Legalize Marijuana

[Alpine Trooper]

You know, as I smoke this fine bud of cannabis as I do everyday of my life, I wonder if you people actually even exist and if the police are secretly watching me but it all seems pretty rad.

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

Smoke in moderation! Smoke in Moderation!

I am Dr. Mindbender and I approve this message.

 

[Eukaryote]

The US government would save billions from its drug war, incarceration rates would drop significantly, and it can be taxed, bringing in a large revenue stream to the government. At worst it is as deadly as cigarette's(which is factually inaccurate). At best, it is less dangerous then the "legal" drugs.

Well said. It would provide less economy for gangs and organized crime as well.

 

[El_Machinae]

I don't even care about it being taxed. I'm sick of being taxed in order to fight it.

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

El Mac. I have never seen you admit that you ever smoked marijuana or brag about smoking reefer. Ever done it?

 

[illram]

Well if you're in CA you'll have a chance to vote for decriminalization on November 4th, put your money where your mouth is people!

 

[BasketCase]

And the idea that every single person in that thread deviates from the accepted norm of marijuana advocates is ridiculous.

Probably. But the fact remains that liberals in general (OUTSIDE of this web site) are usually in favor of legalizing weed and usually in favor of gun control.

Lack of sleep impairs reaction time. That has been medically shown. Should we ban getting less than the full eight hours? Ridiculous strawman BC.

Christ--you have absolutely no idea what a "straw man" is. Well, lemme tell you what it is. It's when you distort your opponent's position away from what they actually said. It's when you say you want to ban nuclear weapons, and then President Bush stands up and goes "see, Sharwood wants to emasculate America's defenses". Bush is claiming you said something that you did not. You do not want to destroy America's defenses, you want to eliminate nukes.

When I pointed out that weed impairs your reaction time, I never quoted anybody. Making the straw man impossible. Now get your act together.

Oh, and here's the answer: no, we shouldn't arrest people for getting less than a full eight hours' sleep because there's no way to do it. For some people, eight hours isn't enough; other people get along fine on four hours. If you get pulled over and you're all groggy and not with it, there's no way the arresting officer can know if insufficient sleep is the cause--what, are they gonna test your blood or something? Make you exhale into a snoozalyzer??? There's just no way to do it.

I'm also pro-weed legalization and pro-gun. I don't smoke it, but to me being conservative means not wasting money on futile government plans and projects. Banning weed is and never will be successful and I don't want to waste my money on it.

What do you consider "successful"? Total elimination of weed? That will obviously never happen. However you should consider that current levels of marijuana use are already a result of the Drug War, a fact that often gets neglected.

Some estimates put the cost of the Drug War at around $50 billion a year (for ALL illegal drugs). Imagine spending that much additional on, say, the Tobacco War. Ban tobacco, and spend $50 billion a year to cut tobacco usage to, hypothetically, half of current levels. That would be astoundingly successful, because it would save society a hell of a lot more than $50 billion a year. Which you could spend to combat global warming or something.....


Weed advocates are always calling the Drug War a failure because it fails to TOTALLY eliminate the use of weed. That's bogus. Our laws don't totally eliminate theft or rape or murder, either.

Thats because you weren't high... Yer supposed to be buzzed or trippin for something like that.

Yeah, only someone on a buzz could tolerate Pink Floyd's pansy-ass sissy music. I enjoy Social D and Offspring (pre-sellout) when I'm cold sober.

How do you ever try anything new if thats yer attitude?

I do it sober, that's how.

I like football, baseball, and golf.

And my list includes volleyball, scuba diving and rock climbing. I indulge heartily in a few sports that can kill you.

You know, pot can be used for people who need attitude adjustments

BAD idea, Zerk. You see, one of the reasons I avoid mood-altering drugs is BECAUSE I've used a couple before. I know what they do to me--when I get buzzed or high, I don't get better. I get worse. A lot worse.

What if yer having a heart attack (or indigestion) and you run me over?

Sounds like cause for celebration. (BURRRRRN)

That's the reason I never became a stand-up comedian. Too hazardous. Anyway, I looked up the most common causes of car accidents on several web sites; heart attacks were never even mentioned. The web sites might have included them under "distractions", but if heart attacks were a significant cause of car accidents, they would probably have been separated into their own category. So, no dice.

Besides--the way I drive, it simply will never happen. I put less than six thousand miles on my car each year. You're more likely to die of radiation poisoning from sitting in front of that computer screen and reading this incredibly long post than to get run over by me.

But those costs dont go down under prohibition, they go up because you aren't stopping enough people from doing the drugs to make up for the cost of trying to stop everyone from enjoying their freedom.

I already told you the rules: you go right along and enjoy your freedoms--provided you do not interfere with mine.

Thats a strange comment given how you just ignored my point about homicide (and crime) rates going up during drug wars. You haven't explained how that makes my family safer.

Yes I did. Your risk of getting killed in a drug-related crime does, in fact, go up--but your risk of getting killed by something else (stoned drivers, in this case) goes down a lot more.

Unless its Murphy's Law... Try to ban freedom and the law of unintended consequences enters the picture. Creating massive black markets that generate crime does not make us safer.

I have now explained twice how the Drug War does, in fact, make you safer.

And you're wondering why I seem to ignore half your questions. News flash, Zerk: it's a bad habit I picked up from you.

What are you talking about? I'm not sticking my nose in their business

Then that makes you an exception to conventional politics in yet another way, and again I say more power to you.

Most liberals are both in favor of legalizing weed and in favor of sticking their noses into the business of.....business. They're just fine with dictating morality when it suits their political agenda, because it's their political agenda and not morality that they're fighting for. Me, I did it the right way--I picked a moral code that I felt was right (a balance between freedom and responsibility that preserves the one thing that makes humans special), and applied it fairly to everything.

Can you visualize George Washington (the continent's biggest whiskey producer), Thomas Jefferson (one of the biggest producers of wine) and Ben Franklin (opium user) coming to the American people with a document giving a central govt the authority to ban drugs? I cant...

The Constitution doesn't have any of that.

But it does contain the framework for giving the government the authority to ban drugs if We The People wish to do so.

 

[BasketCase]

I don't even care about it being taxed. I'm sick of being taxed in order to fight it.

If it's legalized you're going to end up getting taxed in order to deal with the resultant social costs.

Right now the entire Drug War costs something like $50 billion a year (that's for ALL illegal drugs). Meanwhile, all by itself, tobacco costs you, The Taxpayer, somewhere between $100 billion and $500 billion a year.

 

[Sui Generis]

If it's legalized you're going to end up getting taxed in order to deal with the resultant social costs.

Right now the entire Drug War costs something like $50 billion a year (that's for ALL illegal drugs). Meanwhile, all by itself, tobacco costs you, The Taxpayer, somewhere between $100 billion and $500 billion a year.

So we should ban Tobbacco? Even then, the health effects are nothing like Tobbacco and alcohol. The benefits outweigh the costs.

 

[Quiet Sound]

No not tobacco. Obesity. I propose a mandatory exercise regimen for each and every citizen enforced via the installations of "telescreens" in each and every home to allow random monitoring by agents of the benevolent state. Let's nip this thing in the bud before it gets out of hand, it's already costing us almost $100 billion every year.

 

[BasketCase]

Errrrrr.....double check that, Sui?? Think ya got a typo in there somewhere.

If you mean the health effects of weed are nothing like tobacco and alcohol, I gotta disagree. Weed is definitely a lot better for you than coke or heroin, but it combines the worst effects of tobacco and alcohol and is not good stuff.

Tobacco I can live with (grudgingly) because it doesn't mess up the brain (much) and because second-hand smoke is something most people can walk away from. A drunk driver, on the other hand? Police spot them sometimes, but usually the only way to know when a drunk driver is around is to get hit by one.

 

[BasketCase]

No not tobacco. Obesity. I propose a mandatory exercise regimen for each and every citizen enforced via the installations of "telescreens" in each and every home

Pointless. There's no way to monitor 300 million telescreens all at once.

The universal surveillance of George Orwell's 1984 is thankfully impossible.

 

[rhawn]

I'm voting Yes on #2 Massachusetts state ballot initiative.

 

[Quiet Sound]

Pointless. There's no way to monitor 300 million telescreens all at once.

The universal surveillance of George Orwell's 1984 is thankfully impossible.

It wasn't universal, it was random with no way to know if they were watching you at that moment or not.

 

[Sui Generis]

Errrrrr.....double check that, Sui?? Think ya got a typo in there somewhere.

If you mean the health effects of weed are nothing like tobacco and alcohol, I gotta disagree. Weed is definitely a lot better for you than coke or heroin, but it combines the worst effects of tobacco and alcohol and is not good stuff.

Tobacco I can live with (grudgingly) because it doesn't mess up the brain (much) and because second-hand smoke is something most people can walk away from. A drunk driver, on the other hand? Police spot them sometimes, but usually the only way to know when a drunk driver is around is to get hit by one.

Why is it worse, prove it? Oh wait, you won't bring up statistics for deaths and illness related to Marijuana. I'm "beyond redemption" as you said.

 

[BasketCase]

It wasn't universal, it was random with no way to know if they were watching you at that moment or not.

Wait a minute--I already told you, obesity doesn't kill anybody besides the fat person. And it's the fat person who usually pays the costs for it.

When you're fat, you pay the price and you don't get away with it. Drugs are different--when you get high and injure somebody else, you usually get away with it because it's a lot harder to catch you. And I don't mean because you're thinner and can run faster, either.

 

[BasketCase]

Why is it worse, prove it? Oh wait, you won't bring up statistics for deaths and illness related to Marijuana. I'm "beyond redemption" as you said.

Are you aware, Sui, that some of those statistics have been hovering before your face the whole time? They're right here in this post--in plain sight.

 

[Sui Generis]

Are you aware, Sui, that some of those statistics have been hovering before your face the whole time? They're right here in this post--in plain sight.

"And it causes cancer" Everything in that post says the effects are unknown. And what negative health effects there are are atributerd to inhalation of smoke. Which leads to the uncomfortable question, should we ban fire?

"Causes Car Accidents" Yes it does, so does drinking Alcohol. Should we ban Alcohol?

Oh yea

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study
Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729_pf.html

http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20000508/marijuana-unlikely-to-cause-cancer

http://www.newscientist.com/channel...-colon-cancer.html?feedId=drugs-alcohol_rss20

And since you are so much to the right, might as well include Fox News

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,318526,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,196678,00.html

 

[Dr.Mindbender]

A lot of things causes car accidents.

One must be aware that research on whatever can be in fact politically motivated. Scientists for hire? Mercenary research? Blah blah

 

[Sui Generis]

A lot of things causes car accidents.

One must be aware that research on whatever can be in fact politically motivated. Scientist for hire? Mercenary research? Blah blah

Like the mysterious fact that all scientists that "disagree" with the fact of global climate change and its cause are to the right.

But thats another thread, lol.