Dope: Should it be legalised.

[Ramo]

Why legalize pot? Well, let's go over the reasons:

1. It's my body and I'm not harming a single person, so how is it the state's purview to decide whether or not I can smoke weed?
2. Locking a person up in a US prison will do far more damage to him than some weed ever would.
3. Prohibition is totally ineffective in stopping drug use.
4. Prohibition creates huge black markets in which labor rights, consumer protections, and competition are totally undermined, being replaced by wanton violence.
5. Weed is simply not a very dangerous drug. Since it isn't addictive, as opposed to say nicotine, it tends not to be smoked in a great enough frequency to cause nasty things like lung cancer. Frankly, I think my use of caffiene is far more harmful to my health than my use of weed.

And while we're at it, let's legalize the rest of the drugs.

[Flip McWho]

1. True
2. Probably true
3. Not totally ineffective but pretty much.
4. Eh thats the workers fault for being in that black industry. Get a legal job.
5. Its about as dangerous as alcohol and ciggies.

[Inverse Icarus]

didn't you see those new commercials? YOU'LL FORGET TO PICK UP YOUR LITTLE BLACK BROTHER!

[Flip McWho]

hahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Berzerker]

Peter -

But there is this minority who get totally screwed from smoking dope. What do we do about this?

"We"? Government does not exist to prevent you from "screwing up", it exists to secure your freedom from those who would take it. So advocating "we" take your freedom before you screw up defeats the purpose of government... If my friend or family member had a problem with pot, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, or any other thing, I'd offer counsel but the choice still rests with them. Btw, putting millions of people in cages with real criminals for their own good is a perversion of logic...

Personally, I'm in favour of minimal government but I know people who have really screwed themselve. I really don't know an answer to this question.

You can't be for "minimal" government and take the position that government should decide what we all can or cannot ingest, the two are simply incompatable...

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Berzerker
H Tuttle -

Did you not say it should be illegal? That's called punishing people... And your rationale, some of the people you know were lazy, etc., means you advocate punishing millions of people based on what these few people you know have done.

I don't know if I can agree with your rational about illegal = punishment. I mean it could only be punishment if we were trying to make someone atone for what they did wrong. The only punishment with it being illegal is the kind given out when caught. By your definition I would say that we are punishing everyone by not allowing them the opportunity to smoke pot legally.

QUOTE] Originally posted by Berzerker

Has pot disappeared under prohibition? Your argument's only potential viability (if we ignore morality) depends on the proposition that pot use is not only lower under prohibition, but so much lower as to outweigh all the negative consequences of prohibition...[/QUOTE]

I don't understand what you mean. I was referring to the benefit and problems that are inherent with legalizing drug use such as pot. ie. no black market, possible addiction problems, etc...

Originally posted by Berzerker
Freedom is not a social benefit, but a nanny state that rules over us is a social benefit? The Nazis murdered millions based on what they decided was good for society...you know, ridding society of "undesirables" to enhance the German "race" starting with the mentally handicapped...

I suggest you find a different ideological principle...

Woah! That is a big step don't you think? The Nazis killed based on race. I was debating whether it's a good idea to legalize pot. My position now, after debating the issue, is that if it is no more harmful then the things we already have then legalize it.

And I'm a Republican/Conservative type. Nanny states don't sit well with me. I just want government to intervene on things that might be actually harmful to us because we have a hard problem saying no to them. If addiciton with pot is to much of a con for legalizing it then I say no.

[Kuciwalker]

5. Weed is simply not a very dangerous drug. Since it isn't addictive, as opposed to say nicotine, it tends not to be smoked in a great enough frequency to cause nasty things like lung cancer. Frankly, I think my use of caffiene is far more harmful to my health than my use of weed.

Weed is addictive. You weren't there in the other thread a while ago, but this came up there too. ANY PSYCHOACTIVE DRUG IS CHEMICALLY ADDICTIVE. (psycoactive meaning that it induces or suppresses neurotransmitters) It is an inherent property of their modus operandi - over time the mind "recalibrates" unnatural levels of neurotransmitters to "natural", requiring greater amounts of a drug to achieve a high and requiring small or moderate amounts of a drug to feel normal.

(However, this dependency does fade over time.)

[Berzerker]

Flip -

4. Eh thats the workers fault for being in that black industry. Get a legal job.

Do you know why juvenile crime began skyrocketing in the mid 1980's here in the US? Because Reagan and Congress decided to crack down on adults in the drug business so many adults in that business began recruiting minors to avoid the harsher penalties. Those crime rates have been rising virtually every year since. Sure, you can tell a poor kid to work at McDonalds instead of being a lookout for drug dealers, but don't be surprised when the money to made in the drug market lures them away from "legal" jobs. Thanks to the drug war we saw some kids making more than their parents...

5. Its about as dangerous as alcohol and ciggies.

Roughly 75,000 die each year from alcohol and ~400,000 die from tobacco. Are you sure you want to make that argument?

[Flip McWho]

Berzerker -

Na didn't know the first bit. Interesting bit of news.

Ummmm how many people die from dope use a year?

[Ramo]

Eh thats the workers fault for being in that black industry. Get a legal job.

Good to see the sympathy of the prohibitionist is in the right place. I guess the same goes for drug buyers?

What about "innocent" (which I guess excludes workers and consumers) people get get caught in between gang violence?

Its about as dangerous as alcohol and ciggies.

The number of Americans who died from tobacco use in past year is about 400,000; the number who died from alcohol use is about 100,000; the number who died from pot use is insignificant.

ANY PSYCHOACTIVE (induces or suppresses neurotransmitters) DRUG IS CHEMICALLY ADDICTIVE.

That's right, I was meaning physical addiction. Which is generally far, far more serious a problem than chemical addiction. While chemical addiction isn't something to be dismissed out of hand, it isn't the sort of thing that will get one to smoke 15 joints a day.

[Flip McWho]

Ummm i ain't a prohibitionist, I'm for legalising it. The innocent ones I do feel sorry for. The drug buyers should be aware of the dangers and its their own choice to go over the law to get it.

So the numbers being insignificant, then that argument is safe to run with for someone wanting to legalise it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Flip McWho
Sava you really are a strong advocate for legalising dope aren'y you. Some bloody good arguments you are raising.

well thank you

it's not that hard... the issue of pot isn't that difficult. There are better arguments against stuff like crack and cocaine (in terms of health and addiction)... but pot is a no-brainer (no pun intended). Especially when alcohol and cigarettes are legal... and no, I'm not saying they should be outlawed just so the drug warriors can be consistent and non-hypocritical.

[Flip McWho]

No problem.

I've been having some debates with people over the issue of dope legalisation. I keep getting mental blocks with ideas of why. Like I can think of them but can't quite put them into words so this is helping.

[Ramo]

The drug buyers should be aware of the dangers and its their own choice to go over the law to get it.

Are you saying that the welfare of workers, consumers, and competing businesses is irrelevant simply because they are involved in black markets? Even Ashcroft wouldn't make so callous a claim.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Peter Triggs
What about the pothead? There are people who totally f__k up their lives from smoking pot. I know some. There is a relativelely small minority of people who are genetically disposed toward schizophenia but who will be triggered towards this illness by pot. I know that for most people that smoking dope is less damaging than drinking or smoking tobacco.

But there is this minority who get totally screwed from smoking dope. What do we do about this? Personally, I'm in favour of minimal government but I know people who have really screwed themselve. I really don't know an answer to this question.

so how is locking them up in jail a solution? just curious... wouldn't it be better for the stuff to be legal and for the tax money generated from the sale of marijuana going to fund rehab and addiction counseling programs? Despite the fact that these programs WORK and that prison makes things worse... rehab programs and addiction counseling COSTS LESS THAN PRISON!!

Not only do we save money by not locking these non-violent offenders up, but we GENERATE money in order to pay for these things. That means skywalker's selfish ass won't have to pay for some pothead's medical bills, too!

Weed is addictive. You weren't there in the other thread a while ago, but this came up there too. ANY PSYCHOACTIVE DRUG IS CHEMICALLY ADDICTIVE. (psycoactive meaning that it induces or suppresses neurotransmitters) It is an inherent property of their modus operandi - over time the mind "recalibrates" unnatural levels of neurotransmitters to "natural", requiring greater amounts of a drug to achieve a high and requiring small or moderate amounts of a drug to feel normal.

marijuana is NOT CHEMICALLY ADDICTIVE!!! you are reaching Fez levels here skywalker

The American Medical Association opposed the banning of marijuana http://www.pdxnorml.org/AMA_opposes_1937.html

Marijuana is only addictive in the sense that really pleasant things in life are worth repeating.

Even though Marijuana is not chemically addictive, the following substances are: caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, chocolate, prescription drugs...

If you are going to argue the "pot is bad for you" argument, skywalker, don't you think you should find out what the medical community thinks? You know... doctors who know what's bad for you and stuff? They think marijuana is fine (in moderation) and that it has enormous potential in medical use, not just a few diseases here and there.