Should weed be legalized?

[Patrick]

As mentioned earier, should it be legalized, was said by LUIS Yes and no depending on how. If he did not say that and make me think, I would have jumped up and said yes. I still tend that direction, but also I think it should be moderated by self based spiritual and ethical beliefs. Stuff like do not truspass or don't smoke, it makes you cough, and is bad for your lungs. I like the fact that it could be. It is a lot of drama for everone her in this country I believe, (USA), but what about places like Netherlands, place where they drink Hienken, and girls are generous with their bodies, in less prudistic American Ways. Anyway, I am not the first or final Authority on the matter, and I don't even smoke the stuff, but have learned through Paties that with great power comes great responsability.

[Lasher]

Anyone interested in this topic should really read over the site Athena provided earlier. It's a great site that is very informative and helpful. I just wish I'd found it a few years ago... That legal section would have been handy. Thanks Athena.

[Xandax]

I don't know the medical evidence, but from what I see there is "evidence" of both marihuana being harmfull and not harmfull. Whom to belive? - I guess that is a matter of conviction on which studies to "accept", much like the evidence of other areas.

However, I will say some other things which seems logical to me, but I don't see properly addressed in this thread.....

[QUOTE=Lasher]<snip>
@ Fenix-
Ever heard of Alchoholism? It's a didease that many, many people have. Very long term. My uncle has a story of his dad, who on his deathbed asked his boys to pour a keg of beer on his grave so that, like a pharoah he could take it to his afterlife. Go figure.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=OneWingedAngel]but its not all people, you got to understand. not all weed smokers will say I WANNA TRY COKE, they dont say that. Sometimes they get forced into it by friends, or family. you dont know the reasons WHY they tried it in the first place.[/QUOTE]


Then it is only a marginal amount of people using alcohol which will ever experience alcoholisme or diseases based on alcohol. Go into any larger town on the weekends and you'll see many many people using alcohol.
Then based on the numbers of users then figure out how many actually get longer term illeffects compared to the percentage of users of marihuana experiencing longer term illeffects. Then you might have a foundation for using such an argument.

[QUOTE=Magrus]<snip>
2. If cigarettes are proven to kill you, and can be smoked, and marijuana can be smoked, and has similar negative side effects, shouldn't the choice be available too?<snip>[/quote]

Secondly - if you see the case with smoking, then most seems to realize they are very harmfull. Now what is happening? Increased restrictions on smoking. You can't smoke everywhere anymore - you can still in your own home - but I would almost wager that within a couple of decades, smoking is all but illegal, or at least some new non-harmfull tobaco has been invented.
So while smoking is legal and harmful, it is moving towards being more and more restricted. Not exactly an argument to base the legalization of another (possible) harmful substance is it?
And because something is unhealthy for you and legal, doesn't mean other things which might be less unhealthy for you should be made legal either. Hardly an argument to win a debate with when it looks so much like schoolboys "he did it first" arguments.

Thirdly - the governments can't just legalize marihuana or other forms of drugs and introduce taxation on it. It would open up an entier can of worms.
Producers of marihuana would suddenly find themselves liable to all sorts of economical and legal aspects. Much like tobacco companies are being sued due to smokers falling ill, and even MacDonalds being sued because people get fat eating their food, these producers would fall subject to the excat same mechanics of the free market.
Marihuana would also fall under other effects of the free market, with competition, which quickly could mean additional substances would be placed into them (more addictive perhaps) - just look at allmost all other things for sale and guess how many additives there are - or watered down versions put on the market.

[QUOTE=OneWingedAngel]I think it should be legalized. I mean The Man knows people are gonna do it anyway, so just legalize it so The Man can be cool. :laugh:[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=OneWingedAngel]Yea, it could help out a lot, thats why I want a honest, statement from everyone. I mean it gets me frustrated that they're putting so much effort keeping this off our streets, when its on their anyways. They should just legalize it and get it over with. I mean as I stated above, they're are worse drugs that they need to worry about.[/QUOTE]

Fourthly - an argument which we often see is that because people use it anyway and we can't control the usage, and are criminalized etc by usage, it should be legal.
However, you can't clean yourself in others filth (as an officer in my days in the army used to say). Just because something else is uncontrollable, doesn't mean it should be legal.
Many people drive faster then the speed limit and are responsible for traffic deaths either directly or indirectly. Speedlimits aren't being followed. Is that an argument for allowing people to drive whatever they want?
We can't stop something currently illegal from being done, doesn't mean or can be used as an argument, for it being legal. That would open up precendence to yet another large can of worms, in all aspect of legality.
We can't stop people embezzeling money ... doesn't mean it should be legal. We can't stop people shooting other people ... doesn't mean it should be legal. We can't stop people using (harder) drugs ... doens't mean it should be legal.


If wanting to legalize marihuana better argumentation is indeed needed then the ones I listed and most given in this thread. And it all starts with credible medical information.
Currently it is illegal, thus it is the convincing of otherwise which is requiered if this should change. And that is not done by pointing-games towards (the increased restricted) smoking or alcohol will only convey an image of unseriousness, and thus mean that the concrete arguments which might or might not be valid will drown and not be taken seriously - ever.

[dj_venom]

*salutes Xan*

Exactly my thoughts... just in a much more expanded version.

I just especially agree with the last bit, about how people say you cannot control it, because I am so sick of hearing that argument, which doesn't have any substance.

[Magrus]

How is it a disease?? It's like calling an obesity a disease (I know it is called a disease, but wtf??)
A disease is not caused by cravings.

Well, look here for alcoholism facts then.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/homework/a/blwhatis1.htm

Wikipedia ftw!! Plus, I know of people who have ended up in Graylands (a mental institute in Perth) after long periods of them abusing marijuana. Plus, doctors advice and research.
Plus I didn't say that marijuana is definately a lot worse than cigerattes. I am not in favour of one more than the other. If I had my way, cigerattes would be illegal too.

I know of people who have ended up in mental institutions for lots of reasons. Key words there "abusing marijuana". Abusing anything is bad for you. If you drink too much water it will make you sick. If you consume too much vitamin C you will get sick. That's a ridiculous argument.

As far as your link there, did you read it? I don't think you did. The section it pointed me when I clicked your link says essentially this:

"Although use may become habitual, the extent of physical dependence to cannabis is unknown (DEA, 2004). Many animal and human studies conducted since the 1970s have revealed cannabis withdrawal symptoms in some people after abstinence from heavy use which is usually characterized by a period of anxiousness, sleeplessness, more vivid and memorable dreams, (REM rebound), irritability, and diminished appetite after cessation of use. Because cannabis is a psychedelic drug, unlike typical depressant or stimulant drugs, these persistent effects are typically not as severe as those normally associated with physical dependence.

THC molecules break down quickly after ingestion, although some components can be detected for a period of up to a month after use, and up to 6 weeks or more in heavy users. Although these components are not proven to have any ongoing physical or mental effects in themselves— THC undergoes exponential decay, working its way out of the body slowly over many days, thus reducing the potential to cause withdrawal symptoms. [4]"

Below that, the correlation between marijuana use and mental illness was only hypothesis based.

"On the other hand, many people with pronounced psychological disorders, especially schizophrenia and depression, often self-medicate their illness with cannabis in place of potent main-stream drugs like antipsychotics, due to cannabis's relatively low side effects and calming physiological effects that alleviate symptoms."

If you'd like me to dig for the side effects of anti-psychotics and the as-of-now being researched side effects for marijuana, I'll do so when I have time. I assure you, marijuana is much better for you than the majority of anti-psychotics on the market. Which, in case you didn't know, are forced on mental patients by doctors, and cause serious, permanent, sometimes crippling side effects.

As for it being addictive, I said that for a *few* people, heavy doses after long periods of time can result in some addiction. Again, wikipedia ftw.

I didn't say all people, but people *do* move onto more serious stuff from and because of weed, hence why weed is bad.

If they try it by being 'forced' to by friends or family, then what's the problem? You're not going to suffer its long term effects from two uses, and it's not addictive, so after being 'forced' to try it a couple of times, you'r not going to be dependent on it.

*nods* People can become addicted to anything. You know what? I know tons of people who start off on other drugs and never touch marijuana. How about that? There's people who do coke, pcp, meth, heroin and crack, all without the influence of anything else BUT that. Let's not stop there though, I went to school with a number of kids who played football and abused steroids. So, following your logic, football causes illegal drug addiction.

@ Zelgadis, I don't have the time to read through the two links you provided thoroughly, and frankly, some of it is above my head as I lack medical training. I'll dig through it later though. However, any studies used with animals to see how things effect humans is just...seems stupid to me. If individual members of a species may react differently to chemical consumption, how is it people still test chemicals on animals and apply it to humans? Not to mention the:
"Mice were sacrificed 5 min later and implantation sites were identified as discrete areas of more intense blue (15, 16)."

Well, yay, scientists are sacrificing little critters now.

I'd be curious to see medical studies for the effects of alcohol on mice and people as well. I may dig for that as well.

@ Xan, thanks for not closing this. As far as my argument based on cigarettes, you're right, my government is trying to shut down cigarette use through a variety of ways. However, I'll switch to alcohol. Studies have proved moderate usage can be good for your heart.

I'll quote the first article Zelgadis provided...it's a bit out of form from coyping unfortunately.

"Although marijuana is legalized in some states of the United States for
therapeutic usage, its clinical use is controversial. One established
therapeutic application of D-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the
major psychoactive component of marijuana, is the treatment of
nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy (Jaffe, 1990).
Other uses of marijuana include appetite stimulation in cancer
patients and abatement of pain (Abood and Martin, 1992; Voth
and Schwartz, 1997). The effects of the drug in humans include
hallucination, compromised cognition, memory loss, and immunosuppression
(Abel, 1970; Reisine and Brownstein, 1994).
Human marijuana research is limited, and the retrospective
nature of these studies compromise their interpretation. Nevertheless,
marijuana usage disrupts short-term memory, working
memory, and attentional skills (Fletcher et al., 1996), and induces
deficits in mathematical skills, verbal expression, and memory
retrieval (Block and Ghoneim, 1993). Long-lasting cannabisdependent
short-term memory deficits (Schwartz et al., 1989) and
residual neuropsychological effects (Pope and Yurgelun-Todd,
1996) persist even after abstinence."

It has proven positive and negative effects on humans, I'll disregard the studies on other species as IMHO irrevelent when we have data on our own species. Given that there are positive and negative effects, I do believe it should be made available at least in a medical sense for those who may have a true use for it's beneficial properties. If the government can pass usage of those horrid psychotropic drugs I was force fed, and allow doctors to push them on me without informing me of the side effects, I see no reason why marijuana shouldn't be allowed to be offered as an alternative if the doctor informs the patient of the risks.

[Lestat]

The case for legalisation is difficult, but the case against is worse

SHOULD the ultimate goal be to put drugs on a par with tobacco and alcohol? That would mean legalising both possession and trade (one makes no sense without the other), setting restrictions on access that reflect a drug's relative danger, and insisting on quality controls. Many people understandably recoil at such a prospect. There is little doubt that legalising drugs would increase the number of people who took them, whatever restrictions were applied; and it would raise difficult issues about who should distribute them, and how.

The number of drug users would rise for three reasons. First, the price of legalised drugs would almost certainly be lower—probably much lower—than the present price of illegal ones. This is because prohibition raises the price by far more than any conceivable government impost might do. If cocaine, say, were legal, estimates Mark Kleiman, a drug-policy expert at the University of California in Los Angeles, the price would be about a 20th of its current street level. As for legal cannabis, he thinks, it would cost about as much as tea. Surely no government would impose a tax large enough to replace that imposed by enforcement. Indeed, if it did, legalisation might backfire: smuggling and so crime would continue.

Second, access to legalised drugs would be easier and quality assured. Even if the stuff were sold in the sort of disapproving way that the Norwegians sell alcohol, more people would know how to buy it and would be less scared to experiment. And third, the social stigma against the use of drugs—which the law today helps to reinforce—would diminish. Many more people might try drugs if they did not fear imprisonment or scandal.

A fourth force might be that of commercialisation. “Imagine Philip Morris and the Miller Brewery with marijuana to play with,” says Mr Kleiman. In no time at all, the market would be backed by political contributions, just as those for tobacco and alcohol have been for so long. And, judging by the way state lotteries offer games designed to create compulsive gambling, state distribution might well act as a positive encouragement to consumption.

So more people would dabble in drugs, including many more young people. “Anything available to adults will be available to children,” says Mr Kleiman. In America, where—to the astonishment of Europeans—nobody under 21 is allowed to buy drink, plenty of youngsters have fake identity cards. Some 87% of American high-school seniors have sampled alcohol, but only 45% have tried cannabis. So the potential market is large. Drugs might become as widely used as alcohol—and alcohol abuse might also rise. Work by Rosalie Pacula of RAND, a think-tank in California, shows that young people tend to see the two as complements, not substitutes.

Legalisation, argue Mr Reuter and his co-author, Robert MacCoun, would result in “a clear redistribution of harms”. Poor people would on balance be better off, even if many more of them used drugs, if they were no longer repeatedly imprisoned for doing so. But there would be a greater risk “that nice middle-class people will have a drug problem in their family”.

True, it is difficult to prove from past episodes of drug liberalisation that such consequences would indeed occur. Crucially, it is hard to measure the responsiveness of drug demand to changes in price. But the evidence for cocaine and heroin suggests that demand may be at least as responsive as that for cigarettes. The same may be true for other drugs.

In fact, nobody knows quite what drives the demand for drugs. Fashions come and go. Some societies seem to resist drugs even though they are widely available (the Dutch have moderate rates of marijuana use by European standards); in others, such as Britain's, use is high despite tough laws. As with other social trends—crime, unmarried motherhood, religious observance—countries seem to be heading in roughly the same direction, but with varying degrees of enthusiasm.

The best answer is to move slowly but firmly to dismantle the edifice of enforcement. Start with the possession and sale of cannabis and amphetamines, and experiment with different strategies. Some countries might want the state to handle distribution, as it does with alcohol in Scandinavia. Others might want the task left to the private sector, with tough bans on advertising, and with full legal liability for any consequent health risks. If countries act together, it should be possible to minimise drug tourism and smuggling.

Move on to hard drugs, sold through licensed outlets. These might be pharmacies or, suggests Ethan Nadelmann, director of the Lindesmith Centre, mail-order distributors. That, after all, is how a growing number of people in America acquire prescription drugs, including some that are not licensed for use in their country. Individual states could decide whether to continue to prohibit public sale. Removing the ban on possession would make it easier to regulate drug quality, to treat the health effects of overuse, and to punish drug-users only if they commit crimes against people or property.

The result would indeed be more users and more addicts, though how many is unknowable. But governments allow their citizens the freedom to do many potentially self-destructive things: to go bungee-jumping, to ride motorcycles, to own guns, to drink alcohol and to smoke cigarettes. Some of these are far more dangerous than drug-taking. John Stuart Mill was right. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. Trade in drugs may be immoral or irresponsible, but it should no longer be illegal.

(my bold)

The above quote is the conclusion of a survey by the Economist arguing the case for legalising drugs (in July 2001). Alas the full survey of a dozen pages is only available to subscribers.

So for me it is a question of principle: possession & use of drugs are about the only case where someone is considered a criminal by doing harm (physical, mental or economical) to himself rather than to others or society.

Consider:
Do we criminalise (attempted) suicide? no
Do we criminalise eating solely fatty food? no
Do we criminalise barebacking? no

We limit smoking in public spaces because it's unhealthy to others.
We criminalise driving under influence because it's dangerous to others.

Does that mean I want to encourage or condone the use of mind altering substances as marijuana, heroin & cocaine. No. But neither would I encourage other unhealthy lifestyles or suicide.

Making certain recreative drugs illegal is pushing something into the sphere of criminal law that is essentially a public health problem. Substance abuse should be treated, not punished.

EDIT: Bonus: the full quote of John Stuart Mill elsewhere in that survey:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

[Lasher]

Is there any reason NOT to legalize it? Like lestat said, Being unhealthy for you should not qualify as a reason, given the above examples.

[Fenix]

Well, look here for alcoholism facts then.
http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/homework/a/blwhatis1.htm

I'm confused by the article.

Alcoholism has little to do with what kind of alcohol one drinks, how long one has been drinking, or even exactly how much alcohol one consumes. But it has a great deal to do with a person's uncontrollable need for alcohol.

Does it actually say what causes alcoholism?
-Will post on it once someone clarifies it for me.

I know of people who have ended up in mental institutions for lots of reasons. Key words there "abusing marijuana". Abusing anything is bad for you. If you drink too much water it will make you sick. If you consume too much vitamin C you will get sick. That's a ridiculous argument.

You can end up in a mental institute from water abuse? I can't think of anything legal that if you abuse, you will end up in a mental institute. (If you can, please post it and I'll post my thoughts on it)

As far as your link there, did you read it? I don't think you did. The section it pointed me when I clicked your link says essentially this:

"Although use may become habitual, the extent of physical dependence to cannabis is unknown (DEA, 2004). Many animal and human studies conducted since the 1970s have revealed cannabis withdrawal symptoms in some people after abstinence from heavy use which is usually characterized by a period of anxiousness, sleeplessness, more vivid and memorable dreams, (REM rebound), irritability, and diminished appetite after cessation of use. Because cannabis is a psychedelic drug, unlike typical depressant or stimulant drugs, these persistent effects are typically not as severe as those normally associated with physical dependence.

THC molecules break down quickly after ingestion, although some components can be detected for a period of up to a month after use, and up to 6 weeks or more in heavy users. Although these components are not proven to have any ongoing physical or mental effects in themselves— THC undergoes exponential decay, working its way out of the body slowly over many days, thus reducing the potential to cause withdrawal symptoms. [4]"

Yes, this is saying that there is apparently some addiction/dependence after heavy usage isn't it? (and it was supposed to go to the Long Term effects below it sorry. )

Below that, the correlation between marijuana use and mental illness was only hypothesis based.

"On the other hand, many people with pronounced psychological disorders, especially schizophrenia and depression, often self-medicate their illness with cannabis in place of potent main-stream drugs like antipsychotics, due to cannabis's relatively low side effects and calming physiological effects that alleviate symptoms."

Hmm, so the people suffering from mental illness self-diagnose themselves treatments? (I find that's a bit odd... ) It seems (from that part) that weed may provide *short term* relief from mental illness, however, the few sentences right infront of that suggest, from the growing amount of evidence, of the harmful *long term* effects of marijuana.

If you'd like me to dig for the side effects of anti-psychotics and the as-of-now being researched side effects for marijuana, I'll do so when I have time. I assure you, marijuana is much better for you than the majority of anti-psychotics on the market. Which, in case you didn't know, are forced on mental patients by doctors, and cause serious, permanent, sometimes crippling side effects.

Ok, (something tells me that if you do, I'm going to have to read a lot ) but only if you do have the time and it's not too much trouble. Thanks.

*nods* People can become addicted to anything. You know what? I know tons of people who start off on other drugs and never touch marijuana. How about that? There's people who do coke, pcp, meth, heroin and crack, all without the influence of anything else BUT that. Let's not stop there though, I went to school with a number of kids who played football and abused steroids. So, following your logic, football causes illegal drug addiction.

For the records, I'm not saying that the 'addiction' to weed is one of the major factors it should be illegal (I'm sorry if I read this part wrong, but that's what it looks like to me).

As for your acquaintances. I never said that everyone does use weed for other drugs, but people do use weed to enhance the effects of other drugs and, like I said before, it is a stepping stone fro some. Anyway, should marijuana become legal, would you agree that *more* people would use it? Furthermore, would you agree that if more people started using it, more people would use it as a platform for other drugs?

As for your roiding friends...hmmmm....ok, weed is a drug. Football isn't (It's a sport ). People use marijuana, knowing that it is a drug. And unfortunately there are some people who don't know/ignore the fact that weed is generally non-addictive, and so they think they'll be fine for other drugs (at least that's what a few people are like). And hence, they start using crack, smack, LSD thinking they'll be fine. :/
People don't play football and then think "Oh wow! I'm not addicted to football, and drugs must be exactly the same!1! Ima start taking teh roiderz!" Ok that was stupid. , but seriously, people don't go onto steroids from playing football for the same reasons as people move on from weed to other more serious drugs. :/

[Athena]

I think it is an individual personality that leans toward using hard drugs. Reefer should not be blamed. (as I posted before; marij is a soft drug and should not be criticized as it is.) You can't take away pot and say there is less risk of use of hard drugs.

In fact it is the other way around. If people didn't get criminalized and piss tested for using a pettie erb, then maybe they wouldn't use hard drugs like coke, which is out of your system in three days, or LSD, which requires a spinal tap to test for, alcohol, 24 hours. Pot? Some info on the half life of THC:

Marijuana is the drug that is more likely to stay in your system for days, weeks, or even an entire month after the last time that you smoke. Therefore, even though marijuana is one of the least harmful drugs out there, it is also the most likely drug to cause you to fail a drug test.

When you ask the question “How long does marijuana stay in your system?” you need to take into account the fact that there is no simple answer to this question. Quite simply, it’s argued both that THC never leaves your brain, as well as that there are several different factors which can affect whether or not you test positive for marijuana use.

The speed at which marijuana leaves your body depends both on the speed of your metabolism, as well as on the half life of THC. Unlike most other substances, the half-life of THC can vary quite a bit, depending on who is using it, when it’s used, and several other factors. For example, it’s estimated that THC can have a half life that ranges anywhere from 1-10 days. It’s almost impossible to find out what that half life is, which means that it is very difficult to use it to calculate how long it will take for all of the THC to leave your body.

Not only that, but your metabolism and how much marijuana you smoked will also have an effect on the length of time that it will take you before you can test without testing positive for marijuana use. After all, the half-life is only the length of time that it takes for you to lose half of the THC that is in your system. If you’ve smoked a lot of marijuana, then it will take you longer before the THC in your body drops back below the amount that is detectable by most drug tests.

For this reason, when you ask “How long does marijuana stay in your system?” you have to realize that it’s very unlikely that you’ll be able to get a usable answer. The most common period of time is anywhere from 3-30 days, depending on your metabolism and the amount of marijuana that you’ve smoked. This is unfortunate, since it means that while most drug tests can only turn up evidence of other drugs if you’ve been taking the drug within a few days of the drug test, marijuana could still be detected in a urine test up to a month after the last time it is used.

Hair tests are even worse, since your body stores THC in the hair follicles. For this reason, the previous answers to “How long does marijuana stay in your system?” are only useful if you’re going to be forced to take a urine test. For the hair test, depending on the amount of hair that the company takes, it’s possible that marijuana could be detected up to three years after the last time that you smoke.

<snip>Editted out - Xandax</snip>


It's a vicious cycle in a downward spiral for the gvt to continue to persecute non violent criminals, or they're so-called.

What I was trying to make a point of is that weed should not be the scapegoat for drug problems. Stupid people have just abused it so much and marij has gotten such a bad rep because of that.

[Xandax]

Be carefull not posting advice on how to circumvent testing or promote the usage of this drug. It is still illegal and as such is covered by the forum rules.

__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

[Magrus]

@ Fenix, I've argued enough closed minded, biased people to say, there's no point in trying to debate with you. Have fun with your ideas, I'm out of this one.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Lestat]<snip>
Consider:
Do we criminalise (attempted) suicide? no
Do we criminalise eating solely fatty food? no
Do we criminalise barebacking? no

We limit smoking in public spaces because it's unhealthy to others.
We criminalise driving under influence because it's dangerous to others.
<snip>[/QUOTE]

Well - multiple attempted suicides in this country usually means the person will get some psycology help. So they'd not criminalized, but they are under help.

Fatty food? No, but they don't break the law either by eating fat food. However, in this country there is debate on added taxtion on (very) unhealthy foods, because it is becomming a national health issue, as I expect it is in a number of "developed" worlds.

I have no idea what you mean with barebacking, the only thing I can find in my dictonary is riding without a saddle. Where this comes into the debate I don't know.

We limit smoking because it is unhealthy to "you" as well to others. But the first concern is to others. As I said in my former post, the restriction is adding up, and doing so fast. Wait 10-20 years seeing where the legislation is taking tobacco, before using that as a "this is legal, so this should be legal" arguments.

We also criminalize DUI because it is dangerous to you - but more importantly. It is against the law.


Mariuhanna usage is currently agaisnt the law in many countries, and users are willingly breaking the law. Using that as an argument for legalization is a slim to non-exsiting logical argument in my view, but an emotional one.
People breaking the law and perhaps suffering for it, should never be the reason for any law to be revoked. Never.
The only thing that will ever sway the general population is concrete reliable information.


[QUOTE=Lasher]Is there any reason NOT to legalize it? Like lestat said, Being unhealthy for you should not qualify as a reason, given the above examples.[/QUOTE]

As I said ealier it is a matter of perspective.
Medical studies are given/performed, which covers illeffects of marihuanna and concludes it is harmfull as well as some which counter them. Which to belive is a matter of perspective.
Personally, I think the jury is still out, and until something conclusive is actually formable other then "this says this and smoking is also bad so ...." then I'll say I see no reason or even argument whatsoever for it should be legal, other then possible medical usage.
As I said - just because something else is bad for you and legal, doesn't mean all things bad for you should also be legal. It is not an argument, it is simply schoolboy fighting "he did it first..."
Afterall - at one point smoking tobacco was even thought to be healthy, and granted we know much more today but when contradicting studies/conclusions are shown, I'll reserve judgement and until then follow the laws of a democratic society.

[Lasher]

It just doesn't seem to me to be a good reason is all...

[TonyMontana1638]

I just had a quick comment for Xandax's post towards the top of the page: though some progress is being made in keeping cigarettes out of public places I highly doubt it will ever be deemed illegal. Firstly, the tobacco companies (as a collective whole) have more money than God and will use all of that money on the best lawyers and to bribe the right officials. I don't personally believe too much more leeway will be made in stopping smoking, unless the Supreme Court wakes up tomorrow and decides to take Judicial Activism to a whole 'nother level that America has yet to see (and judging by who's serving at the moment I don't see it as likely any time soon).

Also one has to take in the ecnomic impact making cigs illegal would make: it would be an absolute disaster! Because of their ungodly funds, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost and we'd be entering into a crisis of epic proportions! What the hell would it do to the stock-market? Retirement funds? I still don't think it's likely this'll happen soon but I almost hope it won't based on the effects it would have on modern society.

[Lasher]

No, I dont think tobacco will ever be illegal, but i'm almost positive that they will come up with a non-carcinogenic *** soon.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=TonyMontana1638]I just had a quick comment for Xandax's post towards the top of the page: though some progress is being made in keeping cigarettes out of public places I highly doubt it will ever be deemed illegal. Firstly, the tobacco companies (as a collective whole) have more money than God and will use all of that money on the best lawyers and to bribe the right officials. I don't personally believe too much more leeway will be made in stopping smoking, unless the Supreme Court wakes up tomorrow and decides to take Judicial Activism to a whole 'nother level that America has yet to see (and judging by who's serving at the moment I don't see it as likely any time soon).

Also one has to take in the ecnomic impact making cigs illegal would make: it would be an absolute disaster! Because of their ungodly funds, hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost and we'd be entering into a crisis of epic proportions! What the hell would it do to the stock-market? Retirement funds? I still don't think it's likely this'll happen soon but I almost hope it won't based on the effects it would have on modern society.[/QUOTE]

It might seem "farfetched" at the moment, but given the current development with tobacco restriction, then wait 5-10 years and we'll see where it has been taken. And while increased restrictions are being placed on tobacco - I still see it as bad argument to use "but this is legal, so this should be legal..."

Also the world is bigger then America, and other countries could easily pass legislations which couldn't pass in America. Just look at Hollands legalization of marihuanna. It is not unthinkable that we in this country wind up prohibiting tobacco long before it happens in the states. In this country the tobacco lobby doesn't have as much power as it does in America (yet ).

[Aramant]

I didn't read through the entire thread, so I might be repeating what others have said. If so... tough.

Marijuana is illegal. It seems to me that the majority of people pushing for its legality are the people who use it recreationally. Marijuana for recreational use should not be legalized. Besides the fact that such a motion could spur arguments for the legalization of any other drug, the legalization of marijuana for public use has no benefit whatsoever. It's just another means by which one can alter his consciousness.

From what I've heard and read, the only real scientific benefit of marijauna is for glaumcoma patients, and patients in fatal critical condition, for whom marijuana use alleviates or distracts from the pain of their diseases. As such, if marijuana were to be legalized, it would only be through prescription. Therefore, all of these pro-pot people, who only want it legalized so they can get high without fear of the law, will still need to get authorization to use it. Thus "the man" is still in the way.

I'm not a fan of hippies at all, nor of neo-hippies, and any attempt to justify the use of marijuana, or any illicit substance, just raises my ire. Illegal is illegal. Stop whining. Just because a lot of people agree with you doesn't mean you're right (cue tangentical mass political argument here).

[Lestat]

Well - multiple attempted suicides in this country usually means the person will get some psycology help. So they'd not criminalized, but they are under help.

Wouldn't it be nice if the same approach would be taken with drugs? But now, because of their illegality, there is a threshold for those wanting help. As I said: substance abuse should be treated, not punished.

Fatty food? No, but they don't break the law either by eating fat food. However, in this country there is debate on added taxtion on (very) unhealthy foods, because it is becomming a national health issue, as I expect it is in a number of "developed" worlds.

That is regulation, I said nowhere that there shouldn't be any regulation (the state can do this IMO in the view that there are extra costs for the health care system & social insurance and such). Do you get put in prison after a suicide attempt? Do you have to appear before a judge. Do you get a criminal record.

I have no idea what you mean with barebacking, the only thing I can find in my dictonary is riding without a saddle. Where this comes into the debate I don't know.

Sorry for not explaining this slang term. Barebacking is the practice of willingly having sex with a partner who is HIV infected. Since the advent of fairly effective anti-HIV/AIDS it's a practice amongst a very small fringe of the male gay community, looking for risk kicks.

We limit smoking because it is unhealthy to "you" as well to others. But the first concern is to others. As I said in my former post, the restriction is adding up, and doing so fast. Wait 10-20 years seeing where the legislation is taking tobacco, before using that as a "this is legal, so this should be legal" arguments.

Smoking is only limited or forbidden in places where it could potentially have an effect on others. A smoker can still smoke as much as he want. You will not get arrested for having a cigarette on you.

We also criminalize DUI because it is dangerous to you - but more importantly. It is against the law.

Against the law = criminal. This is no reasoning. "We criminalize because it's against the law" it's like saying "We stuff food in our mouth because we eat". And you could possibly add that public drunkenness is also punished, but this can be considered to avoid problems for others. But anyone can drink as much as he wants if he avoids to go out afterwards. You will not get arrested for the possession of a bottle of beer.

Neither do you get arrested for possessing such potentially harmful or addictive substances as fatty food, tranquilisers or sleeping pills.

Mariuhanna usage is currently agaisnt the law in many countries, and users are willingly breaking the law. Using that as an argument for legalization is a slim to non-exsiting logical argument in my view, but an emotional one.
People breaking the law and perhaps suffering for it, should never be the reason for any law to be revoked. Never.
The only thing that will ever sway the general population is concrete reliable information.

I'm not saying the law should be repealed because people are suffering
Your argument comes down to it's illegal so it shouldn't be legalised. I'm asking why should it be illegal in the first place. I apply a broad principle: only behaviour that is potentially harmful to others should be criminalised and against the law. And I find that the only exception that exists is illegal drugs (and seat belt wearing & helmet wearing, agreed). There is no consistent logical reason why a small number of substances should be targeted this way and make criminals out of people who do no harm to others.

As I said ealier it is a matter of perspective.
Medical studies are given/performed, which covers illeffects of marihuanna and concludes it is harmfull as well as some which counter them. Which to belive is a matter of perspective.
Personally, I think the jury is still out, and until something conclusive is actually formable other then "this says this and smoking is also bad so ...." then I'll say I see no reason or even argument whatsoever for it should be legal, other then possible medical usage.
As I said - just because something else is bad for you and legal, doesn't mean all things bad for you should also be legal. It is not an argument, it is simply schoolboy fighting "he did it first..."
Afterall - at one point smoking tobacco was even thought to be healthy, and granted we know much more today but when contradicting studies/conclusions are shown, I'll reserve judgement and until then follow the laws of a democratic society.

You make it seem that tobacco & alcohol are exception, but it is illegality of drugs as marijuana cocaine & heroin that is the aberration in our current legal systems. A host of potentially harmful activities & substances are legal except for these few substances.

And of course in the mean time I follow the law. That doesn't mean I can't advocate a change of the law.

[Fenix]

[QUOTE=Magrus]@ Fenix, I've argued enough closed minded, biased people to say, there's no point in trying to debate with you. Have fun with your ideas, I'm out of this one.[/QUOTE]

Uh huh.
I'm sorry I came off as that, I can be stubborn many times, however I do not feel I was particularly closed-minded. Biased? Quite probable (infact very probable), most of my experiences with marijuana have annoyed me quite a bit, however I have been hard pressed to ever find a neutral, informed commentator on any subject in my experiences..I do enjoy debating/arguing, as - *most* of the time - I learn a lot...

However, please do not feel that my "closed minded, biased" argument should restrict you from debating with the other posters (particularly Xandax, who raises many good points)...

I promise I won't enter the arguement either, or post any more...partial points, I would just observe...

[Xandax]

Wouldn't it be nice if the same approach would be taken with drugs? But now, because of their illegality, there is a threshold for those wanting help. As I said: substance abuse should be treated, not punished.
<snip>

Addicts can get treatment in this country. So the same approch is taken.

That is regulation, I said nowhere that there shouldn't be any regulation (the state can do this IMO in the view that there are extra costs for the health care system & social insurance and such). Do you get put in prison after a suicide attempt? Do you have to appear before a judge. Do you get a criminal record.

It is only regulation now. It isn't unthinkable at all that increased restrictions will be placed on what can be placed in food much like is actually the case with a long line of substances. There are many substances producers would like to put into foodstuff, which are illegal. They aren't bad for others, only the people who eat the foods.

Sorry for not explaining this slang term. Barebacking is the practice of willingly having sex with a partner who is HIV infected. Since the advent of fairly effective anti-HIV/AIDS it's a practice amongst a very small fringe of the male gay community, looking for risk kicks.

That is punishable in Denmark.

Smoking is only limited or forbidden in places where it could potentially have an effect on others. A smoker can still smoke as much as he want. You will not get arrested for having a cigarette on you.

Yes for now. However, using smoking as a foundation for argumenting the legalization of marihuanna when smoking is becomming more and more restricted is still a bad argument in my view. Especially because we don't know where this restriction is going. Years ago - smoking was thought to be good for you, and now it is very restricted in the public realm. It is a very evident trend.

Against the law = criminal. This is no reasoning. "We criminalize because it's against the law" it's like saying "We stuff food in our mouth because we eat". And you could possibly add that public drunkenness is also punished, but this can be considered to avoid problems for others. But anyone can drink as much as he wants if he avoids to go out afterwards. You will not get arrested for the possession of a bottle of beer.

Neither do you get arrested for possessing such potentially harmful or addictive substances as fatty food, tranquilisers or sleeping pills.

Because they currently aren't illegal. Using the fact that people break the law, and we can't control it, as an argument that it should be legal doesn't work. It is all but impossible to control anybody breaking any law, that doens't mean we should live in a lawless society.
The fact that you don't get arrested with a bottle of beer, is infact because it isn't illegal to drink, or to posses sleeping pills or fatty foods. It is however illegal to posses marihunna (in many places), so you can get arrested/fined for doing so.

I'm not saying the law should be repealed because people are suffering
Your argument comes down to it's illegal so it shouldn't be legalised.
<snip>

No - my argumentation comes down to that it shouldn't be legalized simply because people use the substance. Once again the breaking of (any) law doesn't mean the law should be changed. It can't be used as an argument for it should be changed.

I'm asking why should it be illegal in the first place. I apply a broad principle: only behaviour that is potentially harmful to others should be criminalised and against the law. And I find that the only exception that exists is illegal drugs (and seat belt wearing & helmet wearing, agreed). There is no consistent logical reason why a small number of substances should be targeted this way and make criminals out of people who do no harm to others.

You make it seem that tobacco & alcohol are exception, but it is illegality of drugs as marijuana cocaine & heroin that is the aberration in our current legal systems. A host of potentially harmful activities & substances are legal except for these few substances.

Why it is illegal - I'll leave that to the policymakers for now, because I have no real opinion to or against for the legalization. Personally - I can see the legalization for medical use, but can't understand the usage for personal much as I don't understand why people smoke or anything like that (although fatty foods does taste better then lettuce )
However - an incredible vast number of substances are infact illegal to use because they are harmfull to you. This is very clear in the medical, cosmetic and food industries, where these substances once where used. Many additives are under investigation.
So no - it isn't only drugs which are illegal while "only" dangerous to yourself, it only appears that way because you focus on alcohol and tobacco.

And of course in the mean time I follow the law. That doesn't mean I can't advocate a change of the law.

Of course you can advocate the change. But my point throughout this thread has also constantly been that to do so, you should present arguments which can hold water - for instance the medical studies which show the beneficial effects.
Not point towards people breaking the law as an argument, because no law should ever be changed solely because people break it. So that argument is void in my book.
Nor the fact that alcohol and tobacco is legal, when a multitude of other substances are infact illegal while "only" dangerous to yourself.

I have no problem with wanting to change the law, afterall - that is what democracy is about.
I do have a problem with the arguments which stems from "he did it first", or "we can't control it" arguments, which are also used in this thread.