after one joint. Weed's effects aren't the worst thing in the world, but they don't do anything helpful for your body, and the high from weed is probably the more dangerous part. If we heavily taxed and legalized marijuana, it would give drug cartels less traffic, but even in light of that they wouldn't go out of business because people don't want to have to spend too much on anything, and might turn back to the untaxed version. However, I can't say I'm completely against it. I'm undecided.

[Black Dynamite]

Alcohol probably is more harmful in large doses, but having one drink per hour actually causes little to no side effects. The only reason we keep alcohol legal is really because it's completely infused into our culture. The reason weed is arguably worse is a: I believe it is more harmful in small doses, but I'm not sure, and b: You don't get hammered after one shot, but you get high after one joint. Weed's effects aren't the worst thing in the world, but they don't do anything helpful for your body, and the high from weed is probably the more dangerous part. If we heavily taxed and legalized marijuana, it would give drug cartels less traffic, but even in light of that they wouldn't go out of business because people don't want to have to spend too much on anything, and might turn back to the untaxed version. However, I can't say I'm completely against it. I'm undecided.

Marijuana is WAY cheaper coming from dispensaries, etc.

That's not relevant to the point you were making. You stated it infringes on civil liberties. It also infringes on civil liberties to ban people from consuming cocaine, meth, etc. <br style="color: rgb(7, 55, 2); font-size: 13.333333969116211px; line-height: 20px; background-color: rgb(239, 255, 240);">

Once you see why these are banned it's easy to understand the thought process of today's traditionalists, even if you don't agree with them.

It is relevant, though. It's simple libertarian principles.

[Fenrir]

Fenrir's post makes me feel less like I should bother posting. Thanks fenrir, it's a good post. But, actually I'd like to disagree on somethin with him all the same.

For some people, it's pretty goddamn easy to get a contact high. For people like me, there's apparently research saying the stuff doesn't mix well with the disorder (that I've taken some is a looooong story about how stupid I am, but off topic), and while I'm not super worried about it, I'd rather not smoke pot again, or risk the fumes (haven't for...almost 2 years now, but I feel confident in saying I wasn't addicted, so I don't feel like saying I've been "clean"). And it's not just me. There are other people who have valid concerns. Lumi I've seen complain about cig smoke in the past, and I've met quite a lot of peeps in person who feel the same way. So there are certain public spots it's probably - put it frankly - more hospitable and respectful to keep certain things out of. Why does that need to be a law? Well, I guess you could say its an expression and statement of support for the need for boundaries with certain kinds of activities, and creates an environment of enforcement against thoughtless people such as myself.

ALSO I guess they normally need to be plugged in, but vapes can allow you to get high, and not have a lotta smoke (well barely any? it burns real hot or something?). Dunno how expensive they are, but if an outlet or whatever is around, that might help in this hypothetical unillegal pot scenario.

And it's not gonna ever be entirely fair, or everyone can go everywhere if they have an issue with something. I just feel like, in the same way fires are restricted to varying extents, smoke producing activities should be restricted - and not just because of smoke alarms.

...Don't take the italics as some sorta code. I'm just trying to make it obvious why people would find smoke particularly unpleasant.

I struggled to really follow you. It sounds like you have a problem with people smoking anything. And I'm not really gonna argue with you about that. I understand that, but people smoke. That's that.

(Current smoking laws would probably apply to weed, so again, I don't even get what you're ultimately getting at.)

I think is is an absolutely horrible idea. Meth and Herion change good people into absolute monsters. One of my friends got into meth/H after high school, and he had nver gotten into a fight/been arrested before. 6 months later, his grandparents were pressing charges because he had robbed them and pawned off all their family heirlooms/jewelry for a couple hundred dollars of meth. He went to jail, did a year, got out, and od'd in less than 2 weeks. His grandparents didn't even go to his funeral. (and they raised him not his parents).

Ok, agree with you. Agree he should've gone to jail. Don't even blame his grandparents for not showing up. Sad story like so many others. I've got a cousin who robbed her parents and our grandparents so she could get high. It's not uncommon at all.

I'm not trying to say drugs are great and we should all inject heroin. But the current system doesn't work. The guy you mentioned went to jail and overdosed two weeks after he got out. Treatment won't always work, but I think it's a better solution to getting people into being successful in society instead of getting out of jail and instantly relapsing.

However should we send non-violent users (not dealers) to mandatory treatment instead of jail? Absolutely.

Then we basically agree.

If you do some dumb shit while you're high you don't get a get out of jail free card just cause you were high. No judge should feel bad for you. If anything your punishment should be harsher. Same thing goes for if you steal to get drugs.

I just think that you should be sent to rehab instead of jail if you're on drugs and not(Or at least haven't been caught) stealing, assaulting or breaking any other laws. To me it's wrong on so many levels.

Drugs aren't like any other crime, it's a choice and it's self inflicted.

[redturtle806]

Alcohol probably is more harmful in large doses, but having one drink per hour actually causes little to no side effects. The only reason we keep alcohol legal is really because it's completely infused into our culture. The reason weed is arguably worse is a: I believe it is more harmful in small doses, but I'm not sure, and b: You don't get hammered after one shot, but you get high after one joint. Weed's effects aren't the worst thing in the world, but they don't do anything helpful for your body, and the high from weed is probably the more dangerous part. If we heavily taxed and legalized marijuana, it would give drug cartels less traffic, but even in light of that they wouldn't go out of business because people don't want to have to spend too much on anything, and might turn back to the untaxed version. However, I can't say I'm completely against it. I'm undecided.

When it's legalized the price will go down, which will make it less worth the risk to the cartels. Weed has more mass per dose and is much smellier than hard drugs so I would expect cartels to focus on hard drugs if pot was legalized. I'm sure a lot of pot smokers would choose to buy legally if it was legal, just to get rid of the tension of breaking the law. Plus a lot of pot heads hate cartel affiliated dealers, personally I used to hate buying weed that had anything to do with cartels. It was typically shit weed and the dealers were always sketchy/slow as hell. Some of those fuckers even spray the weed with chemicals to make it hit harder or weigh more (especially if they're selling a pound or up).

Then we basically agree.

If you do some dumb shit while you're high you don't get a get out of jail free card just cause you were high. No judge should feel bad for you. If anything your punishment should be harsher. Same thing goes for if you steal to get drugs.

I just think that you should be sent to rehab instead of jail if you're on drugs and not(Or at least haven't been caught) stealing, assaulting or breaking any other laws. To me it's wrong on so many levels.

Drugs aren't like any other crime, it's a choice and it's self inflicted.

Absolutely. My point is we shouldn't send people who only break the law of using hard drugs to jail. There are plenty of users who think, "Ok this is my last bag, tommorow I'm gonna get my GED/Degree after this" every time they cop. We should get those kinds of users the help they need instead of sending them to prison with rapists and murders. However it shouldn't be a, "I was high, get out of jail free card" type deal. Then suddenly every single criminal ever would have a drug problem lol.

Edited January 12, 2013 by eclipse
Merged double post

[Black Dynamite]

Drugs aren't like any other crime, it's a choice and it's self inflicted.

Agreed. If people can handle their shit, and aren't stealing, hurting people, or breaking other laws, then treatment is a better alternative to jail.

[Esau of Isaac]

It is relevant, though. It's simple libertarian principles.

The same principles that you do not seem to support applying to heroin, PCP, crystal meth, etc.

Then we basically agree.

If you do some dumb shit while you're high you don't get a get out of jail free card just cause you were high. No judge should feel bad for you. If anything your punishment should be harsher. Same thing goes for if you steal to get drugs.

I just think that you should be sent to rehab instead of jail if you're on drugs and not(Or at least haven't been caught) stealing, assaulting or breaking any other laws. To me it's wrong on so many levels.

Drugs aren't like any other crime, it's a choice and it's self inflicted.

I don't completely understand the logic you're using here. On one hand you seem to be saying that people should be allowed to consume the drugs they want because it's not fair to completely illegalize them. But then you are saying that if they do they should be forced by the government to attend rehab.

[Sasori]

Am I allowed to brag about how my country legalised pretty much all soft drugs a looong time ago

I rarely use it myself though, its way to expensive and I enjoy a normal siggarete or a drink a lot more, but if people want to use it then I think they should be free to do so.

In our coffeeshops you can only buy soft drugs in small quantaties and aside from that its a lot safer then from a random dealer. A dealer might try to cut costs which can make the drugs a lot more dangerous, meanwhile the coffeeshops are kept under a close watch so they don't sell to minors, need to make it as safe as drugs can possible be and the above mentioned small quantaties of drugs.

I prefer our system to the alternative, but I can see why some might disagree.

Edited January 12, 2013 by Sasori

[eclipse]

I tried mentioning it nicely in-thread. I tried PM. Neither worked, so I'm stuck doing this.

redturtle, please stop double-posting in Serious Discussion; the only place where it is acceptable is Far from the Forest, and its subforums. Look at your previously edited posts to see how you're supposed to do it. With that out of the way. . .

Alcohol probably is more harmful in large doses, but having one drink per hour actually causes little to no side effects.

Guess what, everyone's different. One beer will make me extremely sick. I can't remember the last time I had a full goblet of wine, because half that amount (on a full stomach) makes me queasy. Put me on anything harder, and I'll toss my guts. My alcohol tolerance is absolute garbage, so on those rare occasions I go out to drink, it's usually something like a shot over the span of several hours (and even then, I'm in no shape to drive).

I don't know whether or not people are affected by weed in the same way. If so, I'm not sure if I trust every single one of them to stop when their body goes haywire.