Your view on the legalization of marijuana

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Link or some factual data will be nice I suppose.

You mean you haven't noticed that the police still go catch people smuggling drugs in from outside?

Understanding the fact that there are drugs coming into Singapore is a no-brainer. The problem is, does this mean Police force should stop catching people bringing in drugs? Bringing in a soft drug into Singapore is just as easy/hard to bring in hard drugs. I don't think anyone in the world is going to legalise a hard drugs, so police force is still needed to catch those people bringing in hard drugs.

Did I say anything to that effect? Tough laws are one thing, but the borders have always been porous. Do you honestly think the yearly US State Dept's accusation that Singapore is a hub for human trafficking is without cause?

So why couldn't the police force catch smugglers bringing in hard and soft drugs at the same time?

It's called a lack of Manpower. They admitted as much that they were sorely lacking in manpower. Notice that they don't do neighbourhood patrols very often these days. They used to years ago.

Wait, most people here who support legalization of Marijuana is not supporting this act for the sake of loosening up. It is about regulation.

Singapore is one of the most conservative nations in the world, and we have one of the highest percentages supporting death penalty. What is new here? A good portion of the population want tough laws, regardless what happens. No quarter give. Tough laws are useless anyway without adequate enforcement, so regulation is not a reason.

If the problem of drug or substance abuse isn't as severe as the US, why should we legalise those drugs?

This is akin to saying, "There is no problem, so why not still ban the problem."

[Gil Hamilton]

I don't mind such a heavy law, if we managed to control the trafficking of drugs and drug abuse to a huge degree. While such a law is infeasible in other nations, it can work for Singapore.

You don't mind laws that actually allow them to throw a person carrying 15 grams of weed in the slam for decades and cane the shit out of them? Are you serious? There drug laws (and laws in general) are the very definition of draconian. You haven't even demonstrated that drug use in general is something that should be criminalized, let along something that should carry long jail terms and even execution.

[The Guid]

You guys will have to forgive me for taking so long to respond. I've been terribly busy lately with real life stuff.

Is this a fakepost? Because otherwise I'm interested in your reasoning as to why all recreational drug use needs to be abolished.

What good comes from it? The negative effects of drug use, both on the individual and on the people around him, are well known. Cancer, amplified emotions (violent drunks, etc.), lung problems (for smokers), poor decision making - the list goes on, and all these negative effects have the potential to hurt other people aside from the drug user, either directly and seriously (drunk driving, second hand smoke, again, the list goes on) or indirectly and not as seriously (such as raising insurance premiums for everyone else).

But what good comes from it? Does this good outweigh the bad? Can you get these good effects a better way?


These, of course, are also the same question we have to ask about a ban. For the answers, I'm going to continue reading this debate. RedImperator's post back on page one is pretty strong and I can't really argue it myself.

You could make the same arguments about pretty much any activity. Sailing, we all have to pay for a coast guard because of them sailers, we have to pay for speed cameras because of fast cars, we have to pay for different hospital care because people don't eat as well and because they go and play sports.

The positive side to drug use is that it can be fun and a good way to enjoy like and improves, according to some, their creativity leading to greater developments especially in the field of the arts and literature. I think these are good things and do not outweight the bad. With Marujuane especially it causes people to become less violent and less likely to go out and break all of society's stuff, unlike alchohol.

[ray245]

I don't mind such a heavy law, if we managed to control the trafficking of drugs and drug abuse to a huge degree. While such a law is infeasible in other nations, it can work for Singapore.

You don't mind laws that actually allow them to throw a person carrying 15 grams of weed in the slam for decades and cane the shit out of them? Are you serious? There drug laws (and laws in general) are the very definition of draconian. You haven't even demonstrated that drug use in general is something that should be criminalized, let along something that should carry long jail terms and even execution.

Drug abuse does not deserve a death penalty here, Drug trafficking into the nation does. http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/ ... =REVED-185

There are rehabilitation program aimed towards drug abusers and help them get off drug abuse. However, even if you decide to legalise marijuana, that does not mean you are going to legalise the hard drugs. The problem of how to tackle hard drugs issues will be there. And the only way to target the hard drugs when they are banned is to actually enforce strict rules. Regulation doesn't even help when it comes to hard drugs.

I am open to the idea of abolishing the death penalty when it comes to bringing in marijuana. However, trafficking hard drugs deserve a heavy handed approach.

And Fingolfin_Noldor, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't drug traffickers tried and smuggle in different types of drugs at the same time, from soft to hard drugs? This means, if you caught a person carrying in marijuana, there is a high chance that he is smuggling in other hard drugs into Singapore as well.

[Uraniun235]

But what good comes from it? Does this good outweigh the bad? Can you get these good effects a better way?

Uh well obviously people get high, which a lot of people perceive as pleasurable and desirable. And no, you generally can't achieve the same sensation through other means, as drugs have differing chemical reactions with the human brain. It's not like nicotine is "slightly high", marijuana is "high", and cocaine is "more high"; they all produce different sensations.

[Broomstick]

I don't mind such a heavy law, if we managed to control the trafficking of drugs and drug abuse to a huge degree. While such a law is infeasible in other nations, it can work for Singapore.

You don't mind laws that actually allow them to throw a person carrying 15 grams of weed in the slam for decades and cane the shit out of them? Are you serious?

Ray is a product of the society he was raised in, he probably IS serious.

Bizarrely enough, I come from a society that prohibits corporal punishment of convicted felons even when it condemns them to death. That's just as strange from an outsider's viewpoint as Singapore's drug laws are.

[Broomstick]

You guys will have to forgive me for taking so long to respond. I've been terribly busy lately with real life stuff.

Is this a fakepost? Because otherwise I'm interested in your reasoning as to why all recreational drug use needs to be abolished.

What good comes from it? The negative effects of drug use, both on the individual and on the people around him, are well known. Cancer, amplified emotions (violent drunks, etc.), lung problems (for smokers), poor decision making - the list goes on, and all these negative effects have the potential to hurt other people aside from the drug user, either directly and seriously (drunk driving, second hand smoke, again, the list goes on) or indirectly and not as seriously (such as raising insurance premiums for everyone else).

But what good comes from it? Does this good outweigh the bad? Can you get these good effects a better way?

Interesting question.

Many animals - not just people - will seek out altered states. Cats play with catnip, horses eat fermenting apples, and elephants have been known to steal beer and get drunk. Can you get those altered states in other ways? Well... in a limited degree perhaps. It might explain the appeal of "fun fear" like roller coaster rides and scary movies.

Does any good come of it? I would argue that moderate use probably has some benefits, among them stress relief which can be obtained from alcohol or marijuana. In it's original form, coca leaf, cocaine helped people work long hours and there is some possibility it eases the effects of high altitudes on the body, which would have been very helpful in coca's native Peruvian highlands. Caffeine is used to stay alert so ubiquitously people forget it's a drug and let children consume it. The painkilling properties of opium and its relatives are one of the true blessings of medicine.

Abuse is when the bad effects start to outweigh the good. For some substances, such as highly refined cocaine, that happens pretty damn quick. For others, such as caffeine, the line is harder to cross.

So I would argue not all drug use is a problem, but abuse certainly is. I don't see a purpose in outlawing substances that, on average, can be used responsibly and beneficially. The question is which substances fall under that umbrella.

[TithonusSyndrome]

So I would argue not all drug use is a problem, but abuse certainly is. I don't see a purpose in outlawing substances that, on average, can be used responsibly and beneficially. The question is which substances fall under that umbrella.

The problem about the distinction between "use" and "abuse" is that A) some regular drug users often become slacker underachievers with at best marginal contributions to society despite the lack of any openly malign or "abusive" character to their intoxication, and B) for a lot of drugs, crossing that line is a very sudden all-or-nothing process that leaves lasting damage in a hurry, like the aforementioned hallucinogens. I know the pro-drug lobby is fond of making that distinction, but it smacks of lolbertarianism that hasn't been thought through.

[Broomstick]

Yet we have drugs such as caffeine that, while problematic for some individuals, just don't seem to cause the sort of damaging fallout that, say, freely available heroin would likely cause.

As for slackers - my personal opinion is that, as long as they function well enough not to be a burden people should be free to be slackers. Not everyone has to be a hypercompetitive Type A go-getter personality. If they can pay their bills and afford to smoke a joint every night what the hell do I care they aren't climbing the corporate ladder?

I'm far from pro-drug. I drink a little alcohol, have occasionally used kava kava to get to sleep, and the like, but most days I have no interest in these things. I think for the most part they're waste of time and hard drugs are downright corrosive. However, whether I think it's worthwhile or not, if someone can use mind-altering substances without hurting others (and I include the emotional hurt that addiction causes family and friends of the abuser) I can't morally object. Some substances are suited to moderate use - some are not and should rightfully be highly controlled. And any use that puts others at risk is wrong, plain and simple.

[Mayabird]

So I would argue not all drug use is a problem, but abuse certainly is. I don't see a purpose in outlawing substances that, on average, can be used responsibly and beneficially. The question is which substances fall under that umbrella.

The problem about the distinction between "use" and "abuse" is that A) some regular drug users often become slacker underachievers with at best marginal contributions to society despite the lack of any openly malign or "abusive" character to their intoxication, and B) for a lot of drugs, crossing that line is a very sudden all-or-nothing process that leaves lasting damage in a hurry, like the aforementioned hallucinogens. I know the pro-drug lobby is fond of making that distinction, but it smacks of lolbertarianism that hasn't been thought through.

But at the same time, you have to see why those people became regular drug users in the first place. Did they start as kids who had no hope for the future anyway and did it so they'd get an actual sense of happiness once in a while? Did they start because they couldn't resist the appeal of the forbidden and would sneak out to get high? If you really want to reduce the levels of drug use, you have to get to the root cause.

Personally, I find the idea of me being in an altered state of consciousness to be downright scary (despite my humorous drinking stories, I really don't like drinking alcohol and I wouldn't use any at all if other people weren't around). I like to be in control of my own mind and have a good grasp on reality and I do find it rather disturbing that others don't share those same feelings. Thing is, I also recognize that what I feel at a gut level may not actually resemble how things really work. It's counter-intuitive to think that legalizing drugs would reduce their use and abuse, but there the facts stand. Since I'm more interested in results than in making my digestive organs feel all self-righteous, I have to go with the facts and where they lead.

[charlemagne]

Presumably the same way you tax people who grow their own tomatoes. Besides, how many of them are going to bother growing commercially if it's legal for people to just buy it? In places where pot is decriminalised, that's the only thing the authorities really care about anyway.

Well if marijuana was to be legalised, I can imagine the state wanting the monopole on it, just like with booze. There'd be heavy taxation, and growing your own would be illegal. Of course you won't really get busted for very small quantities - just like there's the odd people destilling their own booze - but heavy moonshining would be a no-go.

[General Zod]

Presumably the same way you tax people who grow their own tomatoes. Besides, how many of them are going to bother growing commercially if it's legal for people to just buy it? In places where pot is decriminalised, that's the only thing the authorities really care about anyway.

Well if marijuana was to be legalised, I can imagine the state wanting the monopole on it, just like with booze. There'd be heavy taxation, and growing your own would be illegal. Of course you won't really get busted for very small quantities - just like there's the odd people destilling their own booze - but heavy moonshining would be a no-go.

You can make beer and wine on your own perfectly legally. As far as making other types of liquor the thought that it is illegal is false, you simply needs special permits to do so and have to pay an excise tax. There's absolutely no reason marijuana couldn't fall under the same guidelines.

[Lusankya]

Presumably the same way you tax people who grow their own tomatoes. Besides, how many of them are going to bother growing commercially if it's legal for people to just buy it? In places where pot is decriminalised, that's the only thing the authorities really care about anyway.

Well if marijuana was to be legalised, I can imagine the state wanting the monopole on it, just like with booze. There'd be heavy taxation, and growing your own would be illegal. Of course you won't really get busted for very small quantities - just like there's the odd people destilling their own booze - but heavy moonshining would be a no-go.

It's quite legal to make your own booze. In NZ, I believe, it's even legal to make your own spirits (I could be wrong - I just remember being told that at an SCA meeting). The government just taxes you when you go to the brew store to buy yeast, barley, etc. Presumably, the government will tax home-grown weed the same way - by taxing the seeds. As long as that person's not dealing, why would they care? And seriously, how many people would sell marijuana illegally if you could buy it legally?

[RedImperator]

Presumably the same way you tax people who grow their own tomatoes. Besides, how many of them are going to bother growing commercially if it's legal for people to just buy it? In places where pot is decriminalised, that's the only thing the authorities really care about anyway.

Well if marijuana was to be legalised, I can imagine the state wanting the monopole on it, just like with booze. There'd be heavy taxation, and growing your own would be illegal. Of course you won't really get busted for very small quantities - just like there's the odd people destilling their own booze - but heavy moonshining would be a no-go.

It's quite legal to make your own booze. In NZ, I believe, it's even legal to make your own spirits (I could be wrong - I just remember being told that at an SCA meeting). The government just taxes you when you go to the brew store to buy yeast, barley, etc. Presumably, the government will tax home-grown weed the same way - by taxing the seeds. As long as that person's not dealing, why would they care? And seriously, how many people would sell marijuana illegally if you could buy it legally?

More to the point, who would buy it?

"Hye man...whatcha need?"
"Um...nothing, really. I just picked up a quarter bag and a fresh pack of filters at the Wawa. It came in a nice, sealed package. I had a coupon and everything. Thanks anyway, though."

[Rye]

What good comes from it? The negative effects of drug use, both on the individual and on the people around him, are well known. Cancer, amplified emotions (violent drunks, etc.), lung problems (for smokers), poor decision making - the list goes on, and all these negative effects have the potential to hurt other people aside from the drug user, either directly and seriously (drunk driving, second hand smoke, again, the list goes on) or indirectly and not as seriously (such as raising insurance premiums for everyone else).

But what good comes from it? Does this good outweigh the bad? Can you get these good effects a better way?

These, of course, are also the same question we have to ask about a ban. For the answers, I'm going to continue reading this debate. RedImperator's post back on page one is pretty strong and I can't really argue it myself.

This way of arguing lends itself extremely well to the sort of smokescreen various groups use to promote the idea that non-reproductive sex is net negative too (though they tend to pick on gay sex specifically). The good that comes from marijuana, for instance, is relaxation, and in my case relief from mild arthritis and a really good night's sleep that I rarely get otherwise. Actually, that's the same for gay sex, too.

I've only smoked it something like 4 or 5 times in my whole life of course, but at least with me it was a decent experience and significantly more so than drinking. I don't think those positives justify legalisation as much as it does rare personal use and even then it doesn't justify finding someone to buy it from. The argument against illegalisation is that in short, prohibition doesn't work, it's inconsistently applied and socially harmful, and that should really outweigh "ideal" arguments be they ultimately libertarian or the strict policing of all consumption that you seem to desire for the greater good.

[Lord of the Abyss]

So I would argue not all drug use is a problem, but abuse certainly is. I don't see a purpose in outlawing substances that, on average, can be used responsibly and beneficially. The question is which substances fall under that umbrella.

The problem about the distinction between "use" and "abuse" is that A) some regular drug users often become slacker underachievers with at best marginal contributions to society despite the lack of any openly malign or "abusive" character to their intoxication,

As for slackers - my personal opinion is that, as long as they function well enough not to be a burden people should be free to be slackers. Not everyone has to be a hypercompetitive Type A go-getter personality. If they can pay their bills and afford to smoke a joint every night what the hell do I care they aren't climbing the corporate ladder?

I'd also add that I think it likely that a lot of those "slackers" aren't slackers because of using mild drugs, but are using mild drugs because they are slackers. You know; self indulgent.

Not that I think there's much wrong with a little self indulgence if they can still function.

[salm]

The problem about the distinction between "use" and "abuse" is that A) some regular drug users often become slacker underachievers with at best marginal contributions to society despite the lack of any openly malign or "abusive" character to their intoxication, and B) for a lot of drugs, crossing that line is a very sudden all-or-nothing process that leaves lasting damage in a hurry, like the aforementioned hallucinogens. I know the pro-drug lobby is fond of making that distinction, but it smacks of lolbertarianism that hasn't been thought through.

Have you got any statistics backing that up?
I won´t argue that cannabis users are not more likely to become slackers because there certainliy is a certain type of person that shouldn´t come into contact with the stuff.
However, i know a whole bunch of successful people, engineers, architects, scientists and so on who smoke the stuff and are very far from being slackers.
So, is there a statistic out there showing the connection between social status and cannabis consumption?