Should Cannabis (marijuana) be legalized?

[poto]

Yes, cannabis should be legalized. The criminal penalties do far more harm than cannabis itself. Any Buddhist with an ounce of compassion should understand that it is not wise to throw people in jail for something that is far less harmful than many legal substances.

And to those of you that argue that cannabis use violates the 5th precept. I would like to point out that you are not entitled to impose a 'Buddhist Sharia' on others.

[MrsCogan]

Originally Posted by poto

Yes, cannabis should be legalized. The criminal penalties do far more harm than cannabis itself. Any Buddhist with an ounce of compassion should understand that it is not wise to throw people in jail for something that is far less harmful than many legal substances.

I agree 100%

And to those of you that argue that cannabis use violates the 5th precept. I would like to point out that you are not entitled to impose a 'Buddhist Sharia' on others.

Who's imposing anything? No imposing going on here. How would an observant Buddhist impose something on someone else?

Cannabis use violates the 5th precept. How can it not? Trying to make a case that it doesn't violate the 5th precept is a mental backflip I'm not up for.

[poto]

Originally Posted by MrsCogan

Who's imposing anything? No imposing going on here. How would an observant Buddhist impose something on someone else?

Cannabis use violates the 5th precept. How can it not? Trying to make a case that it doesn't violate the 5th precept is a mental backflip I'm not up for.

This is why I shouldn't post when I'm tired. I should have worded that more clearly.

I was trying to state that it is wrong to attempt to impose the 5th precept on others. That those who would use the 5th precept as an excuse to strip others of their freedoms are wrong. And that we should not attempt to justify continued criminalization of cannabis because of the 5th precept.

I was not attempting to debate what is and is not a violation of the 5th precept in this thread. I apologize if I caused confusion.

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by poto

This is why I shouldn't post when I'm tired. I should have worded that more clearly.

I was trying to state that it is wrong to attempt to impose the 5th precept on others. That those who would use the 5th precept as an excuse to strip others of their freedoms are wrong. And that we should not attempt to justify continued criminalization of cannabis because of the 5th precept.

I was not attempting to debate what is and is not a violation of the 5th precept in this thread. I apologize if I caused confusion.

Um, who here is trying to do that?

[poto]

Originally Posted by Takeahnase

Um, who here is trying to do that?

My bad. I just took the time to re-read this entire thread.

Somewhere in my tired brain, with the 30 other tabs I have open, switching back and forth between work and forums I must have mixed this thread up with discussions on the same subject elsewhere. I should get sleep now, lol.

[caz namyaw]

Well you might as well seeing as alcohol is legal.

[forty1bullets]

I, for one, hope marijuana doesn't ever become legal. It seems like it's a harmless drug but in reality it damages the mind. Cigarette smoke is bad enough, we would be getting buzzed off 2nd hand smoke. I don't disagree with it being used to help patients with their pain but other than that it should never be legalized!

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by forty1bullets

I, for one, hope marijuana doesn't ever become legal. It seems like it's a harmless drug but in reality it damages the mind. Cigarette smoke is bad enough, we would be getting buzzed off 2nd hand smoke. I don't disagree with it being used to help patients with their pain but other than that it should never be legalized!

Can you honestly say that it's prohibition has been better? How many millions of dollars are spent each year trying to fight it? Money that could could be better spent elsewhere. Look at all the suffering caused by it being illegal. How many thousands (hundreds of thousands) of people are being locked away in prison for what is a victimless crime? How many families torn apart? How many children growing up without a parents? Look at the street gangs. You know that much of their financing comes from the sale of drugs. In Mexico there are drug cartels who have grown nearly as powerful as Mexico's army. That can't be good for anyone except the drug cartels. All of this to what end? Being illegal has certainly never stopped anyone from using it.

[Jeffrey]

The question is if there is a problem that its illegality is causing. And would those harms be solved by the present system? Would they be solved by making it legal? What other problems might arise?

I think most people just nuts and bolts want to get high and it annoys them that they might be incarcerated. I don't mind if someone wants to get high and I think they could tax the living shit out of it like cigarettes. A problem I see is driving under the influence. I have prior experience with marijuana as I was a pot head and I am confident that although I was highly experienced I was also impaired while driving. Its less severe than alcohol but still present; I mean I think someone can drive better after all night smoking than drinking. There is no test for marijuana intoxication other than field sobriety AFAIK.

Another way to turn arguments on their head. Ok marijuana causes gangs and organized crime? Ok what do those criminals do when it becomes illegal? We still have the same criminals and they are still going to do illegal things.

I don't buy the 'rights' argument any more than I inherently think it is my right to drive 120 miles an hour.

[krahmer]

The documentary 'Grass' (2000), narrated by Woody Harrelson, covers the topic extremely well. I highly recommend it. They talk about the financial costs of prohibition, the ineffectiveness of prohibition, the gateway drug theory, the unintended consequences of prohibition, etc. The most ridiculous aspect in the US is the fact that industrial hemp, which can be used for hundreds of uses and grows even in poor soil, is illegal, despite containing no or trace amounts of THC.

brian

[Yeshe]

Prohibition encourages enterprise.

I remember well the effect police boss James Anderton had on Manchester in the 1970's when he sought to close down 'pornography' and the 'sex trade'. Within days the rival gangs who ran the sex clubs, prostititutes and sex shops were fire-bombing and shooting each other.

I have witnessed the effect of drug bans since the 1960's. A ban increases the allure of the substance. It also leads to users seeking 'legal' alternatives - the UK is now banning as many legal highs as it can. The joke is that they are ignoring alcohol, the most damaging of all. They have also missed one - Ipomea. Morning Glory (Heavenly Blue) seeds mimic LSD when ingested. The point being, the pursuit to ban substances is pointless.

If anyone want to prevent drug abuse, they would be better employed tackling the causes which create the need. After all, a doctor does not treat the symptoms; he or she treats the disease which causes them. Buddhism has a role in this - meditators who have experienced some peace or bliss are far less likely to seek other 'highs' IMHO.

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The question is if there is a problem that its illegality is causing. And would those harms be solved by the present system? Would they be solved by making it legal? What other problems might arise?

Tell me, do you think that the prohibition of marijuana and other drugs has honestly solved more problems that it has caused? Do you think that our current system honestly works?

I think most people just nuts and bolts want to get high and it annoys them that they might be incarcerated.

Sorry, but wrong. Most people see the foolishness of our laws and want to see those laws overturned. Drugs being illegal has never really stopped anyone from doing them.

I don't mind if someone wants to get high and I think they could tax the living shit out of it like cigarettes. A problem I see is driving under the influence. I have prior experience with marijuana as I was a pot head and I am confident that although I was highly experienced I was also impaired while driving. Its less severe than alcohol but still present; I mean I think someone can drive better after all night smoking than drinking. There is no test for marijuana intoxication other than field sobriety AFAIK.

Yes, driving while under the influence is a potential problem. That's why you have punishments for doing so, just like with alcohol. It may be harder to detect and prove than it is with alcohol, but that's no reason to keep he substance itself illegal.

Another way to turn arguments on their head. Ok marijuana causes gangs and organized crime? Ok what do those criminals do when it becomes illegal? We still have the same criminals and they are still going to do illegal things.

There will always be criminals, always has been. That's a fact of life. No doubt there will still be criminals even if drugs are legalized, but take away their largest source of financing and you will cripple the gangs themselves. The gangs and cartels are what poses the real threat to society, not individual criminals. Also most people who deal drugs do so for one or more of the following reasons: 1. it's easy money, 2. it's good money, and 3, they have little in the way of job prospects. I grew up in a small town with little economic opportunities, especially after the town factory packed up and moved overseas. One of my best friends deal drugs for years, and he did pretty good with it. Then he luckily got in with a job that paid good money and offered a chance to make a good lasting career with plenty of room for advancement. He stopped dealing then. I don't pretend that the legalizing marijuana and/or other drugs is the total solution to the issue of crime. It's gonna take some reinvestment it our country, bringing jobs back, as well, but that's another matter for a different discussion.

I don't buy the 'rights' argument any more than I inherently think it is my right to drive 120 miles an hour.

Ridiculous logic. Unless you're a race car driver or stuntman on a closed track there's no way possible to drive 120 mph without endangering yourself and others. Smoking a joint in the privacy of the home, however, endangers no one.

[caz namyaw]

Originally Posted by Yeshe

Prohibition encourages enterprise.

I remember well the effect police boss James Anderton had on Manchester in the 1970's when he sought to close down 'pornography' and the 'sex trade'. Within days the rival gangs who ran the sex clubs, prostititutes and sex shops were fire-bombing and shooting each other.

I have witnessed the effect of drug bans since the 1960's. A ban increases the allure of the substance. It also leads to users seeking 'legal' alternatives - the UK is now banning as many legal highs as it can. The joke is that they are ignoring alcohol, the most damaging of all. They have also missed one - Ipomea. Morning Glory (Heavenly Blue) seeds mimic LSD when ingested. The point being, the pursuit to ban substances is pointless.

If anyone want to prevent drug abuse, they would be better employed tackling the causes which create the need. After all, a doctor does not treat the symptoms; he or she treats the disease which causes them. Buddhism has a role in this - meditators who have experienced some peace or bliss are far less likely to seek other 'highs' IMHO.

Well spoken. This war on soft drugs is a huge waste of money and resources in my opinion the government have shown they dont even listen to scientific advisory board so its practically sheer political arrogence.

[Jeffrey]

Wouldn't it have to go on the voting ballots? Or could the executive branch just reinterpret how they enforce existing laws? In my state I think medicinal marijuana passed in 2008 election.

[krahmer]

Medical marijuana is legal in several states now, which I think is a good thing. From March 2009: "U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder Jr. said Wednesday that the Justice Department has no plans to prosecute pot dispensaries that are operating legally under state laws in California and a dozen other states -- a development that medical marijuana advocates and civil libertarians hailed as a sweeping change in federal drug policy." Personally, I think it's only a matter of time when MJ is legalized. There will be a critical mass of states that legalize it, which will take it to a point that the federal government will just give up.
Non-medicinal MJ is legal in Denver and Breckenridge, here in CO. It's still illegal at a federal level, but if you were smoking a joint in the park, what are the chances than an FBI or DEA agent is going to walk by and arrest you?

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Wouldn't it have to go on the voting ballots? Or could the executive branch just reinterpret how they enforce existing laws? In my state I think medicinal marijuana passed in 2008 election.

The executive branch neither makes nor interprets laws. The legislature makes the laws, the executive signs them into effect, and the judicial interprets them. As far as voting ballots: I don't like them. It's tyranny of the majority (case-in-point California's "Proposition 8"), and inherently goes against what our country was set up to be.

[Jeffrey]

The executive branch also executes the law. In other words enforces..

Therefore if the law says Schedule 1 Narcotics blah blah blah blah. All that has to happen is that the law would have to say marijuana is not a schedule one narcotic. I don't know if the law specifies that or if it is just interpreted. Which is why I asked. I suspect that the law specifically mentions marijuana as schedule 1. And also specifies the ramifications of how government should regulate such substances. Then the DEA is not part of the legislative branch. The DEA is part of the executive and it actually hires the police officers and trains them (or I guess FBI officers).

Personally I don't buy the argument if I harm no one I may harm myself. For no man is an island. I agree that drugs should be regulated somehow. From pharmaceutical and OTC distinction. To the tighter reins on schedule 1-5.

I do feel that people should actually research if marijuana is harmful. Obviously there is lung health risk but then cigarettes are legal. I would probably say marijuana should be a schedule 3 drug that can be taken by a prescription from a doctor. And then explore with sound research how it is affecting people who are taking it for medical reasons. I'm not especially fired up about creating another cigarette phenominen as I have lost family who I loved from lung cancer.

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

The executive branch also executes the law. In other words enforces..

Oh? I never realized the President and our state Governors also served as in their duties as police officers.

Therefore if the law says Schedule 1 Narcotics blah blah blah blah. All that has to happen is that the law would have to say marijuana is not a schedule one narcotic. I don't know if the law specifies that or if it is just interpreted. Which is why I asked. I suspect that the law specifically mentions marijuana as schedule 1. And also specifies the ramifications of how government should regulate such substances. Then the DEA is not part of the legislative branch. The DEA is part of the executive and it actually hires the police officers and trains them (or I guess FBI officers).

The DEA does not create the laws they enforce, the legislature does. The DEA is part of the Department of Justice, which is, yes, a department of the executive branch. But the executive must work with the legislative in regards to such departments. Much in the same way that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military but still need Congressional approval for major military operations, military budgets, etc.

Personally I don't buy the argument if I harm no one I may harm myself. For no man is an island. I agree that drugs should be regulated somehow. From pharmaceutical and OTC distinction. To the tighter reins on schedule 1-5.

So then do you also oppose people being able to eat whatever foods they wish? Poor diets, after all, can be extremely harmful.

I do feel that people should actually research if marijuana is harmful. Obviously there is lung health risk but then cigarettes are legal. I would probably say marijuana should be a schedule 3 drug that can be taken by a prescription from a doctor. And then explore with sound research how it is affecting people who are taking it for medical reasons. I'm not especially fired up about creating another cigarette phenominen as I have lost family who I loved from lung cancer.

As have I, but I still support people being afforded the freedom to do as they wish in regards with themselves and their own bodies.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by Takeahnase

Oh? I never realized the President and our state Governors also served as in their duties as police officers.

Thats why I mentioned FBI agents. The president executes the executive branch of the federal government. There are also executive state governments. I think your original argument was that the executive branch only signs laws which is not true as they also execute and enforce that which they sign. The piece you are missing is that the president or governor delegates their authority. They have 'ministers' or whatever and ultimately in the chain of command the FBI is 'under' the pres and the cops are 'under' the governor.

Originally Posted by Takeahnase

The DEA does not create the laws they enforce, the legislature does. The DEA is part of the Department of Justice, which is, yes, a department of the executive branch. But the executive must work with the legislative in regards to such departments. Much in the same way that the President is the Commander-in-Chief of the military but still need Congressional approval for major military operations, military budgets, etc.

I never stated that the executive branch was isolated from the legislative. Helpful information though.

Originally Posted by Takeahnase

So then do you also oppose people being able to eat whatever foods they wish? Poor diets, after all, can be extremely harmful.

Well case by case. Do you feel averse to seatbelt and helmet laws? Should I be allowed to live in a structurally unsound building if I want?
In the case of diet I think the alternative would be to make fats and sugars
illegal. But that would be unreasonable. In other words there is no acceptable way to enforce diet. Drugs are much easier to regulate because we do not need drugs to survive. By the way
foods are also regulated by the government just so you know. To the extent that it is (deemed) reasonable.

Originally Posted by Takeahnase

As have I, but I still support people being afforded the freedom to do as they wish in regards with themselves and their own bodies.

I think prescription drugs should be prescription. No reason to let people harm their own bodies. One of the questions they ask you BEFORE they
Baker act someone for mental illness is to ask whether they are a danger
to THEMSELVES AND others.

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Thats why I mentioned FBI agents. The president executes the executive branch of the federal government. There are also executive state governments. I think your original argument was that the executive branch only signs laws which is not true as they also execute and enforce that which they sign. The piece you are missing is that the president or governor delegates their authority. They have 'ministers' or whatever and ultimately in the chain of command the FBI is 'under' the pres and the cops are 'under' the governor.

The implication that I got from your post was that you were under the impression that the President/Governor were directly in charge of law enforcement. Misunderstanding/miscommunication/whatnot.

Well case by case. Do you feel averse to seatbelt and helmet laws? Should I be allowed to live in a structurally unsound building if I want?

Adults can cruise down the interstate with their torso hanging out the passenger window for all I care. If you own a home with a roof that's on the verge of falling in and wish to live their yourself then good luck to you. I have question your sanity, but hey, you're an adult, it's your choice.

In the case of diet I think the alternative would be to make fats and sugars
illegal. But that would be unreasonable. In other words there is no acceptable way to enforce diet. Drugs are much easier to regulate because we do not need drugs to survive.

How is it reasonable to declare that you can burn one plant and inhale its fumes but not another plant? How is it reasonable to decree that you can consume one mind-altering substance but not another?

By the way
foods are also regulated by the government just so you know. To the extent that it is (deemed) reasonable.

Do you think I am unaware of that? However you are confusing two separate issues: the regulation of content and quality of food vs what foods a person is allowed to consume. Regulation of content and quality is necessary because otherwise you could well end up with foods being marketed that are not safe for consumption. Regulation what what foods a person can or cannot eat, however, would be an infringement on personal liberties.

I think prescription drugs should be prescription. No reason to let people harm their own bodies. One of the questions they ask you BEFORE they
Baker act someone for mental illness is to ask whether they are a danger
to THEMSELVES AND others.

And what does the Baker Act have to do with the subject on hand?

[Jeffrey]

I think the government should be a little protective. I support seatbelt helmet etc. I support regulations on building. Food would be regulated to provide for health however there is no way to regulate it without making fat and sugar illegal. If you can regulate no bacteria then you *could* regulate a balanced diet however it is just too difficult to implement. The Baker Act is a example showing: The government is interested in protecting its citizens. I think you fail to see how stupid people are Unfortunately we are not enlightened buddhas wandering around. If we were then I vote for anarchy Oxycontin and benzodiazepines should be regulate as should marijuana. Of course the abuse potential of those three should be studied rather than presumed.

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

I think you fail to see how stupid people are

No, I know full and well how stupid people can be. However I support people's right to be as stupid as they choose so long as they are not harming others.

[distortedchild]

I believe that all drugs should be legalized, regulated and taxed. Even meth etc. Why not have a system set up where you can only buy so much a month? Also age limits etc. would keep out of the hands of kids.

Regulating them decreases the chance of overdose, and taxing them gets us out of our recession.

[bushinoki]

distorted, I have to respectfully disagree with "all drugs". There are many natural drugs that should be legal simply because they are so hard to regulate, but something like meth has no place in society to begin with, and does nothing but damage from the get go. It's cleaning supplies cooked together with cold medication.

[Jeffrey]

Some additional thoughts. First a question. Do you think cannabis is a wholesome habit or a harmful habit? If you answered wholesome then obviously we should legalize marijuana. If you argued harmful then you should think about what will happen if it is legal. Just for the record for the lung effects alone I consider marijuana harmful.

The rest of this will only make sense if you have 1 semester of economics. What will happen to the price of an ounce of marijuana if it becomes legal? Answer it will go down. The demand for marijuana will increase since people may freely smoke it without being incarcerated and it becomes more socially acceptable after advertising among other things such as open use. I am not saying the demand will double I am just saying with out a doubt it will increase. Also the suppliers currently are subject to prison. Undoubtably the supply (the amount manufacturers/suppliers are willing to supply for a given price). Where the supply and demand curve intersect is the market price. With supply increasing and demand increasing the price will go down if supply increases more than demand. Indeed most of the law enforcement targets suppliers and I believe the suppliers will increase more than the demand.

So what happens to the consumption of marijuana as the price goes down (with increasing demand)? Well it obviously increases. Therefore if you believe marijuana is a harmful substance it follows that with more consumption of marijuana there will be more harmful effects.

Insert any other drug of interest. For example as crystal meth is much more harmful than marijuana the negatives of legalizing crystal meth would be more severe than those of legalizing marijuana.

The question is whether or not the current crime caused by drug trafficking is worse than the harm done by marijuana itself with more consumption.

[Quiet_witness]

Cocaine, Heroine and other non medically prescribed oppiates, and Meth/speed have no place for the well being of society and they harm more than just the user. Meth, especially, just by smoking it in a house or apartment once the dwelling is toxically contaminated and takes massively expensive repairs to be safely habital again (just once).

Marijuana, I don't think that if it were legal there would be an increase to lung disease as those who smoke, even habitually, smoke dramatically less than cigarretes, simply because you get high off less for longer periods of time.

As far as the demand of the drug, I would suspect that if it were leagalized on the short run the demand would increase but it would be a fad and in the long run would stabalize to about what demand is now (which is not that small mind you).

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Some additional thoughts. First a question. Do you think cannabis is a wholesome habit or a harmful habit? If you answered wholesome then obviously we should legalize marijuana. If you argued harmful then you should think about what will happen if it is legal. Just for the record for the lung effects alone I consider marijuana harmful.

It's like anything else. It can be ether harmful or not depending on ones habits. As far as "wholesome": what does that matter? Eating deep fried french fries covered in melted cheese and topped with mayonnaise can hardly be considered wholesome, but I doubt that you would consider that it should be outlawed.

The rest of this will only make sense if you have 1 semester of economics. What will happen to the price of an ounce of marijuana if it becomes legal? Answer it will go down. The demand for marijuana will increase since people may freely smoke it without being incarcerated and it becomes more socially acceptable after advertising among other things such as open use. I am not saying the demand will double I am just saying with out a doubt it will increase. Also the suppliers currently are subject to prison. Undoubtably the supply (the amount manufacturers/suppliers are willing to supply for a given price). Where the supply and demand curve intersect is the market price. With supply increasing and demand increasing the price will go down if supply increases more than demand. Indeed most of the law enforcement targets suppliers and I believe the suppliers will increase more than the demand.

So what happens to the consumption of marijuana as the price goes down (with increasing demand)? Well it obviously increases. Therefore if you believe marijuana is a harmful substance it follows that with more consumption of marijuana there will be more harmful effects.

Demand is not going to increase by any significant degree by its legalization. This is faulty thinking. Sure, you'll probably have a few that try it out of curiosity, but this is negligible. One the whole the prohibition of marijuana (or any other drug for that matter) has done nothing to decrease usage. There are even some areas where the cultivation of marijuana is estimated to be larger (in terms of dollars) than legitimate crops.

Insert any other drug of interest. For example as crystal meth is much more harmful than marijuana the negatives of legalizing crystal meth would be more severe than those of legalizing marijuana.

And?

The question is whether or not the current crime caused by drug trafficking is worse than the harm done by marijuana itself with more consumption.

Yes. A million times yes.

[Jeffrey]

So legality does not affect demand? I don't agree. Advertising doesn't affect demand? You better notify coca cola. They are of the mistaken idea that advertising increases demand.

[Stephen]

We can argue for or against, but first consider the bigger picture. It isn't about one drug, it's about how we view all such things that are recognized in public perception as harmful. Alcohol is, as far as it kills, much more dangerous. Does that mean we should legalize marijuana because it is less so? Or does that mean we are in error allowing alcohol to remain legal? Think on it for the future, and not in the context of revenue; we do much harm for the sake of money and call it a good choice where it is anything but.

[poto]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So legality does not affect demand?

Rates of marijuana use in the Netherlands are about half that of the US, despite the fact that it's openly available in coffee shops there.

http://members.multimania.nl/medicalinfo/nl.html

[Jeffrey]

Thats not unexpected that there are regional variations in demand. Due to cultural differences. There are also different rates of (legal) alcohol consumptions in different nations.

However what happened to the demand when marijuana became legal in a country where it is formerly illegal and vice versa? Demand increases because consumers no longer face prison as a risk of their behaviour. This is a no brainer.

Plus that would only make the price drop MORE if demand was stabile (with increasing supply).. And its a no brainer that supply, the amount suppliers are willing to supply at a given cost, will increase. Simply because the cost of business goes down when no longer needing to evade law enforcement. And a larger pool of possible suppliers, legitimate ones. Theres no agricultural reason for the price of an ounce of marijuana to be higher than an ounce of oregano! Consumption also increases with stabile demand and lowering price.

My argument was that if marijuana is harmful. And if consumption increases. Then the amount of harmful effects increases.

I thought takeanase made a good argument about greasy foods. Why should we protect people from marijuana's harmful effects? Nonetheless drugs are viewed differently than foods in society.

[Applepie]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Plus that would only make the price drop MORE if demand was stabile (with increasing supply).. And its a no brainer that supply, the amount suppliers are willing to supply at a given cost, will increase. Simply because the cost of business goes down when no longer needing to evade law enforcement. And a larger pool of possible suppliers, legitimate ones. Theres no agricultural reason for the price of an ounce of marijuana to be higher than an ounce of oregano! Consumption also increases with stabile demand and lowering price.

Legalization doesn't mean there won't be any rules. There could be a very strict control on the companies that would be allowed to grow cannabis. When big companies start mass producing cannabis, the illegal production won't be worth it anymore. The price of the cannabis would reduce, but this doesn't mean that the government can't tax it to balance it out. And I'm sure that there would be few people that would prefer to get lower priced cannabis illegally, I don't believe that the illegal market of cigarettes is extremely big either (I could be wrong).

[shenpen nangwa]

Should cannabis be legalized?
yes.
thank you, good night.

[Brigid]

Lol!!

[MindfulMe]

Originally Posted by poto

Any Buddhist with an ounce of compassion should understand that it is not wise to throw people in jail for something that is far less harmful than many legal substances.

Perhaps this is why your perception is distorted: You are comparing one "bad" against another "bad". Why not eliminate all the "bad" to begin with?

Many legal substances SHOULD be illegal, including cannabis.

If the substance does harm to either body or mind, then why take it? To me, going against the logic of doing no harm against owns own body/mind is a result of clinging, desire - ADDICTION.

I feel compassion for those who struggle with substance abuse. It's really not their fault, but the laws of ones place of residence must still be respected and obeyed.

[poto]

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

Perhaps this is why your perception is distorted: You are comparing one "bad" against another "bad". Why not eliminate all the "bad" to begin with?

Many legal substances SHOULD be illegal, including cannabis.

If the substance does harm to either body or mind, then why take it? To me, going against the logic of doing no harm against owns own body/mind is a result of clinging, desire - ADDICTION.

I feel compassion for those who struggle with substance abuse. It's really not their fault, but the laws of ones place of residence must still be respected and obeyed.

You assume my perception is distorted or wrong.

You also seem to overlook the beneficial medicinal aspects of cannabis. I have known many people that have benefited from cannabis, and I have used it myself. Eliminating the bad also sometimes eliminates the good and causes a great deal more suffering than if one had just left things alone.

Why is it wrong or distorted to allow people to choose for themselves? Why do you think you are right to impose your views on others?

[MindfulMe]

Originally Posted by poto

You assume my perception is distorted or wrong.

You also seem to overlook the beneficial medicinal aspects of cannabis. I have known many people that have benefited from cannabis, and I have used it myself. Eliminating the bad also sometimes eliminates the good and causes a great deal more suffering than if one had just left things alone.

Why is it wrong or distorted to allow people to choose for themselves? Why do you think you are right to impose your views on others?

I'm sorry that you felt I was imposing anything on anyone. I was under the impression that this was an open forum, where opinions and sharing of ideas were welcome.

Back to the topic at hand. We are talking about substances that have the potential to cause harm (to mind and/or body). If people use drugs to run away from pain, are they truly doing themselves any good? Does impairing someones judgment (mind) benefit them at all?

I suffer from chronic pain and was put in the hospital last year because of it. I chose not to use drugs as a means of avoiding my pain and decided instead to use mindfulness and loving-kindness towards my pain in order to transforming it into healing.

For those who rely on drugs to ease their suffering, I hope they can find a less destructive way of working with their body to find a solution. Our minds have the potential to be more powerful than any drug a doctor can prescribe.

[Jeffrey]

I support (and have voted) for medicinal marijuana. But as a medicine it should be regulated by the FDA. I think marijuana has as much abuse potential as benzodiazepines, but not as much as opiates. I would make it a schedule 3 contolled substance. Which means that you cannot get 'refills' for it and need a doctor to call in (don't need a visit just a call). I don't think marijuana should be available at coffee shops for the same reason that xanax, valium, etc should not ie abuse potential.

[poto]

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

I'm sorry that you felt I was imposing anything on anyone. I was under the impression that this was an open forum, where opinions and sharing of ideas were welcome.

Yes, as far as I am aware this is an open forum. I was attempting to understand and respond to your views.

I was responding to this specifically:

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

Many legal substances SHOULD be illegal, including cannabis.

Advocating a ban on something is imposing your view on others.

If you are advocating that substances should be illegal, then you are advocating the enforcement of those laws on people who do not agree with it. I can not agree with the use of force against otherwise peaceful people who are not a danger to society.

IMHO, marijuana in no way warrants the use of force. At most I could agree with a luxury tax or civil fines, but arrest and incarceration are far more harmful than the substance itself.

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

Back to the topic at hand. We are talking about substances that have the potential to cause harm (to mind and/or body). If people use drugs to run away from pain, are they truly doing themselves any good? Does impairing someones judgment (mind) benefit them at all?

Is it your place to tell somebody what's best for them? What gives you the right to do so?

People must make their own choices, for better or worse. You can not force people to be healthy and always do the safest things. It would be great if we lived in a world where people only did beneficial things, but we don't.

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

I suffer from chronic pain and was put in the hospital last year because of it. I chose not to use drugs as a means of avoiding my pain and decided instead to use mindfulness and loving-kindness towards my pain in order to transforming it into healing.

For those who rely on drugs to ease their suffering, I hope they can find a less destructive way of working with their body to find a solution. Our minds have the potential to be more powerful than any drug a doctor can prescribe.

I am glad to hear that you were able to deal with your pain without drugs. Most of the rest of us are not able to do the same.

[MindfulMe]

Originally Posted by poto

Yes, as far as I am aware this is an open forum. I was attempting to understand and respond to your views.

I was responding to this specifically:



Advocating a ban on something is imposing your view on others.

If you are advocating that substances should be illegal, then you are advocating the enforcement of those laws on people who do not agree with it. I can not agree with the use of force against otherwise peaceful people who are not a danger to society.

IMHO, marijuana in no way warrants the use of force. At most I could agree with a luxury tax or civil fines, but arrest and incarceration are far more harmful than the substance itself.



Is it your place to tell somebody what's best for them? What gives you the right to do so?

People must make their own choices, for better or worse. You can not force people to be healthy and always do the safest things. It would be great if we lived in a world where people only did beneficial things, but we don't.



I am glad to hear that you were able to deal with your pain without drugs. Most of the rest of us are not able to do the same.

I don't mean to agitate this thread, so I will not start a back and forth argument over this.

It is my OPINION that drugs and other harmful substances should be banned to protect people who have no control over their addictions and harmful behavior. In my OPINION, I believe this should also extend to weapons, gambling, cigarettes and tobacco, etc.

I'm sure that even the suggestion of a ban of the aforementioned items will cause many people to become uneasy, but that's all in the mind - it really has nothing to do with the drugs or choice or whatever.

Harmful substances have no place in this world. Abusing them certainly won't help people to develop love, compassion or mindfulness.

Let me ask you a question. Knowing that alcohol has caused many families to break up; has caused people to lose their jobs; has caused countless lives to be lost, would you still honor someones choice to destroy more of someones life instead of helping them end their addiction? I understand that we cannot be responsible for the consequences of another persons choices, but would you not at least try to help?

Instead of harmful substances, why not promote things that benefit people, plants and animals? I think it's a shame to waste precious time over drugs when we can use that time to benefit ourselves and others.

I respectfully honor your opinions and don't wish to see this becoming a struggle over "right" and "wrong". I am in no way trying to push my views on anyone, but merely expressing my opinions on the matter. Throughout my life, I've come to witness the complete destruction of family members and friends lives over drugs and alcohol use, including prescription medication. I wouldn't want others to experience the same in their own lives simply to feed a harmful desire.

Be Peace.

[poto]

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

It is my OPINION that drugs and other harmful substances should be banned to protect people who have no control over their addictions and harmful behavior. In my OPINION, I believe this should also extend to weapons, gambling, cigarettes and tobacco, etc.

Here I think is the root of our disagreement. I think people should be free to make their own choices. I do not think it wise to legislate morality, nor do I think the government makes a good nanny. Furthermore, I do not believe one can cure addiction merely by attempting to ban a substance.

People become addicted to food, like chocolate or any number of other things. By following your logic should we ban food too, since some people are addicted to it?

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

Let me ask you a question. Knowing that alcohol has caused many families to break up; has caused people to lose their jobs; has caused countless lives to be lost, would you still honor someones choice to destroy more of someones life instead of helping them end their addiction? I understand that we cannot be responsible for the consequences of another persons choices, but would you not at least try to help?

Are you advocating that banning a substance will actually help anyone?

Knowing the greater harm that alcohol prohibition caused, I would oppose any attempt to do the same today. And for much the same reasons I oppose the continued prohibition of cannabis today.

Banning substances is not a path that helps people. It only creates more suffering. It support criminal enterprise and black markets and does nothing to reduce actual demand.

Lessons learned during alcohol prohibition seem to be quickly forgotten, and are seldom applied to the war on drugs.

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

Instead of harmful substances, why not promote things that benefit people, plants and animals? I think it's a shame to waste precious time over drugs when we can use that time to benefit ourselves and others.

I respectfully honor your opinions and don't wish to see this becoming a struggle over "right" and "wrong". I am in no way trying to push my views on anyone, but merely expressing my opinions on the matter. Throughout my life, I've come to witness the complete destruction of family members and friends lives over drugs and alcohol use, including prescription medication. I wouldn't want others to experience the same in their own lives simply to feed a harmful desire.

Be Peace.

I've seen harm done by drugs and alcohol too. Of course, this thread is about cannabis, so maybe we've gotten a bit OT here.

Personally, I probably wouldn't be Buddhist today if it weren't for cannabis. The years I spent smoking huge amounts of marijuana helped me calm my mind enough for the teachings to take hold. It's been a long strange journey, and I wouldn't have been able to come this far without a little help from kind bud.

For that matter, if it weren't for the calming effects of cannabis, I probably would either be dead or in jail today. I can't count the number of times in my youth that I was able to avoiding acting on violent thoughts and calm the rage within myself with just a few puffs on a joint. Many lives have been saved due to this.

[Stream]

I had a very bad experience with Cannabis. I fisrt tried it when I was 14, didn't like it much. Then I tried it again when I was 16 and I loved it. I couldn't stop smoking it. I would wake up every morning and the first thing I would do was take skunk shot gun (a bong like device) and spend all my time getting as stoned out of my tree as possible.

"Who cares, every one else does it", I thought. The government had just downgraded it from a B to class C, which meant you couldn't get jailed for possesion. My interest in anything other that pot dwindled. My grades fell, I got kicked out of college for my drug use, I stole money from my parents to fund my cannabis life style.

This carried on for about two years, my parents finaly had enough and I was kicked onto the streets. I had stoled atleast 4,000 of them in total to fund my addiction to Pot (yes, cannabis is addictive!). I ended up in a homeless shelter, where my peers injected themselves with heroin. It didn't take me long to follow suit. I was injecting every day and smoking weed while I was doing it. Two years later I had a break down after several overdoses and ended up in a secure mental institution. It was the Doctor's opinion it was the weed that scrambled my brain more than the heroin. Cannabis does induce mental illness, if smoked for long enough and in enough quantities by certain people ( they say its one in ten I think).

The fact is, I would never have touched heroin, turned to a life of crime or screwed my life up totaly if I hadn't picked up that first spliff. I'm not the only one, many in the mental institution told the same story as me! I read about it in the news, see it on TV, and its true. Cannabis messes up lives. I accept some people are fine on it, but it should never be made legal. It sends out all the wrong messages, and we need to protect our kids.

[MindfulMe]

Originally Posted by poto

Here I think is the root of our disagreement. I think people should be free to make their own choices. I do not think it wise to legislate morality, nor do I think the government makes a good nanny. Furthermore, I do not believe one can cure addiction merely by attempting to ban a substance.

People become addicted to food, like chocolate or any number of other things. By following your logic should we ban food too, since some people are addicted to it?

Thank you for your thoughtful post. It has made me more understanding of your viewpoint.

I believe that most of society does not have the ability (although they do have the capacity) to control their addictions and this is a problem. Obesity is up to 60% of the US population - this is a direct reflection of the poor choices people are making for themselves and their kids. Should we make junk food an illegal substance? Realistically, it won't happen, but I know it would save millions of lives if junk food didn't exist.

Prohibition showed us that humans find a way to feed their addictions no matter what the consequences. This has nothing to do with alcohol, but the problem we face about our lack of control.

To compound the problem of our need to always chase desire and craving, many of these substances are addictive on a physiological level.

What is the solution?

Perhaps the billions spend on these products and the billions used to treat the inevitable consequences on our health should be spend on more health-promoting and positive things. Imagine how many lives could be enriched if we didn't have these attachments to harmful substances!

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

So legality does not affect demand? I don't agree. Advertising doesn't affect demand? You better notify coca cola. They are of the mistaken idea that advertising increases demand.

Poor comparison. You're talking about two entirely different types of things. For starters, carbonated beverages have never been illegal. Try having it outlawed for the better part of a century and then you can compare. Secondly, people must drink, they must stay hydrated. Cola is one source of doing so. There is nothing in marijuana that people must have. A better comparison would be with cigarettes. Now, considering that tens of millions of people already use marijuana in spite of it being illegal do your seriously believe that number will suddenly skyrocket if it is legalized?

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

What is the solution?

Perhaps the billions spend on these products and the billions used to treat the inevitable consequences on our health should be spend on more health-promoting and positive things. Imagine how many lives could be enriched if we didn't have these attachments to harmful substances!

Sounds great. Now, how do you propose convincing the rest of the world to do this?

[MindfulMe]

Originally Posted by Takeahnase

Sounds great. Now, how do you propose convincing the rest of the world to do this?

I don't see where the difficulty lies. We educate people on the value of good things, not harmful things.

With money being directed away from treating sickness (caused by these harmful substances) or feeding addictions, we could easily allocate money to promoting peace, sustainability and improving health.

People don't want to suffer. Once we remove the source of these problems, the problems no longer exist.

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

I don't see where the difficulty lies. We educate people on the value of good things, not harmful things.

With money being directed away from treating sickness (caused by these harmful substances) or feeding addictions, we could easily allocate money to promoting peace, sustainability and improving health.

People don't want to suffer. Once we remove the source of these problems, the problems no longer exist.

And how do you educate people who do not wish to listen?

[Pax]

Originally Posted by shenpen nangwa

Should cannabis be legalized?
yes.
thank you, good night.

Agreed.

[comicallyinsane]

Originally Posted by sambodhi

We all know why pot smokers want the devil's cabbage legalized... But what about nonsmokers? Even my parents who are uptight conservatives are starting to recognize and accept that marijuana may in fact be a legitimate source of tax revenue.

Thoughts?

I personally feel that the excuse "Legalizing marijuana and/or all drugs will send kids the message that drugs are okay to use" is a scapegoat and a poor excuse for uninvolved parents. If you think that your kid would suddenly go out and buy heroin if it were legal, then that reflects on your parenting techniques! You should be instilling these morals in your children, regardless of whether or not drugs are legal or illegal.

I think it should be legalized but treated like alcohol as far as where a person can do it.

[MindfulMe]

Originally Posted by Takeahnase

And how do you educate people who do not wish to listen?

You educate those who WILL listen and the doubters will follow. This is how The Buddha taught.

Educating certain tribes in Africa about AIDS and safe sex was met by a lot of resistance, but it only took a few people who were willing to listen and put the knowledge to practice to inspire their fellow countrymen.

Don't believe that things can't happen - believe that they CAN

[Takeahnase]

Originally Posted by MindfulMe

You educate those who WILL listen and the doubters will follow. This is how The Buddha taught.

And yet more than 20 centuries years after he lived there is still great suffering in the world. More suffering than ever before I'd wager.

Educating certain tribes in Africa about AIDS and safe sex was met by a lot of resistance, but it only took a few people who were willing to listen and put the knowledge to practice to inspire their fellow countrymen.

Don't believe that things can't happen - believe that they CAN

There are 25,000,000 people with AIDS in Africa. I don't think that's a shining example of "educate a few and the rest will follow".