o.k. But surely you understand that the same thing could be said of crack, for example. Understand i'm simply playing the devils advocate here. i have no strong opinion either way (Actually, if pressed, i tend to agree, at least somewhat, with the legalization crowd). Legalizing crack would lighten the load on the legal system to an even higher degree. Right? Alcohol is legal, yes, but there are some strict regulations. What would be your proposed age restriction on weed? It would actually tie up the police a bit more with all the tickets they'd be writing tp guys driving ten miles per hour on the interstate or minor in possession of ganja. What about lost productivity in the workplace? As far as cigarettes, one might argue that they shouldn't be legal either, and as a matter of fact, its becoming harder and harder for a cigarette smoker. One is almost restricted to one dark damp closet in the corner of their own basement. As far as health risks, its kind of hard to argue. Pot, alcohol and cigarettes are all considered gateway drugs, none of which are without their own respective health implications.
Furthermore, by your own line of logic, nothing is criminal about, shoplifting, for example, except for the fact "they" made it so, and i'm somewhat sure Wynona Ryder doesn't want people in suits infringing on her right to take shit she hasn't paid for. For any society to function, there MUST be rules and all of are freedoms insist upon the removal of freedoms from someone else. Your right to smoke a joint, for example, just may infringe on my right to drive regulation speed on the highway without being held up by someone crawling along in a pot induced state of oblivion, or my right to not have to carry the extra weight at work of my stoner coworker who doesn't quite carry his own for the same reason.
Again, just playing the devil's advocate. Not trying to start a cyber-fight.
your logic here is so stretched it almost doesn't merit response. by your logic, people should take sleep tests before driving, breathalyzers on all cars, etc. poor driving is not a basis for banning things. we shouldn't sell nyquil either then. that's ridiculous. theft is a drect infringement on another, it is co-opting their property... the legal term is conversion. there is no comparison to pot. none. not one. not that makes any sense.
however, you do have a point about where to draw the line on other drugs. on the one hand, i kinda feel like they should all be legal cos it's not really the government's business. a crime is a crime. if you commit a crime go down for it. doesn't matter if you were sober or on crack when you did it. on the other hand, i strongly believe the ban on pot makes it much more difficult to control other substances.
lastly, your talk of enforcement is equally ridiculous. alcohol prohibition is an almost perfect analogy. is it harder to enforce liquor laws now than it was then? maybe there was less drinking, but there was more violence and other things. so which is the better fight? i and many other have acknowledged that it was much, much easier to get pot than alcohol in high school, cos dealers dont give a shit who they're selling to. 7-11 does.
But, by legalizing it, wouldn't we be forcing those people who oppose legalization to live by other morals then? I'm not saying they would be forced to use, but forced to live in a society where it was legal - which is apparently against their morals.
Every single law on the books is about forcing people to live at a certain standard of morality.
non believers feel about having our children have to go through school prayer in the morning??? If you don't like it don't do it....if it sooo upsets you get together, buy some land in the desert and live there away from all the immorality.
I think that any action taken that inhibits anothers freedoms should be addressed, but a person should be allowed to choose whether or not to use drugs under some form of regulatory scheme similar to alcohol.
I also feel that the assumption that the only thing standing between a societys sobriety and mass addiction is the prohibition of drugs is wrong. Most people have the ability to control themselves and the sudden availabilty of legalized heroin would not cause everyone to run out and become addicted.
And then there are the issues of official corruption, loss of civil liberties, increased militarization of police, reliance on informants, asset forfeiture, etc, etc.
In my opinion, the War on Drugs is a complete failure and the money being used to conduct it would be much better used for education and treatment.
But if my morality is that it shouldn't be legal, wouldn't society be forcing its own morality on me if they make it legal?
The same could be said of the pot smokers. Go somewhere else if you want to smoke.
(and I'm not saying that, just pointing it out)
that's a pointless way to look at it though, becos by that measure nobody can ever do anything. any act is goign to go against half the people's beliefs. sometimes, your morality doesn't matter. what matters (from a governmental standpoint) is legislation that is practical and makes sense, and morality be damned. it is not up to government to protect your morals. it is up to you to live by them.
that's a pointless way to look at it though, becos by that measure nobody can ever do anything. any act is goign to go against half the people's beliefs. sometimes, your morality doesn't matter. what matters (from a governmental standpoint) is legislation that is practical and makes sense, and morality be damned. it is not up to government to protect your morals. it is up to you to live by them.
Exactly. That's why using the morality argument will get the pot legalization side nowhere.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Exactly. That's why using the morality argument will get the pot legalization side nowhere.
huh? who is making a moral argument for legalization? the only time morality got brought into this was when i pointed out it was the chief grounds relied upon by the prohibition contingent. everyone on here arguing for legalization is arguing from a pretty practical and realistic point of view. unless im missing something?
huh? who is making a moral argument for legalization? the only time morality got brought into this was when i pointed out it was the chief grounds relied upon by the prohibition contingent. everyone on here arguing for legalization is arguing from a pretty practical and realistic point of view. unless im missing something?
Probably so. I guess I was wrong. I made a leap from one to the other.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I think that any action taken that inhibits anothers freedoms should be addressed, but a person should be allowed to choose whether or not to use drugs under some form of regulatory scheme similar to alcohol.
I also feel that the assumption that the only thing standing between a societys sobriety and mass addiction is the prohibition of drugs is wrong. Most people have the ability to control themselves and the sudden availabilty of legalized heroin would not cause everyone to run out and become addicted.
And then there are the issues of official corruption, loss of civil liberties, increased militarization of police, reliance on informants, asset forfeiture, etc, etc.
In my opinion, the War on Drugs is a complete failure and the money being used to conduct it would be much better used for education and treatment.
I contend that drug abuse would decrease if all drugs were legal...imagine the powerful message a person would get when they see somebody addicted to heroin or meth...and if somebody wants to take that route, that's up to them, at least they would know the consequences....it would be out in the open...
I know for me, I pretty much stopped drinking, why, because abuse runs in my family, it makes me feel like shit the next day (or two) and I see the effects of long term abuse on those addicted to booze...
I hope pot is legalized. Last time I smoked it was 1994, and I don't want to be around it like I don't want to be around cigarette smoke. However, I don't think there is any proof that continued illegalization of pot smoking will contribute to the overall welfare of the population.
There is no such thing as leftover pizza. There is now pizza and later pizza. - anonymous The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I hope pot is legalized. Last time I smoked it was 1994, and I don't want to be around it like I don't want to be around cigarette smoke. However, I don't think there is any proof that continued illegalization of pot smoking will contribute to the overall welfare of the population.
I'm not against it being legalized either. But...I don't see the point why it should be either.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
your logic here is so stretched it almost doesn't merit response. by your logic, people should take sleep tests before driving, breathalyzers on all cars, etc. poor driving is not a basis for banning things. we shouldn't sell nyquil either then. that's ridiculous. theft is a drect infringement on another, it is co-opting their property... the legal term is conversion. there is no comparison to pot. none. not one. not that makes any sense.
however, you do have a point about where to draw the line on other drugs. on the one hand, i kinda feel like they should all be legal cos it's not really the government's business. a crime is a crime. if you commit a crime go down for it. doesn't matter if you were sober or on crack when you did it. on the other hand, i strongly believe the ban on pot makes it much more difficult to control other substances.
lastly, your talk of enforcement is equally ridiculous. alcohol prohibition is an almost perfect analogy. is it harder to enforce liquor laws now than it was then? maybe there was less drinking, but there was more violence and other things. so which is the better fight? i and many other have acknowledged that it was much, much easier to get pot than alcohol in high school, cos dealers dont give a shit who they're selling to. 7-11 does.
i don't see my logic being stretched at all. Point is, if you are going to legalize pot, you are going to have to impose at least the same restrictions as are imposed on alcohol. The Bob Marley wannabe cruisin' down the highway in the VW bus at a speedy 15 mph is a hazard and needs a ticket. (BTW so does the guy hopped up on nyquil, it says right on the bottle). To say that legalization would lighten the workload of police is simply innacurate.
People act as though Pot is a threat to no one, infringes on no one and carries no hazzards. Simply not true. People also argue for the legalization of Pot based on the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are legal, when both have heavy restrictions and cigarettes are moving further and further towards illegal.
It is ridiculous, and sounds a tad bit so when someone says that something should be legal "because i want to do it, damn it"! Again one's freedom always infringes on someone else's freedom. Such is the nature of freedom. Rules have to be drawn and there is more to this argument than the government simply wanting Pot to be illegal "just because".
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
yup, with a republican led congress...but that's nether here or there....
wishes, please oh please don't make this a clinton thread
I'm not going to do that. But it didn't really mention anything about the congress. It said it was a "White House Office of National Drug Control Policy".
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I'm not going to do that. But it didn't really mention anything about the congress. It said it was a "White House Office of National Drug Control Policy".
yeah, that's my thinking, but I don't know where to find proof...
I would love to see the proof as well. It would be pretty interesting to see on the news that the primary funding for those ads came from the pharmaceutical industry and alcohol.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It depends on who did the commercial, but usually it's one of these types:
1. A group who encourages increased social control.
2. A group who is generally concerned about the negative effects pot can have on people.
So if someone where generally..and hopefully...genuinely concerned about the negative effect pot could have on people...AND felt strongly enough to financially support an ad campaign, would anyone on here be opposed to them?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So if someone where generally..and hopefully...genuinely concerned about the negative effect pot could have on people...AND felt strongly enough to financially support an ad campaign, would anyone on here be opposed to them?
But if my morality is that it shouldn't be legal, wouldn't society be forcing its own morality on me if they make it legal?
The same could be said of the pot smokers. Go somewhere else if you want to smoke.
(and I'm not saying that, just pointing it out)
good point.....so what's the answer then...we all have different morals...how do we decide who's to inact.
Only thing I can think is....if it doesn't affect you...none of your business....hence people that want to smoke can....if you want to pray before school..do it at home...seems soooo simple no???
good point.....so what's the answer then...we all have different morals...how do we decide who's to inact.
Only thing I can think is....if it doesn't affect you...none of your business....hence people that want to smoke can....if you want to pray before school..do it at home...seems soooo simple no???
The old "it doesn't affect you" argument is akin to burying your head in the sand. If it's illegal - it affects me. If it's legal - it affects me. Most everything we do has an effect on many other people.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
To say that legalization would lighten the workload of police is simply innacurate.
.
Decriminilize all drug use......imagine the reduction in prison....reduction in laundered money...drug task forces.....it would be immense. Yes there would be some increase due to use when driving..or sales to minors...but that pales in comparison.
Hell the taxes this would generate should make you repugs happy..no??? (-: Isn't pot one of the biggest cash crops in the US???
Comments
your logic here is so stretched it almost doesn't merit response. by your logic, people should take sleep tests before driving, breathalyzers on all cars, etc. poor driving is not a basis for banning things. we shouldn't sell nyquil either then. that's ridiculous. theft is a drect infringement on another, it is co-opting their property... the legal term is conversion. there is no comparison to pot. none. not one. not that makes any sense.
however, you do have a point about where to draw the line on other drugs. on the one hand, i kinda feel like they should all be legal cos it's not really the government's business. a crime is a crime. if you commit a crime go down for it. doesn't matter if you were sober or on crack when you did it. on the other hand, i strongly believe the ban on pot makes it much more difficult to control other substances.
lastly, your talk of enforcement is equally ridiculous. alcohol prohibition is an almost perfect analogy. is it harder to enforce liquor laws now than it was then? maybe there was less drinking, but there was more violence and other things. so which is the better fight? i and many other have acknowledged that it was much, much easier to get pot than alcohol in high school, cos dealers dont give a shit who they're selling to. 7-11 does.
I also feel that the assumption that the only thing standing between a societys sobriety and mass addiction is the prohibition of drugs is wrong. Most people have the ability to control themselves and the sudden availabilty of legalized heroin would not cause everyone to run out and become addicted.
And then there are the issues of official corruption, loss of civil liberties, increased militarization of police, reliance on informants, asset forfeiture, etc, etc.
In my opinion, the War on Drugs is a complete failure and the money being used to conduct it would be much better used for education and treatment.
The same could be said of the pot smokers. Go somewhere else if you want to smoke.
(and I'm not saying that, just pointing it out)
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
that's a pointless way to look at it though, becos by that measure nobody can ever do anything. any act is goign to go against half the people's beliefs. sometimes, your morality doesn't matter. what matters (from a governmental standpoint) is legislation that is practical and makes sense, and morality be damned. it is not up to government to protect your morals. it is up to you to live by them.
Exactly. That's why using the morality argument will get the pot legalization side nowhere.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
huh? who is making a moral argument for legalization? the only time morality got brought into this was when i pointed out it was the chief grounds relied upon by the prohibition contingent. everyone on here arguing for legalization is arguing from a pretty practical and realistic point of view. unless im missing something?
Probably so. I guess I was wrong. I made a leap from one to the other.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
holy heck, I can't believe I forgot to add that one to my list...
the drug companies will take a HUGE hit when pot is legalized...a HUGE hit, and I can't see them letting that happen without a fight...
imagine, being able to grow your own meds...
That's true.
So I guess what we've determined is that the primary motivation for keeping it illegal is money. No real surprise there.
I wonder if there's a way to actually find out the funding sources for those ads....?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I contend that drug abuse would decrease if all drugs were legal...imagine the powerful message a person would get when they see somebody addicted to heroin or meth...and if somebody wants to take that route, that's up to them, at least they would know the consequences....it would be out in the open...
I know for me, I pretty much stopped drinking, why, because abuse runs in my family, it makes me feel like shit the next day (or two) and I see the effects of long term abuse on those addicted to booze...
The risk I took was calculated, but man, am I bad at math - The Mincing Mockingbird
I'm not against it being legalized either. But...I don't see the point why it should be either.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
http://www.mediacampaign.org/about/index.html
http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/about/index.html
we do...
I do wonder, which companies may "lobby" for the War on Drugs...
So it was Clinton, huh?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Alcohol, Pharmaceutical, law enforcement . . .
i don't see my logic being stretched at all. Point is, if you are going to legalize pot, you are going to have to impose at least the same restrictions as are imposed on alcohol. The Bob Marley wannabe cruisin' down the highway in the VW bus at a speedy 15 mph is a hazard and needs a ticket. (BTW so does the guy hopped up on nyquil, it says right on the bottle). To say that legalization would lighten the workload of police is simply innacurate.
People act as though Pot is a threat to no one, infringes on no one and carries no hazzards. Simply not true. People also argue for the legalization of Pot based on the fact that alcohol and cigarettes are legal, when both have heavy restrictions and cigarettes are moving further and further towards illegal.
It is ridiculous, and sounds a tad bit so when someone says that something should be legal "because i want to do it, damn it"! Again one's freedom always infringes on someone else's freedom. Such is the nature of freedom. Rules have to be drawn and there is more to this argument than the government simply wanting Pot to be illegal "just because".
yup, with a republican led congress...but that's nether here or there....
wishes, please oh please don't make this a clinton thread
yeah, that's my thinking, but I don't know where to find proof...
I'm not going to do that. But it didn't really mention anything about the congress. It said it was a "White House Office of National Drug Control Policy".
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
It depends on who did the commercial, but usually it's one of these types:
1. A group who encourages increased social control.
2. A group who is generally concerned about the negative effects pot can have on people.
I would love to see the proof as well. It would be pretty interesting to see on the news that the primary funding for those ads came from the pharmaceutical industry and alcohol.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So if someone where generally..and hopefully...genuinely concerned about the negative effect pot could have on people...AND felt strongly enough to financially support an ad campaign, would anyone on here be opposed to them?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Private $$? No problem at all.
My tax $$? Big problem.
I was talking about private money.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
good point.....so what's the answer then...we all have different morals...how do we decide who's to inact.
Only thing I can think is....if it doesn't affect you...none of your business....hence people that want to smoke can....if you want to pray before school..do it at home...seems soooo simple no???
The old "it doesn't affect you" argument is akin to burying your head in the sand. If it's illegal - it affects me. If it's legal - it affects me. Most everything we do has an effect on many other people.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
thanks
Decriminilize all drug use......imagine the reduction in prison....reduction in laundered money...drug task forces.....it would be immense. Yes there would be some increase due to use when driving..or sales to minors...but that pales in comparison.
Hell the taxes this would generate should make you repugs happy..no??? (-: Isn't pot one of the biggest cash crops in the US???