Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Should Cannabis (marijuana) be legalized?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
CA is a very liberal state for the most part. The vote for legalization of marijuana will be in the November ballot this year. For most of us here in CA it's not a big deal, because well the drug cartels in Mexico are a big deal. And anything that can make them weaker is better. Also CA will benefit economically when it's legal here.
Forgive my English,greetings;Eric.:)
Thank you for making me laugh in an otherwise trying day!
Regards,
Malcolm
Smoking cannabis CAN mess with your head. Does not mean it WILL affect all people that way.
I know that if I had smoked a lot less in the past I would have had a lot less problems in my life ! Everybody must find for themselves the how and the what of cannabis but just watch out,a lot of people realize too late they have gone to far !
I wish you all the best;Eric.:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LayaGk0TMDc
They don't question if drugs are "bad" or not because they obviously can and do cause many problems for people. What they question is whether or not having them be illegal actually helps the situation or not.
1: the stuff on the streets is tainted, crack, random poison, etc in it, and kids can and will get it. at least when its legalized, itll help reduce gang problems(possibly) and will help get safe stuff on the market. revenue is gained. people WILL smoke pot, but i say we should let them do it without making them criminals. they do nothing wrong by simply smoking pot, pot cannot overdose a person unlike alcohol, why keep it suppressed when we allow tabaco and alcohol?
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">
Om Mani Padme Hum.
true. I'm against it.. If it is legalized it would be more readily available. and that isn't good.
it's a drug for goodness sake.
IMHO, this is the only perspective that should really have a seat in this debate. Now, let me provide that with a few disclaimers. First, I have not watched this video yet, so I'm not endorsing whatever conclusion the people in this video have arrived at. Nor am I saying that there is only room for one position on this matter. It is simply a matter of perspective.
The perspective that currently dominates the debate, along with the vast majority of controversial topics (abortion, immigration, etc.) is the perspective of personal influence. These debates rage around the subject of how these certain policies will affect individuals. For example, the illegal drug debate is often populated by either the "drugs are bad so we should make them illegal so people won't harm themselves by using them" camp or the "it's my choice, so let me do what I want" camp. It's easy to draw a parallel from this perspective to the healthy food debate, where many propose banning or limiting of unhealthy foods to influence people to make better choices.
However, deciding which personal freedoms (detrimental to the individual or not) are allowable is not the role of government at all.
In my high school economics class, I learned that if a policy decreases the net cost to society (or by the same straw, increases the net benefit to society), then it should be implemented. The common example we were given is of a chemical plant that dumps byproducts into a local community's river and/or water supply. Because the cost on the community of this practice was so high, it made economic sense to spend the community's tax money to clean up the waters and impose legislation on the chemical plant to stop them from dumping in this place.
Thus, the role of government, put most simply, is to decrease the net cost to society (its citizens) as much as possible. Whether or not illicit drugs are harmful to the individual really shouldn't be part of the conversation; it's not up to the government to decide. The perspective should be an economic, unbiased one; not an Orwellian, Big Brother perspective.
The majority of middle school children walk around with it. I don't think it can get more readily available.
If heroin or marijuana was legalized tomorrow, would you become a user?
Every weekend facebook is filled with new pictures of drunk under-age teens.
My point: Laws are irrelevant to peoples choices to use a substance or not.
2. Current laws put control and profits into the hands of organized crime, and cost taxpayers financing a losing strategy.
This is pretty easy.
The current strategy is not stopping drug use.
Users = unaffected
It puts police in harms way more often in a costly battle they cannot win.
Police and taxpayers = losers
The current system gives organized crime a monopoly over what is guaranteed to be a very profitable industry.
Organized crime = BIG BIG winners.
3. Big brother should not be telling us what we can consume, but that does not mean we should not be held responsible for our actions...on drugs or not.
I am allowed to use a cell phone, but if I run over a kid because I was texting while driving I am still responsible. It doesn't mean cell phones should be banned. If someone causes harm to someone else they should be held responsible regardless of substance use or abuse.
there is a difference between using the word drug.... in some countries it is used as medicine and in other countries it is referred to as coke etc.
so by drug I meant these kind of illegal stuff.
--- When this stuff is illegal.... kids know they are doing something that isn't right and they might be feeling [hopefully] a little bit guilty but if it is legal they would be eating it like chocolates.
great advice but if a person is addicted to the stuff.... it's really hard to wise up.
True, I have been addicted and it is hard. But if you really want to quit you can. Its just a matter of seeing that the dangers outweigh the presumed "advantages" of being high. Thinking in an objective way like this is not easy to do for weed smokers, and even if they are capable of being honest with themselves about the long term disadvantages of staying high they will need a strong sense of resolve when the cravings kick in. If they stay strong eventually the cravings stop coming. It can be done, I am living proof.
Again, I ask what specifically makes it a drug compared to those other things. That it's illegal? Ok, so make it legal and it's no longer a drug? Can you give me some other criteria please?
And coke? Coke isn't anywhere near comparable to weed...
Ok, so kids do it BECAUSE it's illegal, so making it legal would make them do it 100x more? You're not making any sense.
And give kids a little more credit. They aren't mindless little puppets who do it just because "ooo something bad!"
Those kids who are to young to drink and smoke tobacco still find ways to get it as do those wanting pot...
The only problem the government has with making it legal is they haven't figured out yet how to justifiably legalize it but legally crack down on those who grow their own... The government hates competition... Pot isn't like booze... home stills exist legally but they are no comparison to what you can buy... and its not like tobbaco that our climate doesn't really allow it to be grown out of doors... Any joe blow could grow their own pot plants in the back yard and what does the government gain from that...
At least with it being illegal the government still gets money from fines they can issue out... there will always be plenty of money in that...
BTW... I don't smoke or smoke up... never have... never will... but really pot's no different than booze and cigs... all addictive... all mind altering... 2 out of three are currently profitable to the government... when they can figure out how to make pot government profitable without seeming like hypocrites you'll see legal pot...
i know some people who are addicted to it, they want to stop but can't and it's really sad to watch them
the think being bad for health, addictive and something that makes you act like mad etc.
not 100x more buddy. If something is not available and I want it, I'll get it with difficulty, and because of the difficulty and unavailability I'd get it less. but if it is more readily available without any problems I would increase my intake/ use.
<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R7FshBjkS6U&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>
The country of Portugal is involved in a very interesting experiment regarding illegal drugs. The entire country decriminalized ALL drug use in 2001. There is no such thing as illegal drug use in Portugal anymore. The BBC did a little spot on it. They found that after Portugal decriminalized ALL drug use in 2001, even hard drugs like heroin and cocaine, drug use has gone down instead of up. Interesting experiment going on there and the nightmare of increased drug use that some people predicted, simply never happened.
In fact it is the role of the government to take care of their citizen who may have lack of the harmful effect on "illegal" drug. And it is also in line with the economic policy that increases the net benefit to the society. As for the cartels and gangs in business, the government could prevent this drug from easily available or cut off from your country
Om Mani Padme Hum:cool:
Firstly it rarely makes people "mad." Now again I ask how it's any different from the other things I mentioned based on the criteria you gave.
This just isn't true. Have you ever been to a high school? Getting some is as easy as asking someone if they want to hang out and smoke weed lol. XD
i did not mean mad in the real sense.... well crazy would be the right word.. and reckless too. and do you agree with me that the stuff which is tagged illegal is not good for health?
btw the high school I went to.... these stuff didn't happen and I haven't still smoked weed or cigarette till now. I do drink though.
this certainly is very interesting but the same can't be true for all the countries.
That's interesting. I think all drugs should be legalised everywhere, this would allow regulation and also taxation to pay for people who have problems - and put the criminals out of business. It doesn't make any sense to me that alchohol is legal and cannabis is illegal in many countries, given the vast amount of damage that excessive drinking does.
P
But some drugs are just too dangerous, and where it is not available (cities or countries where it is not available), there is just no drug problems there.
I live in Toronto, and I see crack addicts every days.
Some of them you see they just started maybe less than a year ago.
Some of them are beautiful young man and woman, you can easily see that they could be happy university students, full of life, full of joy and having fun with their friends etc... but you can already see the devastation from the drug taking place.
Perhaps in the cities already infested by this cancer, if they had other less destructive drugs easily available for cheaper, perhaps the spread of this tragedy could be diminished.
I'm not sure how your second paragraph supports the claim you made in your first. o_O I live an hour from Toronto as AFAIK crack sure as hell isn't legal there. :P
And that crack (and some other hard core drugs) should be unavailable if possible everywhere because it is simply too devastating, in response to the comment that was made about decriminalizing all drugs.
And that if it is impossible to make it unavailable where it is already creating so much dammage, i suggested that if other, far less damaging drugs would be available at a lower price, it could potentially be a good way to counter the damage from this particular drug.
If a person really wants to stop they can stop. It's all a matter of having the willpower to overcome the addiction. And pot, especially, is not really an addictive substance. Not like some other drugs. Sure it can be "addictive" in the sense that it can be habit-forming. Anything can be. It is not physiologically addictive however.
I assumed that by "available" you meant "legal." That you don't see crack addicts in a place where crack isn't available legally or illegally is a given. xD People have drug preferences for the experience it gives them as well as become physically and mentally addicted. Cheaper less harmful substitutes just frankly wouldn't do anything.
You said it all. There's the culture of drug beyond the substances themselves, and that leads to rather insane theories which never seem to equate the obvious fact that there's indeed a very little percentage of people who actually use pot wisely. Drug abusers do not give a shit about knowledge, karma, nirvana, or even whishful thinking. Meaning: no matter how wisely we use them, we ought not to forgett the vast majority doesn't. Therefore making it legal is at the very least, a delusional decision, based on plain solipism.
In my country it is actually easier to sell a gram of coke than a nice hot "croquete" (fried meat roals) at four o'clock in the morning. And I have a feeling it has to do with all the moaning about growing pot on your backyard. It's ineherent. Plain oportunism. The odds are that it is actually a lot more easier for dealers to "upgrade" pot users to more interesting stuff. Anyone who knows drugs, knows that's the way it works. Drug dealers enjoy upgrades. It has nothing to do with Mother Nature. It's just plain business.
october1560
I find it almost amusing that some of you feel that some drugs are just too bad to be legalized...as if having them illegal is stopping the abuse of them.
I'll ask again....if Crack is legal tomorrow, would YOU start using?
I wouldn't. I can tell you with 100% honesty that the legal status of crack has nothing at all to do with my choice to not use. It is pretty obvious it also has little or no impact on the choice of those who do use.
So the legal status is NOT a deciding factor in abuse.
So if we are having no impact on how many abuse (and obviously we are not) what exactly are we accomplishing by making these drugs illegal?
In some cases the illegal status makes harm reduction almost impossible. I would bet a great many heroin addicts who die, would not have died if they could obtain the drug knowing the exact dosage and purity, having a clean kit to use in a clean environment, and having counselling available so those who quit and then fall off the wagon do not go back using at the same dosage they did at the height of addiction. (opiate tolerance varies greatly with use. A hard core addict can take dosages that would kill a person with no opiate tolerance, however if an addict develops such a tolerance, and then stops using for a period...even a brief period, opiate tolerance goes down rapidly, and they can easily OD if they return using at the dosage they used before)
Also just to clear it up....we all know drug abuse is not good. This is not a debate about the merits of drug use. It is about finding a pragmatic way to deal with the reality of drugs. I would personally prefer if all intoxicants dissapeared...certainly from a Buddhist perspective, but I am still firmly in favour of legalizing drugs.
What??? As far as I know, any use of drugs is still illegal in Portugal. Thing is one can choose treatment instead of prison, as far as drug related crimes are concerned (that is, petty theft, possession and the likes, not smuggling drugs, of course). This peace of information is bad. Depenalizing users is not the same as legalizing drugs. There's no such thing as legalized drugs in Portugal. This is bad.
october1560
This is a good point. Prohibition just doesn't work. They tried prohibition of alchohol in the States, that was a complete disaster and just made a load of gangsters rich. That's what always happens.
P
no I didn't say it is impossible... I said it is really hard... someone who very much addicted cannot stop from will power alone... the after effects are very overwhelming for that.
so you mean legalized drugs doesn't exist in Portugal?
Comsumption or possession of drugs for consumption (criteria varies on the latter, according to quantities) is considered illicit conduct and punished with a fine or communitary work. Heavy drugs addicts, are confronted with treatment, fined or forced to render community work if they refuse treatment.
All traffic is criminalized and punished with prison. Foreigners smuggling drugs into the country may also be expelled. Same goes for foreigners living and smuggling drugs in the country.
october1560
it is a legal issue because this thing is not being used in hospitals alone.
Willpower alone? Perhaps not. But willpower is key to overcoming addiction. If the person has the will then they will find the means. And without that will then all the means in the world will not make any difference.
7 years in jail for passing a joint to an undercover cop. Shows you the discusting nature of the rediculous war on drugs.
I'm friends with marijuana dealers personally. And I don't make friends with assholes. The drug war is evil, like many governments.
I have a question that is not important but just can't get out of my mind when I talk about this issue... why? Because drugs are 'bad'? I don't buy it.
It's disappointing but in practice, an heroin/cocain/crack addict falling off the wagon is prone to start using in higher quantites than before, even after councelling, not the other way around. That's the naked truth. It would take me a while to explain why. Basically, they use what they've learned upside down. You'd be amazed with their farfetched excuses. Addicts are experts on manipulation and councelling may as well improve their skills... for those who choose to fall of the wagon (repeatedly) of course.
Tolerance depends on the time of use, not on the abstinence period, and does not go down rapidly. It is said people need twice as much time of abstinence to drop it. Good councelling improves their awareness of their compulsive behavior, self-manipulative mechanisms, helping them to stay in contact with their feelings. But serious addiction is tottally insane. There are no logics or quality standarts whatsoever involved. They simply want (need?) to use, no matter what, and the less they pay for it, the better.
Offering addicts the possibility to detox is positive, but legalizing drugs as nothing to do with it. Now there is free councelling available all over the world, "rewarding" use with legal use would only feed the twisted mind of an addict, swamped in self-pity. There are a bunch of recovering addicts working on the field everywhere, for decades now. There's absolutely no excuse for anyone not to try and detox.
Legal use of lethal substances? Why, if it makes no difference, other than feeding their excuses to stay addicted?
Some tolerance for light drugs, OK. Still they make people dumb.
october1560
cool... there should be such laws everywhere.
have you been addicted to it?? I am stressing on the point because I have seen the people who couldn't give it up and were miserable because of it.