anti-pot commercial....

Pacomc79 · February 2007

know1 wrote:

That's the reason that I would expect, as well.

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.

no, it's simply not using the police power of the state to control it any longer. The government does not own morality. They aren't forcing anyone to use drugs therefore the morality is not forced.

laws don't determine morality they simply determine how the police powers of the state will be used to treat a particular behavior.

Example:
You can be morally against drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco whilst they remain legal for public use should one so choose.

It's a liberty issue really.

know1 · February 2007

Pacomc79 wrote:

no, it's simply not using the police power of the state to control it any longer. The government does not own morality. They aren't forcing anyone to use drugs therefore the morality is not forced.

laws don't determine morality they simply determine how the police powers of the state will be used to treat a particular behavior.

Example:
You can be morally against drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco whilst they remain legal for public use should one so choose.

It's a liberty issue really.

But can you be morally against LEGAL marijuana? That was my point. Maybe someone's morality is that it simply shouldn't be legal.

Morality is a slippery thing with tons of grey areas. Simply implying that people are trying to impose or control other's morality isn't a very good argument for legalization, since morality is imposed or controlled all the time in many other areas. In fact, it's impossible to escape.

cornnifer · February 2007

Outshyned wrote:

My thinking is that if they legalized weed, then they could empty the system of so many non-violent/non-dangerous pot heads.. Then they could quit letting pedophiles/dangerous/violent people etc go too easily..... To my understanding many of the prisons are over-crowded.
Criminalization of marijane while tobacco and alcohol are legal makes no sense. Alcohol is much worse,, marijane is somewhere b/w cigs and booze imo.

Also.... If they legalized it, it would break factions of the black market and give organized crime one less thing to profit from...
Think about it.. The mofia was in their hayday and most powerful when alcohol was illegal.
The mofia has done nothing but shrink since alcohol was made legal.

The only criminal thing about pot smoking is the fact that "they" made it so.
I'm sick of some of these stupid rules. Let me live my own life/make my own mistakes if they be......

.

I hate it when people with suits, guns and authority make and enforce rules that defy logic and ignore obvious hypocracy.

whatever
sick of this shit
i want to smoke a joint without feeling like a criminal
Goddamned piss test society.. pfft.

FUCK YOU to DUMB authority for trying to control my destiny where pot is concerned..
It's my life!

-Outs

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.

tara · February 2007

know1 wrote:

Yeah - I can see that. I hadn't considered it that way.

By the same toke(n), if they just made it legal, they wouldn't have to SPEND as much money on enforcement, either. So it kind of goes both ways.

And isn't government supposedly non-profit? The fact that they are bringing more money in just means they don't have to tax as much to run their operations, but in the end it's the same for them.

it's true that with pot being legal, they wouldn't have to spend so much on enforcement. that's the whole point, they're creating jobs, it's a business, think of how many ppl relly on the the prison system, the ppl making uniforms, the guards, the food suppliers, etc, weed being illegal is good for the economic health of the community, make weed legal, and you take away jobs, imagine the outcry 'you let those hippie bums wander around like clowns, and you turn your backs on us hard working folk, taking away our jobs, i have 3 kids....'
so while your logic is perfect, the government is not a non-profit, and the gov doesn't think logically

soulsinging · February 2007

know1 wrote:

That's the reason that I would expect, as well.

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.

perhaps in an abstract sense. but in a practical one, no. besides, it could be treated like alcohol and dealt with on a state by state or county by county basis. there are dry counties all over the country and those counties could zone to keep weed out without too much trouble. shit, you know how hard it is to get liquor in PA? in any case, the moral argument is not enough to support a nationwide ban on pot and maintain schedule 1 status. just becos there is not a national plan for pot doesn't mean you'd have to live in a community that allows it. that is why we have plenty of counties that keep porn and alcohol, etc out.

soulsinging · February 2007

know1 wrote:

But can you be morally against LEGAL marijuana? That was my point. Maybe someone's morality is that it simply shouldn't be legal.

Morality is a slippery thing with tons of grey areas. Simply implying that people are trying to impose or control other's morality isn't a very good argument for legalization, since morality is imposed or controlled all the time in many other areas. In fact, it's impossible to escape.

nobody has marijuana so high on their list of moral issues. the only people who feel so strongly about keeping pot illegal are either the paranoids, or temperance folks... and they already accept alcohol, tobacco, and porn. so this is a very weak argument.

callen · February 2007

inmytree wrote:

I'm pretty sure our tax dollars fund the commercials...

but let me expand on why I think law enforcement has a vested interest in keeping pot illegal...

busted, then, fines/jail which = money in the coffers of the gov't

if pot were legal, that money stream would dry up...

make all drugs legal...lots less law enforcement officers.....no doubt law enforcement industry would take the biggest hit...never thought about booze...thats a good one.

hippiemom · February 2007

know1 wrote:

Now that I can see. So the motivation for creating these ads is to keep cops and prison guards employed? If so, wouldn't it make sense for the ads to be funded by cops and prison guards?

Or by politicians who enjoy being able to say they've been endorsed by the Fraternal Order of Police.

Pacomc79 · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

perhaps in an abstract sense. but in a practical one, no. besides, it could be treated like alcohol and dealt with on a state by state or county by county basis. there are dry counties all over the country and those counties could zone to keep weed out without too much trouble. shit, you know how hard it is to get liquor in PA? in any case, the moral argument is not enough to support a nationwide ban on pot and maintain schedule 1 status. just becos there is not a national plan for pot doesn't mean you'd have to live in a community that allows it. that is why we have plenty of counties that keep porn and alcohol, etc out.

buying alcohol in PA is wierd as hell. I thought Georgia was bad with no sales on Sunday etc except in restaurants. In PA if you want beer, you can't get it at the grocery store, you have to go to the state store, say you want liquor on the same trip....nope all alcohol isn't the same so you have to go to another store to pick up that liquor and or wine. It's annoying.

The "moral" issue here is probably about recreational drug use altoegther not just pot.

I personally have no moral issue with anyone getting high or drunk what have you. It's a choice, As long as that person does not get in a car and or risk the lives of me or other people I could care less what they do on their free time and I don't think the state should care either. Imprisoning people for non violent drug offenses is simply a waste of tax money.

I would think perscription drug manufacturers would be all for keeping pot illicit because people would "self medicate" even more than they do now.

callen · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

nobody has marijuana so high on their list of moral issues. the only people who feel so strongly about keeping pot illegal are either the paranoids, or temperance folks... and they already accept alcohol, tobacco, and porn. so this is a very weak argument.

So the Houston Press....Free weekly publication that advertises music/resturants etc in Houstons....Headline on front cover....distributed in every street corner in downtown houston, grocery stores, restaurants etc.......big font, covering the whole front page.... "How to hide your Weed" laughed my arsch off this morning. Haven't read the article to support it...but will on way home. Then the Saturday Night Live skit on NFL player getting busted for attemtpting to smuggle weed onto a flight..funny stuff......

soulsinging · February 2007

cornnifer wrote:

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.

callen · February 2007

know1 wrote:

That's the reason that I would expect, as well.

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.

1970RR · February 2007

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.

know1 · February 2007

callen wrote:

If you don't like it don't do it....

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?

callen wrote:

if it sooo upsets you get together, buy some land in the desert and live there away from all the immorality.

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)

soulsinging · February 2007

know1 wrote:

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.

know1 · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

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.

soulsinging · February 2007

know1 wrote:

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?

know1 · February 2007

soulsinging wrote:

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.

inmytree · February 2007

Pacomc79 wrote:

I would think perscription drug manufacturers would be all for keeping pot illicit because people would "self medicate" even more than they do now.

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...

know1 · February 2007

inmytree wrote:

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....?

anti-pot commercial....

Comments

Categories