Opinions on Marijuana

[Praetor]

I know that there is already a thread on this but I wanted a poll/also to get the ball rolling on this debate again.

Things to consider...

In the event of legalization, should it be sin taxed? If so, how much?
How old should one be to purchase marijuana?
Should two consumers be able to sell home-grown marijuana to one another without government regulation?
Should people be allowed to grow it at home, instead of purchasing it from a government-regulated source?
How much of the industry should the government be allowed to regulate?
Should other, perhaps "harder" drugs be legalized as well?
Whose decision is it to regulate a personal, albeit perhaps harmful decision like consuming marijuana; the individual's or the state's?
Should laws be passed pertaining to "driving high?" What similarities/differences would they have with drunk driving laws?

[J.C.]

Don't see why it's not treated any differently than alcohol.

[Theseventhson]

Don't see why it's not treated any differently than alcohol.
This.

[Machu505]

Legalize it for those over 18 and apply sin taxes to it.

[saysmydoctor]

Don't understand why they are treated differently than cigarettes, which actually kill people. Legalize and tax the fuck out of it.

[Skadrist]

Legalize it and make it cheap enough to undermine the black market. It would be pointless if people had to pay 100 bucks an ounce for shitty weed.

[saysmydoctor]

I support a dutch model.

[J.C.]

Don't understand why they are treated differently than cigarettes, which actually kill people. Legalize and tax the fuck out of it.

Yup, tobacco's worse. I was comparing it to alcohol in terms of impairment and how it'd be dealt with legislatively.

[Praetor]

Anybody have statistics for what percentage of the product sin taxes take up state to state for alcohol, tobacco, etc.?

[Machu505]

Also, it should be regulated like tobacco will be regulated.

[Praetor]

Also, it should be regulated like tobacco will be regulated.
I'm assuming that you mean giving the FDA oversight?

[saysmydoctor]

Anybody have statistics for what percentage of the product sin taxes take up state to state for alcohol, tobacco, etc.?
I know it's like nearly 33% for tobacco in New York. You could buy a second pack of cigarettes with the taxes you are paying.

I think the FDA should can and sell the shit in the supermarkets, seriously, marijuana is the biggest cash crop after strawberries. They could make a shitton of money growing it and selling it. Then taxing it. Holy fuck.

[Praetor]

I was talking about this issue the other day with a libertarian sub at my school, and he said that he thought a lot of the opposition came from the fact that you can smoke tobacco and drink (small amounts) of alcohol without being too impaired but that isn't the case with marijuana. What do you all think about that?

[Theseventhson]

I was talking about this issue the other day with a libertarian sub at my school, and he said that he thought a lot of the opposition came from the fact that you can smoke tobacco and drink (small amounts) of alcohol without being too impaired but that isn't the case with marijuana. What do you all think about that?
It depends on the person, if I smoke a small amount I'm still completely functional.

[saysmydoctor]

Obviously, no driving and smoking. There needs to be some regulations. Tobacco works the synapses of your brain, destroys the cells in your mouth and tongue, it's highly addictive, and destroys your lungs. But marijuana makes you lazy, really. It's not like people smoke up and are like "Let's work with heavy machinery." Mostly "yo, pass me that snickers, I'm taking a nap."

[Machu505]

I'm assuming that you mean giving the FDA oversight?
Yeah. Venture capitalists would jump all over marijuana in the event it's legalized. That'll likely lead to the addition of cancerous chemical (like in the case of cigarettes) and overpricing, which are two things I don't want.

[thespearkid]

Tax it hard, make it so only people over the age of 21 years old can buy it.

[Machu505]

Tax it hard, make it so only people over the age of 21 years old can buy it.
Nah man, 18.

[Josh Weinstein]

The illegality of it only began because of racism (the association of it with unwanted Mexican immigrants around 80 years ago). Since then, law enforcement have pushed the notion that it is an evil substance that corrupts the youth. I totally support the legalization (and I've never even smoked it).

[Mitch]

Decriminalize.

[Praetor]

Why 21? I mean, you are legally an adult in 18. Why should you have to wait an extra three years? You're either a minor, or you're an adult...there shouldn't be any period of limbo from 18-21.

[Machu505]

Why 21? I mean, you are legally an adult in 18. Why should you have to wait an extra three years? You're either a minor, or you're an adult...there shouldn't be any period of limbo from 18-21.
Which is why the drinking age should be lowered.

[Praetor]

:nod:

[saysmydoctor]

I can take a bullet for the country, but I can't sip a beer or smoke a blunt? Outrageous.

[yves.]

Why 21? I mean, you are legally an adult in 18. Why should you have to wait an extra three years? You're either a minor, or you're an adult...there shouldn't be any period of limbo from 18-21.

this, and legalize (with regulations, of course).

[Machu505]

In response to other questions posed in the OP:

No, drugs like cocaine and heroin shouldn't be legalized.
Driving Under the Influence should be expanded to include "driving high".

I'm not sure about selling home-grown cannabis independently though. Can you do that with tobacco now?

[Praetor]

In response to other questions posed in the OP:

No, drugs like cocaine and heroin shouldn't be legalized.
Driving Under the Influence should be expanded to include "driving high".

I'm not sure about selling home-grown cannabis independently though. Can you do that with tobacco now?
Legally I think so; people don't though because there's like forty other chemicals that go into making cigarettes whereas you can get high off of just marijuana, you know?

[derekmoyer4]

I support a dutch model.
this is how i feel.

[derekmoyer4]

Legally I think so; people don't though because there's like forty other chemicals that go into making cigarettes whereas you can get high off of just marijuana, you know?
that makes sense. thanks.

[Mitch]

I can't support complete legalization only because of how backwards an impression it would give off.

Decriminalization is a much more realistic possibility in the U.S., and I for one hope to see it happen in my life time.

[Machu505]

Legally I think so; people don't though because there's like forty other chemicals that go into making cigarettes whereas you can get high off of just marijuana, you know?
I see. If you can do it with tobacco I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to do it with marijuana.

[Praetor]

that makes sense. thanks.
That's just a logical assumption, I don't know for sure haha. So take it with a grain of salt.

[derekmoyer4]

I can't support complete legalization only because of how backwards an impression it would give off.

Decriminalization is a much more realistic possibility in the U.S., and I for one hope to see it happen in my life time.
i think you are right. it is hard for me to see its legalization, but i could see it being decriminalized. (and rightfully so)

[derekmoyer4]

That's just a logical assumption, I don't know for sure haha. So take it with a grain of salt.
deal. grain of salt taken.

[Susanna]

The government should fund the growth and then place a high tax on it. Hypothetically by doing so there would be an obvious monetary profit (ie. taxes) for the government, more job opportunities, and an iincrease in spending across the nation due to high demand. Essentially, this could prove to be a smart decision to boost the economy.

[ShShShark]

Don't understand why they are treated differently than cigarettes, which actually kill people. Legalize and tax the fuck out of it.

The counter-argument to that is all of the money that would be spent dealing with trade, packaging, regulatory commissions, etc.

But for the record decriminalization would completely satisfy me.

[Praetor]

Why can we not have a debate like this in the mainstream political world? Where does all the taboo about marijuana come from?

[Theseventhson]

Why can we not have a debate like this in the mainstream political world? Where does all the taboo about marijuana come from?
The mid 20th century.

[Machu505]

Why can we not have a debate like this in the mainstream political world? Where does all the taboo about marijuana come from?
Hippies.

[saysmydoctor]

The counter-argument to that is all of the money that would be spent dealing with trade, packaging, regulatory commissions, etc.

But for the record decriminalization would completely satisfy me.
That could be the counter-argument to food consumption or anything....and yet somehow, the companies manage to turn a profit. :shrug:

[saysmydoctor]

Also, I support legalizing: cocaine, heroin, LSD, PCP, etc. Throwing it out there.

[ShShShark]

Why can we not have a debate like this in the mainstream political world? Where does all the taboo about marijuana come from?

From decades of propaganda fueled by the petroleum industry because hemp was a much much more efficient source of fuel. They needed to trample the hemp industry so they spread all of this bullshit scare propaganda.

[ShShShark]

That could be the counter-argument to food consumption or anything....and yet somehow, the companies manage to turn a profit. :shrug:

Very true.

[Machu505]

From decades of propaganda fueled by the petroleum industry because hemp was a much much more efficient source of fuel. They needed to trample the hemp industry so they spread all of this bullshit scare propaganda.
Having Ronald Reagan go before the gullible American populace and compare joints to H-bombs didn't exeactly help our cause either.

[derekmoyer4]

Also, I support legalizing: cocaine, heroin, LSD, PCP, etc. Throwing it out there.
that will not happen. too much uproar.

[thespearkid]

Nah man, 18.
I don't think it's a great idea to let kids right out of high school be able to buy as much marijuana as they want, anytime they want. It's same rationale behind why people shouldn't be able to drink until they're 21.

[Theseventhson]

I don't think it's a great idea to let kids right out of high school be able to buy as much marijuana as they want, anytime they want. It's same rationale behind why people shouldn't be able to drink until they're 21.
It doesn't really matter, convenience stores at gas stations exist for a reason.

[oh...rly]

I was talking about this issue the other day with a libertarian sub at my school, and he said that he thought a lot of the opposition came from the fact that you can smoke tobacco and drink (small amounts) of alcohol without being too impaired but that isn't the case with marijuana. What do you all think about that?


Completely false.

[derekmoyer4]

I don't think it's a great idea to let kids right out of high school be able to buy as much marijuana as they want, anytime they want. It's same rationale behind why people shouldn't be able to drink until they're 21.
i never really thought about it that way. i think you make a great and valid point. i am now inclined to say 21 now too.

[thespearkid]

It doesn't really matter, convenience stores at gas stations exist for a reason.
What?

[billyboatkid]

Don't see why it's not treated any differently than alcohol.
Samesies

haha

[Theseventhson]

What?
There's always places that sell to underage kids basically.

[billyboatkid]

I don't understand how it's a schedule 1 drug like Heroin and things like EX and Cocaine aren't.

Very ridiculous IMO.

[Machu505]

I don't think it's a great idea to let kids right out of high school be able to buy as much marijuana as they want, anytime they want. It's same rationale behind why people shouldn't be able to drink until they're 21.
We put them in uniforms, give them automatic weapons, and let them handle invading Middle Eastern countries. I think they can handle weed and beer.

And at age sixteen we put them behind the wheels of metal deathtraps we call cars.

[Praetor]

Completely false.
Always been true for me. Then again, I don't smoke often (at all)/possibly don't smoke in small enough amounts for this to happen. Or I could just have a low tolerance.

[derekmoyer4]

What?
i think he meant you can get weed and shit outside of convenience stores. ha.

[derekmoyer4]

We put them in uniforms, give them automatic weapons, and let them handle invading Middle Eastern countries. I think they can handle weed and beer.

And at age sixteen we put them behind the wheels of metal deathtraps we call cars.
true, but it is just how society has come to think of things. let me be the first to tell you that society is fucking retarded.

[thespearkid]

There's always places that sell to underage kids basically.
There are always places to buy guns illegally. Does that mean we shouldn't have regulations on firearms?

We put them in uniforms, give them automatic weapons, and let them handle invading Middle Eastern countries. I think they can handle weed and beer.

And at age sixteen we put them behind the wheels of metal deathtraps we call cars.
Which is why I would say the service age should be raised to 21 if it weren't for the fact that so many young people rely on the armed forces for college money. Kids coming straight out of high school and into college, living without parents for the first time in their life, are not yet responsible enough to have unlimited access to alcohol and weed (even though a good number of them already do and readily abuse it).

[Theseventhson]

There are always places to buy guns illegally. Does that mean we shouldn't have regulations on firearms?
Totally different, I'd say gun control is a bit more serious than weed control.

[derekmoyer4]

There are always places to buy guns illegally. Does that mean we shouldn't have regulations on firearms?


Which is why I would say the service age should be raised to 21 if it weren't for the fact that so many young people rely on the armed forces for college money. Kids coming straight out of high school and into college, living without parents for the first time in their life, are not yet responsible enough to have unlimited access to alcohol and weed (even though a good number of them already do and readily abuse it).
see the problem in america is that weed and alcohol is taboo and young kids think it makes them cooler to be involved with it. look at europe where they are typically more relaxed and drinking alcohol (at least beer) is just mere commonplace. that is why i hope to move to europe soon.

[Machu505]

There are always places to buy guns illegally. Does that mean we shouldn't have regulations on firearms?


Which is why I would say the service age should be raised to 21 if it weren't for the fact that so many young people rely on the armed forces for college money. Kids coming straight out of high school and into college, living without parents for the first time in their life, are not yet responsible enough to have unlimited access to alcohol and weed (even though a good number of them already do and readily abuse it).
I see what you're saying, but I just don't like the idea of having so many different age minimums for so many different things. I advocate one flat age, and that's 18.

[The Personist]

There are always places to buy guns illegally. Does that mean we shouldn't have regulations on firearms?


Which is why I would say the service age should be raised to 21 if it weren't for the fact that so many young people rely on the armed forces for college money. Kids coming straight out of high school and into college, living without parents for the first time in their life, are not yet responsible enough to have unlimited access to alcohol and weed (even though a good number of them already do and readily abuse it).

I am fully in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18, even though i know it's impossible to do without MASSIVE repercussions and ramifications that might outweigh the common sense nature of this (because at this point, lowering the drinking age would cause a jump in debauched behavior)

I also don't see how weed and alcohol are remotely the same. I'm in favor of medicinal marijuana alone.

[Praetor]

see the problem in america is that weed and alcohol is taboo and young kids think it makes them cooler to be involved with it. look at europe where they are typically more relaxed and drinking alcohol (at least beer) is just mere commonplace. that is why i hope to move to europe soon.
This is also an issue; the American culture is one of excess and that seems to apply tenfold when it comes to drugs/alcohol.

[derekmoyer4]

This is also an issue; the American culture is one of excess and that seems to apply tenfold when it comes to drugs/alcohol.
very true. i hate american culture. so stupid.

[Machu505]

I also don't like this demonizing of teenagers (especially those as old as 18) as irresponsible. Just because those in my age group have lax opinions on sex and drugs doesn't mean we're gonna abuse those things. Sure, there are stupid fucking teens out there, but still...

[Theseventhson]

I also don't like this demonizing of teenagers (especially those as old as 18) as irresponsible. Just because those in my age group have lax opinions on sex and drugs doesn't mean we're gonna abuse those things. Sure, there are stupid fucking teens out there, but still...
Are you really 14?

[Machu505]

Are you really 14?
Quite.

[thespearkid]

I am fully in favor of lowering the drinking age to 18, even though i know it's impossible to do without MASSIVE repercussions and ramifications that might outweigh the common sense nature of this (because at this point, lowering the drinking age would cause a jump in debauched behavior)

I also don't see how weed and alcohol are remotely the same. I'm in favor of medicinal marijuana alone.
Then why are you in favor of it?

[The Personist]

Then why are you in favor of it?

I think in theory it should be that way, I just know that if we put it into practice, it wouldn't work.

[TK]

Someone explain to me their reasons for believing marijuana should not be legalized for medical purposes or recreational purposes? By the way, I do not smoke and never have, so I am unbiased on this issue and don't think otherwise.

[SincerelyMe]

I think legalizing is a bad idea. The government will regulate it too much and tax the fuck out of it. And it will raise way too many questions (How old?, What about other drugs?, etc...).

[Susanna]

I also don't like this demonizing of teenagers (especially those as old as 18) as irresponsible. Just because those in my age group have lax opinions on sex and drugs doesn't mean we're gonna abuse those things. Sure, there are stupid fucking teens out there, but still...
Agreed. There are many responsible teenagers out there but its the deviant ones that make the headlines.

[thespearkid]

I think legalizing is a bad idea. The government will regulate it too much and tax the fuck out of it. And it will raise way too many questions (How old?, What about other drugs?, etc...).
That's a very selfish view to have. Haha, I love how pot heads have this amazing drug that they can get super cheap and super strong, and are willing to sacrifice the cheapness and strength in order to help out our country when it's in need.

[TK]

I think legalizing is a bad idea. The government will regulate it too much and tax the fuck out of it. And it will raise way too many questions (How old?, What about other drugs?, etc...).

1. You believe governmental regulation of marijuana is worse than no regulation? I suppose drug dealers need to make a living somehow.

2. Taxing drug use so we can tax less in other areas while having money to spend elsewhere? Oh yeah, definitely sounds bad to me.

3. You're basically saying that if we have to actually sit down and think to come up with a solution to a problem, it's not worth it. Let's just ignore anything that raises questions. Right.

[Machu505]

Most of those policy questions have been addressed here anyway.

[SincerelyMe]

That's a very selfish view to have. Haha, I love how pot heads have this amazing drug that they can get super cheap and super strong, and are willing to sacrifice the cheapness and strength in order to help out our country when it's in need.

I'm no pothead.

1. You believe governmental regulation of marijuana is worse than no regulation? I suppose drug dealers need to make a living somehow.

2. Taxing drug use so we can tax less in other areas while having money to spend elsewhere? Oh yeah, definitely sounds bad to me.

3. You're basically saying that if we have to actually sit down and think to come up with a solution to a problem, it's not worth it. Let's just ignore anything that raises questions. Right.

That's not what I'm saying. You have valid points, but what I'm saying is that we're not going to see this anytime soon because nobody's going to agree. I'm not saying we should ignore anything that raises questions, but that effort and energy could be put to better use. I don't know how long it would take for the government to come up with regulation standards and all the other laws that legalization would create, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[TK]

I'm no pothead.



That's not what I'm saying. You have valid points, but what I'm saying is that we're not going to see this anytime soon because nobody's going to agree. I'm not saying we should ignore anything that raises questions, but that effort and energy could be put to better use. I don't know how long it would take for the government to come up with regulation standards and all the other laws that legalization would create, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically your logic is that because no one is going to agree, and that it might take some time to set up regulation laws and standards, that it's best we don't try to do it now. So should we wait until everyone agrees and the laws and regulations set up themselves in a timely fashion?

[Theseventhson]

I'm no pothead.



That's not what I'm saying. You have valid points, but what I'm saying is that we're not going to see this anytime soon because nobody's going to agree. I'm not saying we should ignore anything that raises questions, but that effort and energy could be put to better use. I don't know how long it would take for the government to come up with regulation standards and all the other laws that legalization would create, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.
You're not a huge fan of democracy, I assume.

[SincerelyMe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically your logic is that because no one is going to agree, and that it might take some time to set up regulation laws and standards, that it's best we don't try to do it now. So should we wait until everyone agrees and the laws and regulations set up themselves in a timely fashion?

No, my logic is that the time and energy it would take to create these laws and regulations could be put to better use.

[Theseventhson]

No, my logic is that the time and energy it would take to create these laws and regulations could be put to better use.
Watch some more C-Span.

[saysmydoctor]

It takes time to create laws and regulations? Well fuck, government is just one big waste of time, pack it up boys!

[SincerelyMe]

It takes time to create laws and regulations? Well fuck, government is just one big waste of time, pack it up boys!

Of course it takes time. It's about priorities.

[open mind]

Of course it takes time. It's about priorities.

new sources of tax revenue, and saving billions of dollars by not clogging the justice system with millions of pot related arrests a year should be a high priority.

i'm hoping those 4 votes against medical marijuana are sarcastic.

[saysmydoctor]

1. Tax revenue
2. Freeing up space in the prisons and jails across the country
3. Greatly reducing the size and length of the collective docket of the US judicial system
4. Reducing the size of DAs' caseloads
5. Saving billions of dollars trying marijuana users
6. Saving billions not imprisoning them unnecessarily
7. Helping people with illnesses cope by no longer making it illegal to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes

Definitely something that should be on hold.

[thespearkid]

1. Tax revenue
2. Freeing up space in the prisons and jails across the country
3. Greatly reducing the size and length of the collective docket of the US judicial system
4. Reducing the size of DAs' caseloads
5. Saving billions of dollars trying marijuana users
6. Saving billions not imprisoning them unnecessarily
7. Helping people with illnesses cope by no longer making it illegal to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes

Definitely something that should be on hold.
*nod of approval*

[SincerelyMe]

You all have valid points, but what about the negatives.
1. More pot smokers, which means more people will drive high. Which means more car accidents.
2. Companies will do what cigarette companies did - Adding chemicals to their product to make it addictive and more dangerous.
3. The "gateway drug" theory. Maybe it is bullshit, but from what I've seen in my friends, they get to a point with marijuana where they go one way or the other - quit all together or onto harder drugs.

[Theseventhson]

You all have valid points, but what about the negatives.
1. More pot smokers, which means more people will drive high. Which means more car accidents.
2. Companies will do what cigarette companies did - Adding chemicals to their product to make it addictive and more dangerous.
3. The "gateway drug" theory. Maybe it is bullshit, but from what I've seen in my friends, they get to a point with marijuana where they go one way or the other - quit all together or onto harder drugs.
1Hard laws on driving high.
2There are already a lot of chemicals in weed.
3It is bullshit, it's all free will.

[thespearkid]

You all have valid points, but what about the negatives.
1. More pot smokers, which means more people will drive high. Which means more car accidents.
2. Companies will do what cigarette companies did - Adding chemicals to their product to make it addictive and more dangerous.
3. The "gateway drug" theory. Maybe it is bullshit, but from what I've seen in my friends, they get to a point with marijuana where they go one way or the other - quit all together or onto harder drugs.
1. Legalized marijuana does not mean more pot smokers. The same people who smoke now will, for the most part, be the ones smoking when it's legal. Marijuana's legalization won't make any more people drive high than do so now.
2. Drug dealers already do that. Having it be regulated by the FDA will actually help prevent laced weed from getting to people. As someone who has suffered an absolutely terrifying experience with laced weed (which is why I don't do drugs anymore) I can tell you that I'd much rather have the FDA watching it than my friendly, neighborhood drug dealer.
3. It is bullshit.

[saysmydoctor]

You all have valid points, but what about the negatives.
1. More pot smokers, which means more people will drive high. Which means more car accidents.
2. Companies will do what cigarette companies did - Adding chemicals to their product to make it addictive and more dangerous.
3. The "gateway drug" theory. Maybe it is bullshit, but from what I've seen in my friends, they get to a point with marijuana where they go one way or the other - quit all together or onto harder drugs.
1. You are assuming more pot smokers will pop up and blossom like flowers. Marijuana consumption peaked in the 80s, it only seems more prevalent because of the hardline tactics by the Bush emphasis. Also, obviously, like driving drunk, driving high will be a criminal act.
2. Regulation.
3. As I'm favor of legalizing all drugs, education to dissuade those who would move on to other drugs. Though the gateway drug theory is not even accurate.

[oh...rly]

You all have valid points, but what about the negatives.
1. More pot smokers, which means more people will drive high. Which means more car accidents.


Why is that???

[SincerelyMe]

1. Legalized marijuana does not mean more pot smokers. The same people who smoke now will, for the most part, be the ones smoking when it's legal. Marijuana's legalization won't make any more people drive high than do so now.
2. Drug dealers already do that.
3. It is bullshit.


1. There are plenty of people who would smoke if it were legal. Some people, even if they want to try marijuana won't because of the laws. And if all you have to do to get it is ask for it from behind the counter, plenty more people would try it.

2. Valid point. But does it make it better if the government is doing it?

3. I don't think it's complete bullshit. It's definitely not as intense as a lot of people say it is, but marijuana opens up the idea of doing other drugs, even if that wasn't the "plan".

[SincerelyMe]

Why is that???

If people are driving high, their perception is off.

[saysmydoctor]

The gateway drug theory is complete bullshit. If anything is a gateway, it's cigarettes. Countless studies have shown the gateway theory is bogus.

[oh...rly]

If people are driving high, their perception is off.

Speak for yourself. My perception is just fine, thank you.

[SincerelyMe]

The gateway drug theory is complete bullshit. If anything is a gateway, it's cigarettes. Countless studies have shown the gateway theory is bogus.

Like I said, I speak from what I've seen in my friends. They usually go one way or the other.

[saysmydoctor]

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7118
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/12/2134
http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html

[thespearkid]

1. There are plenty of people who would smoke if it were legal. Some people, even if they want to try marijuana won't because of the laws. And if all you have to do to get it is ask for it from behind the counter, plenty more people would try it.

2. Valid point. But does it make it better if the government is doing it?

3. I don't think it's complete bullshit. It's definitely not as intense as a lot of people say it is, but marijuana opens up the idea of doing other drugs, even if that wasn't the "plan".
1. The type of people who want to smoke weed aren't the type of people who are concerned with it being against the law.
2. As I said in my edited post, I'd rather the FDA be monitoring it than a drug dealer. I got some laced stuff once and it was truly the worst experience of my life.
3. Marijuana use plays an extremely small part in people's decisions to go on to harder drugs. It's more of an environment/living condition thing than it is people just randomly deciding "Pot is pretty cool. I'm going to try crack."

[thespearkid]

Like I said, I speak from what I've seen in my friends. They usually go one way or the other.
Then you've seen that the theory is bullshit.

[SincerelyMe]

1. The type of people who want to smoke weed aren't the type of people who are concerned with it being against the law.
2. As I said in my edited post, I'd rather the FDA be monitoring it than a drug dealer. I got some laced stuff once and it was truly the worst experience of my life.
3. Marijuana use plays an extremely small part in people's decisions to go on to harder drugs. It's more of an environment/living condition thing than it is people just randomly deciding "Pot is pretty cool. I'm going to try crack."

1. I know people who want to try it but are afraid of getting caught. It happens. And if it's more accessible, more people will do it.



Then you've seen that the theory is bullshit.

Honestly, I've seen people get to a point where they either want to try harder drugs, or get bored and quit. It varies from person to person.

[thespearkid]

1. I know people who want to try it but are afraid of getting caught. It happens. And if it's more accessible, more people will do it.

Honestly, I've seen people get to a point where they either want to try harder drugs, or get bored and quit. It varies from person to person.
Those people will try it eventually, whether it's legal or not. I can almost guarantee that.

If it varies from person to person, that means the "gateway theory" is wrong and it just comes down to the person.

[saysmydoctor]

1. I know people who want to try it but are afraid of getting caught. It happens. And if it's more accessible, more people will do it.
This is such a slippery slope, you can't prove this at all and it's not fair to assume it either.

[SincerelyMe]

Those people will try it eventually, whether it's legal or not. I can almost guarantee that.

If it varies from person to person, that means the "gateway theory" is wrong and it just comes down to the person.

Maybe true, but if it's readily accessible at any gas station or convenience store it's going to be a lot easier.

People don't go from doing nothing to cocaine. There's usually something in the middle.

[Machu505]

You all have valid points, but what about the negatives.
1. More pot smokers, which means more people will drive high. Which means more car accidents.
2. Companies will do what cigarette companies did - Adding chemicals to their product to make it addictive and more dangerous.
3. The "gateway drug" theory. Maybe it is bullshit, but from what I've seen in my friends, they get to a point with marijuana where they go one way or the other - quit all together or onto harder drugs.
1. I suppose we should make alcohol illegal too to prevent drunk driving.
2.Well of course. That's a risk I'm willing to take.
3. Lies. That's like saying if we hug it will inevitably lead to unprotected sex.

[thespearkid]

Maybe true, but if it's readily accessible at any gas station or convenience store it's going to be a lot easier.

People don't go from doing nothing to cocaine. There's usually something in the middle.
It's already the easiest drug to find. Cheapest as well. Anyone who wants to try it can get it now. Why not legalize it and make it safer for those people, as well as make money off of it?

That doesn't make the middle point the causation.

[thespearkid]

3. Lies. That's like saying if we hug it will inevitably lead to unprotected sex.
I've been looking for an analogy like this for the past few minutes. Thanks.

[saysmydoctor]

Maybe true, but if it's readily accessible at any gas station or convenience store it's going to be a lot easier.
So what? I'm 18, cigarettes are readily accessible, I don't buy them. Your original argument is a slippery slope, you can't prove that.

[SincerelyMe]

That doesn't make the middle point the causation.


Do you think they would have just started out with cocaine?

[thespearkid]

Do you think they would have just started out with cocaine?
I think that if they're going to end up using coke, they will. If they use weed first, it doesn't mean weed is why they used coke.

[Machu505]

Do you think they would have just started out with cocaine?
I'm sure the person didn't just start out with marijuana. I'm sure all the drug-induced musical artists he or she listens to influenced his or her decision to try marijuana.
I guess we should ban the Beatles too.

[Theseventhson]

Do you think they would have just started out with cocaine?
No, weed is so much more accessible than cocaine, it's also cheaper and easier to use.

[SincerelyMe]

No, weed is so much more accessible than cocaine, it's also cheaper and easier to use.

Maybe it's where I live, but cocaine is pretty accessible.

[Theseventhson]

Maybe it's where I live, but cocaine is pretty accessible.
Yeah, but you have to walk before you can crawl.

[saysmydoctor]

'Pretty' is a damn weak descriptor. If you are trying to tell me cocaine is more accessible and readily available than marijuana, I'm sorry, I will be forced to laugh endlessly. Maybe you just don't know who the dealers are. :shrug:

[SincerelyMe]

'Pretty' is a damn weak descriptor. If you are trying to tell me cocaine is more accessible and readily available than marijuana, I'm sorry, I will be forced to laugh endlessly. Maybe you just don't know who the dealers are. :shrug:


I never said it was more accessible than marijuana. I'm just saying it's not that hard to find.

[oh...rly]

Maybe true, but if it's readily accessible at any gas station or convenience store it's going to be a lot easier.


First off....I highly doubt that if weed is legalized it will be sold at any convenience store or gas
Just like you need a liquor license to sell alcohol, there will probably be one for weed as well.

[glassj4w87]

if i didn't smoke all the time, my lymes disease would destroy me.

[glassj4w87]

I never said it was more accessible than marijuana. I'm just saying it's not that hard to find.
i tried to get weed tonight... it's actually easier to get heroin these days than weed in my town

[SincerelyMe]

First off....I highly doubt that if weed is legalized it will be sold at any convenience store or gas
Just like you need a liquor license to sell alcohol, there will probably be one for weed as well.

They sell alcohol at convenience stores and gas stations.

[oh...rly]

They sell alcohol at convenience stores and gas stations.

Not everywhere.

[SincerelyMe]

Not everywhere.

Where I live, every gas station has alcohol.

[Kozzy333]

Of course the gateway drug theory is correct. Weed is the most easily and readily available drug so it is most likely someone's first drug. Then probably something like 3% try other drugs. So in a way, it is correct, just misleading.

100% support for legalization. I think it might happen within 10 years in Canada.

[thatwasamoment]

Im High As Fuck

[versus_god]

I meant to vote for the fourth option.

[speakhandsforme]

In the event of all non-hallucinogen drugs being legalized and regulated through licencing and consent programs, I'd say legalize it. Under the current system, national decriminallization would be nice.

[FueledByFrodo]

Don't see why it's not treated any differently than alcohol.
This.

[speakhandsforme]

This.

Its inhibitive effects can't be immediately tested on a set scale as can be done with alcohol and the BAC blow test. Its effects on users are much more varied, albeit usually less detrimental, and dependent on the individual. Also, from a societal standpoint, alcohol is seen as a product rooted in colonial America, while marijuana is seen as being rooted in a counterculture movement of the 20th century (even though that point is invalid since many of our founding fathers were hemp farmers). There are some reasons. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but still.

[Ryan Mills]

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7118
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/163/12/2134
http://www.rand.org/news/press.02/gateway.html

I read that whole article in the American Journal of Psychiatry, and although the gateway hypothesis is not the only pattern exhibited they do say:

"The high rate of nonconformance with the “gateway sequence”
notwithstanding, it is nevertheless the most common
pattern, although the reasons remain obscure. One
possible reason is that specific factors connect each successive
stage of drug use comprising the overall sequence.
According to Kandel and Yamaguchi (3), “the identification
of drug-specific risk factors for progression is technically
related to the demonstration of causal linkages between
stages” (p. 64). Alternatively, abuse of illicit drugs,
whether or not preceded by use of licit compounds, may
be more parsimoniously explained by their availability in
the social environment and the level of the individual’s liability
that is common to all abusable substances. For example,
conduct problems in childhood presage consumption
of all classes of abusable drugs. Genetic (9–12),
neurophysiological (13, 14), neurochemical (15, 16), and
behavioral (17, 18) investigations have shown that the
same factors are associated with consumption of licit and
illicit drugs. Indeed, 100% of the genetic variance in the
risk for diagnosis of substance use disorder is common
across all illicit substances (10)."

It was an interesting article, although you clearly cannot draw direct conclusions between this study (which is only one study, anyway) and what would occur if marijuana was leaglized, which would clearly change the relationship.

Also, although their results do not show marked differences between gateway and reverse subjects, neither group did very well:

"Figure 1 presents the results of the survival analysis.
Subjects who exhibited the gateway (group II) and reverse
(group III) sequences did not differ with respect to risk for
and rate of development of alcohol use disorder (log-rank
test=0.01, p=0.99) and marijuana use disorder (log-rank
test=0.02, p=0.88). Alcohol use disorder was present by age
22 in 53% (N=51) and 37% (N=10), respectively, of subjects
in group II and group III (χ2=18, p=0.67), and marijuana
use disorder in 43% (N=42) and 50% (N=14), respectively
(χ2=0.12, p=0.73). These results indicate that the particular
type of substance use sequence—gateway versus reverse—
was not related to the probability and rate of development
of alcohol and marijuana use disorders."

Edit:

Also, this was not really looking at marijuana to cocaine/heroin, but more alcohol/tobacco to marijuana.

[TK]

Of course the gateway drug theory is correct. Weed is the most easily and readily available drug so it is most likely someone's first drug. Then probably something like 3% try other drugs. So in a way, it is correct, just misleading.

100% support for legalization. I think it might happen within 10 years in Canada.

I'd say nicotine is the most easily and readily available drug, as nearly all marijuana users smoke or have smoked cigarettes before. Cigarettes leads to cocaine and meth use. /FACT.

[lovely864md]

I read an article awhile ago with a quote from someone in Mexican government (great source I am) basically saying that the War on Drugs has failed and just created a ton more unnecessary violence and that we really need to consider legalizing marijuana. Just thought that was pretty interesting.

Considering the economy, the amount of money that could be made by legalizing and taxing it is pretty appealing, but it's just such a complicated issue. It's harder to test for DUI, and I think marijuana safety programs in somewhat the same vein as alcohol safety would be really important.

[Skadrist]

I read an article awhile ago with a quote from someone in Mexican government (great source I am) basically saying that the War on Drugs has failed and just created a ton more unnecessary violence and that we really need to consider legalizing marijuana. Just thought that was pretty interesting.

Considering the economy, the amount of money that could be made by legalizing and taxing it is pretty appealing, but it's just such a complicated issue. It's harder to test for DUI, and I think marijuana safety programs in somewhat the same vein as alcohol safety would be really important.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535114271444981.html

Also the former presidents of both Brazil, Mexico and Colombia called for an end to the War on Drugs.

[lovely864md]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123535114271444981.html

Also the former presidents of both Brazil, Mexico and Colombia called for an end to the War on Drugs.

Thanks, the thing I saw was in the paper a while ago but that's pretty much the same. I'm curious as to how the American government feels about comments like this.

[cscwell107]

Shit I picked the wrong one. I must be too high.

[ShShShark]

Having Ronald Reagan go before the gullible American populace and compare joints to H-bombs didn't exeactly help our cause either.

that it certainly did not help at all

[ShShShark]

I read an article awhile ago with a quote from someone in Mexican government (great source I am) basically saying that the War on Drugs has failed and just created a ton more unnecessary violence and that we really need to consider legalizing marijuana. Just thought that was pretty interesting.

Considering the economy, the amount of money that could be made by legalizing and taxing it is pretty appealing, but it's just such a complicated issue. It's harder to test for DUI, and I think marijuana safety programs in somewhat the same vein as alcohol safety would be really important.

the last thing i want is for my grass to be taxed. i pay enough taxes as it is. i would be absolutely elated with decriminalization.

I think it is utterly unrealistic to think that taxing marijuana will have any major impact on the economy. The same people that are strangling big tobacco will have the same vendetta against what would become "big marijuana". We tax liquor, cigarettes, gas, income, property, sales tax, and we are still where we are. One more tax isn't going to make that much of a difference, especially considering the extreme minority marijuana smokers (like myself) fall into.

[open mind]

the last thing i want is for my grass to be taxed. i pay enough taxes as it is. i would be absolutely elated with decriminalization.

I think it is utterly unrealistic to think that taxing marijuana will have any major impact on the economy. The same people that are strangling big tobacco will have the same vendetta against what would become "big marijuana". We tax liquor, cigarettes, gas, income, property, sales tax, and we are still where we are. One more tax isn't going to make that much of a difference, especially considering the extreme minority marijuana smokers (like myself) fall into.

marijuana is the number 1 or number 2 cache crop in the united states, taxing it would reap billions of dollars because of this...and legal pot would be cheaper even with the taxes since it's the risk of transportation and distribution (along with all the middle men) that drive costs up...and why is it better to give your money to your neighborhood dealer then it is the government? i know i'd prefer it if the money people spend on herb went to building schools and roads instead of pimp ass rides for the dumbshit wanksta down the road.

pot smokers are not an extreme minority. if they were pot wouldn't be such big buisness.

[theguy77]

I know it's like nearly 33% for tobacco in New York. You could buy a second pack of cigarettes with the taxes you are paying.

I think the FDA should can and sell the shit in the supermarkets, seriously, marijuana is the biggest cash crop after strawberries. They could make a shitton of money growing it and selling it. Then taxing it. Holy fuck.

wouldnt the price drop after it's become legalized? it will become far more accessible and the price of labor would drop dramatically -- no smuggling, legal hazard, private source location, or other efforts are required to keep it under the table.

[Praetor]

Watch some more C-Span.
hahahahaa this is the best post in the thread. It's such bullshit how much time they throw away.
1. Tax revenue
2. Freeing up space in the prisons and jails across the country
3. Greatly reducing the size and length of the collective docket of the US judicial system
4. Reducing the size of DAs' caseloads
5. Saving billions of dollars trying marijuana users
6. Saving billions not imprisoning them unnecessarily
7. Helping people with illnesses cope by no longer making it illegal to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes

Definitely something that should be on hold.
8. jobs
9. Marijuana would be safer thanks to government regulations
10. Saving billions of dollars on unnecessary DEA raids
I'm sure the person didn't just start out with marijuana. I'm sure all the drug-induced musical artists he or she listens to influenced his or her decision to try marijuana.
I guess we should ban the Beatles too.
Also a wonderful post.
marijuana is the number 1 or number 2 cache crop in the united states, taxing it would reap billions of dollars because of this...and legal pot would be cheaper even with the taxes since it's the risk of transportation and distribution (along with all the middle men) that drive costs up...and why is it better to give your money to your neighborhood dealer then it is the government? i know i'd prefer it if the money people spend on herb went to building schools and roads instead of pimp ass rides for the dumbshit wanksta down the road.

pot smokers are not an extreme minority. if they were pot wouldn't be such big buisness.
Also a good point: the tax dollars raised wouldn't just go to the mounting national debt...it would be poured back into these towns that the dealers/consumers live in. Black market prices are sky high because it's the only place a consumer can get it. No (legal) competition = high prices. The government could tax it at a 100% and it would probably be cheaper than it is now.

[QuikTrig]

Black market prices are sky high because it's the only place a consumer can get it. No (legal) competition = high prices. The government could tax it at a 100% and it would probably be cheaper than it is now.
i'm no econ major, but i'm not sure it'll be that simple.

[Love As Arson]

I'd rather it be decriminalized. Legalization means taxation and major companies diluting the potency of the weed.

[spriltsc]

if legislators didn't think marijuana was a gateway drug, this would be legalized today. personally, i think its bull when they say its a gateway drug.

[glassj4w87]

I'd rather it be decriminalized. Legalization means taxation and major companies diluting the potency of the weed.
yea nobody wants to buy weak ass legal weed

[live.]

Marijuana isn't a gateway drug. I would say that any kind of pills are gateway drugs.

[paper halo]

If you're going to argue against legalization or decriminalizing marijuana on the pretext that it's a gateway drug, then why not apply the same reasoning to cigarettes or alcohol? Aside from the fact that it's bullshit.

[andrewshungry]

glad to see the majority of people here actually know what the fuck they're talking about. if marijuana is illegal than alcohol should be too. its absolutely worse in every aspect, something the general public will never acknowledge as long as its illegal.

[speakhandsforme]

The problem is that all the hordes of people that want it legalized have no clue as to why it cannot, at this current moment, be legalized.

You guys find a way to instantly detect its potency in someone's body (as can be done with alcohol....thus making its ability to be regulated much different) and marijuana will have a chance at being legalized.

Well, actually, the ignorant generation that sees it as a horrible symbol of rebellion is at the forefront....but, once all the misinformation clears, said reason will be the obstacle.

[open mind]

The problem is that all the hordes of people that want it legalized have no clue as to why it cannot, at this current moment, be legalized.

You guys find a way to instantly detect its potency in someone's body (as can be done with alcohol....thus making its ability to be regulated much different) and marijuana will have a chance at being legalized.

Well, actually, the ignorant generation that sees it as a horrible symbol of rebellion is at the forefront....but, once all the misinformation clears, said reason will be the obstacle.

alcohol was legalized before the breathalyzer came into existance.

[speakhandsforme]

alcohol was legalized before the breathalyzer came into existance.

That is true, but following the evolution of the automobile, it had to be instituted. If the marijuana movement was alive in a world where automobiles weren't both incredibly powerful and incredibly affordable, it wouldn't be such an issue.

[TK]

The problem is that all the hordes of people that want it legalized have no clue as to why it cannot, at this current moment, be legalized.

You guys find a way to instantly detect its potency in someone's body (as can be done with alcohol....thus making its ability to be regulated much different) and marijuana will have a chance at being legalized.

Well, actually, the ignorant generation that sees it as a horrible symbol of rebellion is at the forefront....but, once all the misinformation clears, said reason will be the obstacle.

Do you believe the cons of legalizing marijuana outweigh the pros?

[saysmydoctor]

I don't understand why at this moment it can't be legalized, your rationale that we can't instantly detect its potency is kind of a weak argument.

[BryterJonah]

Why 21? I mean, you are legally an adult in 18. Why should you have to wait an extra three years? You're either a minor, or you're an adult...there shouldn't be any period of limbo from 18-21.

Which is why the drinking age should be lowered.

Your brain is not yet fully matured until the age of 21. There's also school.

I can take a bullet for the country, but I can't sip a beer or smoke a blunt? Outrageous.

Bullet in brain >>> Loss of brain cells(alcohol).

[open mind]

That is true, but following the evolution of the automobile, it had to be instituted. If the marijuana movement was alive in a world where automobiles weren't both incredibly powerful and incredibly affordable, it wouldn't be such an issue.

i realize this is kind of a cheap argument but why isn't this also an issue with prescription drugs?

i don't think people should be allowed to drive baked...but studies i've seen tend to indicate that pot doesn't effect motor skills as much as you might think.

http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5448

[bung]

You guys find a way to instantly detect its potency in someone's body (as can be done with alcohol....thus making its ability to be regulated much different) and marijuana will have a chance at being legalized.

So we can detect those driving while high? Funny, because driving while high is completely different from driving while drunk. Read up on some studies done on how people under the influence of marijuana while driving are often aware of any inebriation caused by the drug and thus compensate for it accordingly (ie; driving slower, stopping sooner, keeping eyes on the road, etc.).

Driving while tired or driving after popping a couple OTC Benadryl will cause far more impairment while driving than being stoned ever will. I know there are virtually no studies done to support this claim, but personal experience speaks wonders here. One reason people don't get in trouble for driving while high very often is because a person is totally able to pass a roadside sobriety test while being stoned. Yes, it's true it makes reaction time slower, alters perception, can decrease inhibition, and other things, but nowhere near to the extent that alcohol or other drugs do. Hell, driving with a strong tobacco buzz is more dangerous than driving stoned.

[3eb23]

how do you feel about frilly toothpicks?



I'm for 'em!

[poppa Q]

That's a very selfish view to have. Haha, I love how pot heads have this amazing drug that they can get super cheap and super strong, and are willing to sacrifice the cheapness and strength in order to help out our country when it's in need.
Really, so many of the people crying out for legalization would be the same ones bitching about the new policies that weakens their highs (essentially).
I'd rather it be decriminalized. Legalization means taxation and major companies diluting the potency of the weed.
yea nobody wants to buy weak ass legal weed
Exactly.
Your brain is not yet fully matured until the age of 21.
That explains why people celebrate their 21st...it's the precise moment one's brain becomes fully matured. That makes sense.
So we can detect those driving while high? Funny, because driving while high is completely different from driving while drunk. Read up on some studies done on how people under the influence of marijuana while driving are often aware of any inebriation caused by the drug and thus compensate for it accordingly (ie; driving slower, stopping sooner, keeping eyes on the road, etc.).

Driving while tired or driving after popping a couple OTC Benadryl will cause far more impairment while driving than being stoned ever will. I know there are virtually no studies done to support this claim, but personal experience speaks wonders here. One reason people don't get in trouble for driving while high very often is because a person is totally able to pass a roadside sobriety test while being stoned. Yes, it's true it makes reaction time slower, alters perception, can decrease inhibition, and other things, but nowhere near to the extent that alcohol or other drugs do. Hell, driving with a strong tobacco buzz is more dangerous than driving stoned.
Good post. If anything, being stoned increases my self-awareness.

[poppa Q]

Also, I'd be interested in hearing an argument from someone in opposition to legalization/decriminalization that has valid points and/or knows what he or she is talking about.

[shes.a.ghost]

If they made it legal it should come with a free pack of funions.

[billyboatkid]

My opinion: It's the TITS!!!

[Mr. Ryan]

I voted to decriminalize.


It won't happen though. At least not at full-scale. If all this green is going around without any legal risk someone would have to regulate it.

[Kozzy333]

I'd say nicotine is the most easily and readily available drug, as nearly all marijuana users smoke or have smoked cigarettes before. Cigarettes leads to cocaine and meth use. /FACT.

I'd disagree, I think getting weed is easier around here, for people under the age of 19. Nobody buys underaged people cigarettes. I smoked a cigarette for the first time a week ago and have been smoking weed occaisonally since last july.

[Mitch]

So we can detect those driving while high? Funny, because driving while high is completely different from driving while drunk. Read up on some studies done on how people under the influence of marijuana while driving are often aware of any inebriation caused by the drug and thus compensate for it accordingly (ie; driving slower, stopping sooner, keeping eyes on the road, etc.).

Driving while tired or driving after popping a couple OTC Benadryl will cause far more impairment while driving than being stoned ever will. I know there are virtually no studies done to support this claim, but personal experience speaks wonders here. One reason people don't get in trouble for driving while high very often is because a person is totally able to pass a roadside sobriety test while being stoned. Yes, it's true it makes reaction time slower, alters perception, can decrease inhibition, and other things, but nowhere near to the extent that alcohol or other drugs do. Hell, driving with a strong tobacco buzz is more dangerous than driving stoned.

I think I agree with this to a degree, although driving under the influence of ANYTHING is a bad, bad idea.

[thespearkid]

So we can detect those driving while high? Funny, because driving while high is completely different from driving while drunk. Read up on some studies done on how people under the influence of marijuana while driving are often aware of any inebriation caused by the drug and thus compensate for it accordingly (ie; driving slower, stopping sooner, keeping eyes on the road, etc.).

Driving while tired or driving after popping a couple OTC Benadryl will cause far more impairment while driving than being stoned ever will. I know there are virtually no studies done to support this claim, but personal experience speaks wonders here. One reason people don't get in trouble for driving while high very often is because a person is totally able to pass a roadside sobriety test while being stoned. Yes, it's true it makes reaction time slower, alters perception, can decrease inhibition, and other things, but nowhere near to the extent that alcohol or other drugs do. Hell, driving with a strong tobacco buzz is more dangerous than driving stoned.
Agreed. I've never felt impaired when I drove high. Driving was a lot more fun, but never any more difficult than normal.

If they made it legal it should come with a free pack of funions.
Hahaha yes.

[open mind]

I'd disagree, I think getting weed is easier around here, for people under the age of 19. Nobody buys underaged people cigarettes. I smoked a cigarette for the first time a week ago and have been smoking weed occaisonally since last july.

if having cigarettes legal and regulated makes them harder to get for kids i'd say that's a good argument for legalizing and regulating pot.

[speakhandsforme]

Do you believe the cons of legalizing marijuana outweigh the pros?

No. I'm just stating some of the logistics that oppose its legalization. Laws against drugs, in a democratic defnition, should be meant only to protect the public and the better good of the society....not to restrict one's own personal choice to submit their body to whatever they want. Because marijuana is a relatively "light" drug, I do think that it should be decriminalized till it is capable of being legalized. However, just because it's natural doesn't make it harmless as some people claim. Magical mushrooms are natural, much like marijuana. However, shrooms are not harmless as they depend MUCH too heavily on variable of the consumption.

So we can detect those driving while high? Funny, because driving while high is completely different from driving while drunk. Read up on some studies done on how people under the influence of marijuana while driving are often aware of any inebriation caused by the drug and thus compensate for it accordingly (ie; driving slower, stopping sooner, keeping eyes on the road, etc.).

Driving while tired or driving after popping a couple OTC Benadryl will cause far more impairment while driving than being stoned ever will. I know there are virtually no studies done to support this claim, but personal experience speaks wonders here. One reason people don't get in trouble for driving while high very often is because a person is totally able to pass a roadside sobriety test while being stoned. Yes, it's true it makes reaction time slower, alters perception, can decrease inhibition, and other things, but nowhere near to the extent that alcohol or other drugs do. Hell, driving with a strong tobacco buzz is more dangerous than driving stoned.

That is certainly true...which is why the penalty for possession of hard pills without prescription is much harsher than possession of marijuana. Also, there is no movement for the open circulation of prescription medicines, as there is with marijuana. And I agree that pot's effects on drivers is less damaging than that of alcohol but, if you read other studies, you'd find that pot's effects, though usually less serious, carry some unpredictability as they are more dependent on the users themselves. Also, if we're talking someone who's never used either substance, the last statement is ludicrous.

Honestly, if I ran a nation, I'd legalize all non-hallucinogenic drugs and regulate them through various licensing institutions that hinder certain public and privacy rights to those who apply for the ability to use specified drugs. Also, all drugs would have to be sold in packages that cannot be resealed upon initial opening and, if one was caught carrying without a license or with unsealed products, tests and penalties would promptly follow. For instance, one could undergo a moderately expensive physical and mental examination to apply for a license to possess heroine. However, that license (which would appear on one's license plate, medical record, driver's license, credit history) would forfeit some privacy rights of a driver who owns the license. This would entail that their car could be searched based on the license without probable cause and, if one was pulled over for any traffic violation, the officer could freely request a fluid sample from whomever carries a license and refusing to submit a sample would result in revocation of the license and a sizable fine. This, along with other programs unmentioned, would help scab the "public safety" element of drug illegality and make further progression of the war on drugs an assault on personal rights and public welfare, as the illegality is putting drug movement in the hands of criminals and mobs. There is no perfect resolution (as there is a constant battle between public welfare and personal rights, but I'd move in that direction). I honestly think that if opium hadn't ravaged China's entire population way back in the day, a struggling economy might consider more liberal views on drugs.

[Melkor]

1. Tax revenue
2. Freeing up space in the prisons and jails across the country
3. Greatly reducing the size and length of the collective docket of the US judicial system
4. Reducing the size of DAs' caseloads
5. Saving billions of dollars trying marijuana users
6. Saving billions not imprisoning them unnecessarily
7. Helping people with illnesses cope by no longer making it illegal to smoke marijuana for medicinal purposes

Definitely something that should be on hold.

I applaud these points, basically why I voted for legalization.

I'd rather it be decriminalized. Legalization means taxation and major companies diluting the potency of the weed.

yea nobody wants to buy weak ass legal weed

The thing is, if it is made legal and strong stuff isn't sold in supermarkets etc people will just go outside the shops again and start buying stronger strains elsewhere won't they? The companies won't really have anything to lose by selling strong stuff, they might just charge a bit more for it. Companies still sell really strong alcohol compared to weaker alcohol and there is a place for it all.

[JuneJuly]

I voted for the wrong one. I had a GREAT time last night. It kinda felt like I was melting...

[Dubui_209]

Don't see why it's not treated any differently than alcohol.
Because the best stuff isn't made here. Even though it's debateable if the best alcohol is.

[quarterhorse101]

Don't understand why they are treated differently than cigarettes, which actually kill people. Legalize and tax the fuck out of it.

mhm.

cigs are harmful. weed... is not.

[FOBcareemo]

I can't see drawing out William Randolph Hearst's fight any longer. Criminalization is a waste of time and resources.

[liarsturnmeon]

mhm.

cigs are harmful. weed... is not.

weed is harmful. continued use has a significant impact on your brain.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/marijuana/Marijuana3.html

just in case you felt like not ignoring the truth.

[quarterhorse101]

weed is harmful. continued use has a significant impact on your brain.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/researchreports/marijuana/Marijuana3.html

just in case you felt like not ignoring the truth.

i hope that wasn't meant to be bitchy, bc that doesn't encourage learning. but i didn't know those things about weed even though it's from a site that is clearly against drug use

[Takk...Ros]

i hope that wasn't meant to be bitchy, bc that doesn't encourage learning. but i didn't know those things about weed even though it's from a site that is clearly against drug use
Yeah some of that might be a little exaggerated, but weed does have harmful effects. I'm not sure I believe the part about it being worse than tobacco though.

[quarterhorse101]

Yeah some of that might be a little exaggerated, but weed does have harmful effects. I'm not sure I believe the part about it being worse than tobacco though.

tobacco or cigarettes ?

[Takk...Ros]

tobacco or cigarettes ?
I don't understand your question?

[Machu505]

Your brain is not yet fully matured until the age of 21. There's also school.
So? If I want to fuck up my brain, let me do as I please.

[Praetor]

As always, it blows my mind that more opposition to this comes from the conservative side of the aisle...it seems to me that this would be an issue that conservatives would jump on as a result of excessive government intervention.

[Animalhill]

Quite simply, if alcohol is legal for recreational use, marijuana should be as well.

[Machu505]

As always, it blows my mind that more opposition to this comes from the conservative side of the aisle...it seems to me that this would be an issue that conservatives would jump on as a result of excessive government intervention.
I've come to just understand the conservative position as just the opposite of what I believe in.

[we are cured]

unfortunately this issue boils down to accountability, and by that i mean the desire of poiticians to win elections (just like any political issue, really). it would take a huge alteration of the social landscape for people to be comfortable with marijuana legalization, and until that happens elected officials won't be on board with legalization. decriminalization is a much more realistic idea.

[BryterJonah]

So? If I want to fuck up my brain, let me do as I please.
You're really 14?

[Machu505]

You're really 14?
Yes.

[Praetor]

I've come to just understand the conservative position as just the opposite of what I believe in.
*Republican position

Socially speaking I could get behind true conservatism. But what Republicans are selling is not social conservatism and is not what I want for my country and for myself. It's just religious nutjobbery and bigotry dressed up as the best interests of the people, which is just one more reason why the Republican party needs to branch out if it ever wants to win an election again that doesn't take place in Texas.

[BryterJonah]

Yes.
LOL, good luck amounting to anything with that logic.

[Praetor]

LOL, good luck amounting to anything with that logic.
Okay, champ, you tell us. What should the relationship be between a government and its citizens? Does Big Brother always know best?

[Machu505]

*Republican position

Socially speaking I could get behind true conservatism. But what Republicans are selling is not social conservatism and is not what I want for my country and for myself. It's just religious nutjobbery and bigotry dressed up as the best interests of the people, which is just one more reason why the Republican party needs to branch out if it ever wants to win an election again that doesn't take place in Texas.
No, "conservative" is an accurate description for what I'm against. Social libertarianism is what you're thinking of, not social conservatism.

[Praetor]

No, "conservative" is an accurate description for what I'm against. Social libertarianism is what you're thinking of, not social conservatism.
I always figured that libertarianism was a more extreme brand of conservatism (conservatism being the umbrella term which libertarianism falls under) but yeah you're probably right.

[Machu505]

LOL, good luck amounting to anything with that logic.
The government trusts those "undeveloped minds" to choose who makes up government up.

And for the record, I don't plan on fucking my brain up, I just don't think old white men should have the power to tell me I cannot.

[Machu505]

I always figured that libertarianism was a more extreme brand of conservatism (conservatism being the umbrella term which libertarianism falls under) but yeah you're probably right.
Libertarianism is a funny thing. Its social views are on the left while its fiscal views are on the right.

[x togepi x]

Your brain is not yet fully matured until the age of 21. There's also school.



Why let people join the military before 21 then? The conditioning it takes to get people able to kill can have effects on a person's psyche.

you don't like people owning their own bodies, cool. if they want to fuck it up, it's their right.

[Praetor]

The government trusts those "undeveloped minds" to choose who makes up government up.
Not to mention fight in the military. If your mind is developed enough to choose the future of the country through a vote, or to put your life on the line in the military then your mind is developed enough to drink alcohol/consume marijuana.

[Praetor]

Libertarianism is a funny thing. Its social views are on the left while its fiscal views are on the right.
Well, libertarians' social views are only perceived as being on the left because they align with those of modern-day liberals; and I think we can all agree that modern politics has bastardized what it means to be a liberal and a conservative.

I'm doing a really shitty job of articulating what I'm thinking. What I'm saying is that as a general rule, real conservatives favor less government; real liberals, more. But modern-day conservatives, socially, favor MORE government intervention/interference (ie in matters of gay marriage, abortion, "right to life" as in the Terry Schiavo case, etc.) whereas modern-day liberals are generally supportive of LESS government intervention in those same matters. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that libertarians actually have conservative social views; they're just perceived as liberal because they align more with the Democrats'.

That's the way that I perceive it anyways.

[quarterhorse101]

I don't understand your question?

weed being worse than tobacco or cigarettes? i feel as though cigs are def worse because of all the chemicals and such, though tobacco maybe a tie. i have done no research however so feel free to provide if you know :)

[Machu505]

Well, libertarians' social views are only perceived as being on the left because they align with those of modern-day liberals; and I think we can all agree that modern politics has bastardized what it means to be a liberal and a conservative.

I'm doing a really shitty job of articulating what I'm thinking. What I'm saying is that as a general rule, real conservatives favor less government; real liberals, more. But modern-day conservatives, socially, favor MORE government intervention (ie in matters of gay marriage, abortion, etc.) whereas modern-day liberals are generally supportive of LESS government intervention in those same matters. So I guess what I'm trying to say is that libertarians actually have conservative social views; they're just perceived as liberal because they align more with the Democrats'.
I think the mistake you're making is equating social policy with fiscal policy. Conservatives favor less government intervention in corporations, businesses, etc. Liberals (though I prefer the term "leftists") support government intervention in businesses but not private lives.

Libertarians and authoritarians are just consistent in their social and fiscal ideals.

[Praetor]

I think the mistake you're making is equating social policy with fiscal policy. Conservatives favor less government intervention in corporations, businesses, etc. Liberals (though I prefer the term "leftists") support government intervention in businesses but not private lives.

Libertarians and authoritarians are just consistent in their social and fiscal ideals.
Ah. Maybe that's it. I figured parroting "less government" and "more government" applied to both social and fiscal policies. That would make more sense (although I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here; socially I'm a libertarian but fiscally I'm way left).

[Machu505]

Ah. Maybe that's it. I figured parroting "less government" and "more government" applied to both social and fiscal policies. That would make more sense (although I'm being a bit of a hypocrite here; socially I'm a libertarian but fiscally I'm way left).
That's how I believe as well. I just don't see businesses and real people as the same.

[Praetor]

Word.

[Takk...Ros]

weed being worse than tobacco or cigarettes? i feel as though cigs are def worse because of all the chemicals and such, though tobacco maybe a tie. i have done no research however so feel free to provide if you know :)
Oh, yeah I was referring to cigarettes. My bad. And I have no idea. I'd assume the same, but nothing to back that up.

[x togepi x]

from what i understand, marijuana is worse than you than a similar amount of cigarettes, however, people smoke more cigarettes than pot, so cigarettes tend to be worse. also it's really hard to get addicted to pot, while easy to get addicted to cigarettes.

[QuikTrig]

i don't buy that pot isn't addictive. it isn't chemically, but habitually, it absolutely is, imo.

[x togepi x]

habitually anything is addictive.

[mattmatumbo]

I've been smoking on and off since sophomore year of high school. It has never ever been hard to quit. Admittedly, i do want to smoke when i quit, but it's not a problem. My roommate and neighbors are addicted to cigarettes, and weed in no way compares to what they go through when they don't have a smoke.

[reckoner]

i don't buy that pot isn't addictive. it isn't chemically, but habitually, it absolutely is, imo.

I smoke weed everyday. A week ago I decided to take a break and had absolutely no problem stopping. I've taken breaks from weed before and also have had no issue stopping.

[thespearkid]

i don't buy that pot isn't addictive. it isn't chemically, but habitually, it absolutely is, imo.
I used to smoke pot every night and when I decided to quit, it was no problem at all. No withdrawal, no headaches, etc. When I quit smoking cigarettes, it sucked though because when you're physically addicted to something, your body forgets how to function without it somewhat.

[NickLopez]

i don't buy that pot isn't addictive. it isn't chemically, but habitually, it absolutely is, imo.
Same story as the two above.

[QuikTrig]

your experiences are different than mine and many of my friends. i think a lot depends on personality i guess.

[Mercy Medical]

Legalize it.

I really do not see why it is still illegal. I was very much against marijuana use until a few years ago and then my opinion drastically changed. It's really no worse then alcohol or cigarettes (could be argued that it's actually better then both). It has so many uses medically and hemp has so many uses as well. We are actually missing out on a lot by not being able to use hemp for things. I definitely think it's the alcohol, cigarette and prescription drug industries that will keep pot illegal as long as possible. It presents a lot of competition for all and they obviously do not want that.

I was initially wary about it's complete legalization, but I think unless they make it a reasonable price the black market for it will still exist and people will still grow and buy it illegally. They are going to have to make it a decent price to eliminate the black market for it entirely.

I suppose I shall answer all the questions asked in the OP.

In the event of legalization, should it be sin taxed? If so, how much? No, of course it will be taxed, but I don't think it should necessarily be "sin taxed" but I don't think anything should be "sin taxed" anyway.
How old should one be to purchase marijuana? 18, I also think the drinking age should be lowered to 18, but that's an entirely different debate.
Should two consumers be able to sell home-grown marijuana to one another without government regulation? I would say yes, but I do not believe if it was legalized that this option would be available.
Should people be allowed to grow it at home, instead of purchasing it from a government-regulated source? I would also say yes, but I do not think the government would allow this to happen. Much like people are not allowed to grow their own tobacco.
How much of the industry should the government be allowed to regulate?Not really sure. Obviously minimal government regulation is ideal, but not realistic.
Should other, perhaps "harder" drugs be legalized as well? I tend to believe in legalization of all drugs. I think if they were legalized and the black market was eliminated entirely, we'd be much better off.
Whose decision is it to regulate a personal, albeit perhaps harmful decision like consuming marijuana; the individual's or the state's? The individuals. The state should really have no say in the choices people make for themselves if those choices are not harming others.
Should laws be passed pertaining to "driving high?" What similarities/differences would they have with drunk driving laws? Yes, I believe that similar laws should be set in place for marijuana as exist for alcohol. This would include not going to work high, etc.

[Mercy Medical]

i don't buy that pot isn't addictive. it isn't chemically, but habitually, it absolutely is, imo.
I can see how someone could get addicted to the general feeling that it gives you, but there's obviously no physical addiction that would cause for withdrawal symptoms if you weren't using. In general, I've noticed if there are times that I don't have it, I would like to have it, but I'm not going to go out of my way to get it. I think it can be a bit addicting in that regard, but it's very minor.

The only thing I've noticed lately, is that I'm having difficulties with sleeping and I feel the need to smoke just so I can sleep, but that's not so much having to do with weed specifically, as it is just me mentally thinking/worrying I won't be able to sleep without it.

[Mercy Medical]

I was talking about this issue the other day with a libertarian sub at my school, and he said that he thought a lot of the opposition came from the fact that you can smoke tobacco and drink (small amounts) of alcohol without being too impaired but that isn't the case with marijuana. What do you all think about that?
I am completely functional if I smoke a small amount of weed. If I smoke a large amount, that's a completely different story, but obviously that is the same situation with alcohol.

[Mercy Medical]

Why can we not have a debate like this in the mainstream political world? Where does all the taboo about marijuana come from?
I think it's because a lot of people don't take marijuana smokers seriously. There's this stigma with people who smoke pot that they're lazy, irresponsible, etc. Frankly, I found the fact that Obama laughed off that question at the town hall meeting about marijuana to be pretty insulting, considering the people that got him to the White House in the first place.

[Animalhill]

haha I recommend watching the Bill Hicks bit about legalization for all you naysayers.

[TK]

I don't understand how people can support the decriminalization of the drug, but not the legalization of it...

[Animalhill]

I don't understand how people can support the decriminalization of the drug, but not the legalization of it...
I think those people are against the amount of money and resources that go into busting people who use / sell small amounts of weed but do not think it should be legal.

[Mercy Medical]

I don't understand how people can support the decriminalization of the drug, but not the legalization of it...
Well, it would keep the government's hands off of it in that situation. People wouldn't be sent to jail for smoking pot, but the government wouldn't be in control of it's distribution. I mean, if it were legal there's a good chance that it might be cheaper then the black market because the government will have to compete with the black market still. So that's a positive, but at the same time the government would be regulating it, potentially regulating it's potency, if people can grow on their own, etc.

Decriminalizing prevents anyone who is using from being arrested for doing so, but basically keeps the government out of the pot growing/selling business.

[TK]

I think those people are against the amount of money and resources that go into busting people who use / sell small amounts of weed but do not think it should be legal.

I understand how much money(around 8 billion) is spent a year on government expenditure on the enforcement of marijuana prohibition , but you're telling me that it is logical to refuse to captilize on the estimated 10-14 billion dollars that would accompany the legalization and government regulation of marijuana?


Well, it would keep the government's hands off of it in that situation. People wouldn't be sent to jail for smoking pot, but the government wouldn't be in control of it's distribution. I mean, if it were legal there's a good chance that it might be cheaper then the black market because the government will have to compete with the black market still. So that's a positive, but at the same time the government would be regulating it, potentially regulating it's potency, if people can grow on their own, etc.

Decriminalizing prevents anyone who is using from being arrested for doing so, but basically keeps the government out of the pot growing/selling business.

The government should be allowed to regulate marijuana if they are allowed to regulate cigarettes. I don't understand how the government regulated marijuana affects the United States negatively in any way. Also, by only decriminalizing marijuana, all you are doing is giving drug dealers bigger markets. It does not make marijuana usage safer, it does not restrict its usage to people of a certain age, it does not do anything but cut back on government spending.

[Animalhill]

I understand how much money(around 8 billion) is spent a year on government expenditure on the enforcement of marijuana prohibition , but you're telling me that it is logical to refuse to captilize on the estimated 10-14 billion dollars that would accompany the legalization and government regulation of marijuana?




The government should be allowed to regulate marijuana if they are allowed to regulate cigarettes. I don't understand how the government regulated marijuana affects the United States negatively in any way. Also, by only decriminalizing marijuana, all you are doing is giving drug dealers bigger markets. It does not make marijuana usage safer, it does not restrict its usage to people of a certain age, it does not do anything but cut back on government spending.
Hell no my friend- I am pro legalization.

[Mercy Medical]

I understand how much money(around 8 billion) is spent a year on government expenditure on the enforcement of marijuana prohibition , but you're telling me that it is logical to refuse to captilize on the estimated 10-14 billion dollars that would accompany the legalization and government regulation of marijuana?




The government should be allowed to regulate marijuana if they are allowed to regulate cigarettes. I don't understand how the government regulated marijuana affects the United States negatively in any way. Also, by only decriminalizing marijuana, all you are doing is giving drug dealers bigger markets. It does not make marijuana usage safer, it does not restrict its usage to people of a certain age, it does not do anything but cut back on government spending.
It doesn't effect the US in a negative way, but it does potentially effect marijuana users in a negative way. I mean, that's all assumption because no one really knows what the government would do if weed was legal and they could regulate it. But, much like they are currently doing with cigarettes, they may regulate it's potency, the ability of people to grow for their own personal use, etc. No, that doesn't necessarily effect the USA as a whole, but it does effect the people who use marijuana.

Decriminalizing doesn't really do much, as I can tell, for the black market drug trade. Mostly, it's benefit is that the control of marijuana is still out of the hands of the government and people aren't being arrested and put in prison for simple possession.

[mattmatumbo]

No one knows any legitimate reason for the illegalization of marijuana. It happened so long ago based mostly on propaganda that people just think it should be illegal. That's my mom and Grandma's view at least.

Edit: 63.2% of this board, that have voted, think it shouldn't be flat out illegal.

[Praetor]

No one knows any legitimate reason for the illegalization of marijuana. It happened so long ago based mostly on propaganda that people just think it should be illegal. That's my mom and Grandma's view at least.

Edit: 63.2% of this board, that have voted, think it shouldn't be flat out illegal.
Well this is quite a liberal forum. I think the last number I heard of the general populace was 40%. Still a staggering number considering that there's no real debate about this.

[mattmatumbo]

Well this is quite a liberal forum. I think the last number I heard of the general populace was 40%. Still a staggering number considering that there's no real debate about this.

Does that include people incarcerated on marijuana charges less than felonies? And yeah, i think it's BS that presidents admittedly smoked it. There isn't a group or class in the US that hasn't experimented with this "drug".

[Praetor]

Dunno, I just saw the number. Embarrassingly enough I took it at face value haha.

[whataclush]

dFtLONl4cNc