Your view on the legalization of marijuana

[Count Chocula]

ArcturusMengsk wrote:

Err, no, we're starting to sound like liberals.

I used my fresh new Google-fu brown belt to find out what the Libertarian Party has to say on the issue (emphasis added):

1.2 Personal Privacy

We support the protections provided by the Fourth Amendment to be secure in our persons, homes, and property. Only actions that infringe on the rights of others can properly be termed crimes. We favor the repeal of all laws creating "crimes" without victims, such as the use of drugs for medicinal or recreational purposes.

While they don't come out and say "legalize teh Maryjane dudes" they get pretty close to it. Neither the Democrat or Republican party platforms say anything about decriminalizing drugs. They both talk about tougher enforcement and kinder gentler treatment of non-violent offenders, but nada about legalizing it. So, I'm sticking to my guns here: if you favor legalization of marijuana, you're dipping your toe into Lib territory! Dunno about the rest of their platform, or Bob Barr, so I have no opinion on them.

[Hillary]

if you favor legalization of marijuana, you're dipping your toe into Lib territory!

That's just retarded. The arguments being put forward in this thread for legalisation/regulation are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to that of the libertarian loons.

That's a bit like saying if you believe murder is wrong, it makes you a Christian.

[RedImperator]

I don't think that bringing in other countries can help your case. I mean, every nation is different.

So the fuck what? The fact that every nation isn't exactly the same doesn't make all comparisons meaningless; shall we stop comparing, say, GDP, or infant mortality, or election turnout, because "every nation is different"? If you'd like to demonstrate why the Netherlands isn't a valid comparison, be my guest; otherwise, this is a pointless objection.

In Singapore, police enforcement and banning of drugs like marijuana can lower drug abuse to a very healthy level.

Whoop-di-do. Since Americans would never accept the Singaporean criminal justice system, I fail to understand what this has to do with anything.

[Siege]

In the Netherlands, we've got this rather bizarre situation where it's legal to own (certain amounts of) marijuana, but we've somehow forgotten to also legalize the mass growing of the stuff. Hence we're in the predicament that coffee shops can sell it and possess a (limited) quantity of marijuana, but they're not actually able to legally buy it from the people who grow it. Thus, the actual production of the marijuana is still in the hands of all sorts of dubious types.

Still, I think ours is a better solution than criminalizing it. I'd rather see mass growing of marijuana legalized as well, that way it could at least be controlled and taxed. There's some movement in that direction, but progress is slow (perhaps understandably, as the current system appears to work pretty well; the coffee shops are regulated and the police don't ask where they get their products).

Anyway, softdrugs certainly seem to have lost most of their 'cool rebel' edge around these parts, presumably because it's legal and not a big deal. Like cigarettes and alcohol, marijuana is just something some people use as part of their life. Sure, some people smoke rather too much pot, but then again, the same is true for alcohol. I don't think the solution to that problem lies with legalization or criminalization, but rather with getting people to moderate their drug (ab)use.

[Count Chocula]

Hillary wrote:

That's just retarded. The arguments being put forward in this thread for legalisation/regulation are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to that of the libertarian loons.

The Libertarian platform is the only US party platform that even addresses the issue, which is why I referenced it. The Democrats and Republicans don't touch that issue. I pointed it out as a bit of irony considering the nickname on this board for Libertarians.

[Ryan Thunder]

Also, perhaps it loses some of the whole rebelliousness appeal for teenagers. Aren't their stats which show fewer teens use it in the Netherlands?

Aaand this is why I hate people.

If you don't want them to do something, and legislate it, more people will do it than would if you just said "Yeah, that's cool." Of course, then the idiots that really wanted to do whatever it is will do it with legal impunity, thus defeating your intentions regardless of what you do, short of killing them all (or something similarly retarded and unethical) I imagine.

Now, all that said, I'm actually OK with reducing the charge to parking ticket-level, or even perhaps legalizing it fully. They aren't hurting anybody else by smoking up, that I can think of. Not as bad as tobacco smokers, anyways.

[Hillary]

Hillary wrote:

That's just retarded. The arguments being put forward in this thread for legalisation/regulation are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to that of the libertarian loons.

The Libertarian platform is the only US party platform that even addresses the issue, which is why I referenced it. The Democrats and Republicans don't touch that issue. I pointed it out as a bit of irony considering the nickname on this board for Libertarians.

It may come as a surprise to you, but

a) Not everyone is American; and

b) Ideas are not solely a party political domain.

[cosmicalstorm]

Better watch it guys, you're starting to sound like those darn Libertarians!

Ditto the prior posters. Legalize it, fit it into the existing alcohol distribution, tax and revenue systems. Give farmers something to grow besides tobacco in states like VA; besides, marijuana is arguably less harmful to the smoker than cigarettes.

There's precedent; up until 1985, the drug MDMA (now known in its diluted MDA form as Ecstasy) was available and legal. IIRC, they were selling for $5 a pop and bars made their money selling $4 bottles of water .

Im not so sure about that.

Pot bigger cancer risk than cigarettes, scientists say TheStar.com - Health - Pot bigger cancer risk than cigarettes, scientists say
January 29, 2008
Reuters

HONG KONG–Smoking a joint is equivalent to 20 cigarettes in terms of lung cancer risk, scientists in New Zealand have found, as they warned of an "epidemic" of lung cancers linked to cannabis.

Studies in the past have demonstrated that cannabis can cause cancer, but few have established a strong link between cannabis use and the actual incidence of lung cancer.

In an article published in the European Respiratory Journal, the scientists said cannabis could be expected to harm the airways more than tobacco as its smoke contained twice the level of carcinogens, such as polyaromatic hydrocarbons, compared with tobacco cigarettes.

The method of smoking also increases the risk, since joints are typically smoked without a proper filter and almost to the very tip, which increases the amount of smoke inhaled. The cannabis smoker inhales more deeply and for longer, facilitating the deposition of carcinogens in the airways.

"Cannabis smokers end up with five times more carbon monoxide in their bloodstream (than tobacco smokers)," team leader Richard Beasley, at the Medical Research Institute of New Zealand, said in a telephone interview.

"There are higher concentrations of carcinogens in cannabis smoke ... what is intriguing to us is there is so little work done on cannabis when there is so much done on tobacco."

The researchers interviewed 79 lung cancer patients and sought to identify the main risk factors for the disease, such as smoking, family history and occupation. The patients were questioned about alcohol and cannabis consumption.

In this high-exposure group, lung cancer risk rose by 5.7 times for patients who smoked more than a joint a day for 10 years, or two joints a day for 5 years, after adjusting for other variables, including cigarette smoking.

"While our study covers a relatively small group, it shows clearly that long-term cannabis smoking increases lung cancer risk," wrote Beaseley.

"Cannabis use could already be responsible for one in 20 lung cancers diagnosed in New Zealand," he added.

"In the near future we may see an 'epidemic' of lung cancers connected with this new carcinogen. And the future risk probably applies to many other countries, where increasing use of cannabis among young adults and adolescents is becoming a major public health problem."

[Samuel]

Hillary wrote:

That's just retarded. The arguments being put forward in this thread for legalisation/regulation are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to that of the libertarian loons.

The Libertarian platform is the only US party platform that even addresses the issue, which is why I referenced it. The Democrats and Republicans don't touch that issue. I pointed it out as a bit of irony considering the nickname on this board for Libertarians.

The Democrats and the Republicans are both right wing parties. If you look at other countries, there are non-libertarian parties that have or want to legalize it.

[Darth Raptor]

The Libertarian platform is the only US party platform that even addresses the issue, which is why I referenced it. The Democrats and Republicans don't touch that issue. I pointed it out as a bit of irony considering the nickname on this board for Libertarians.

Too bad almost everything else on their platform looks like the *product* of recreational drug use, huh?

[Broomstick]

I'd want a strictly enforced ban against public smoking such as we have for tobacco but even more stringent because you shouldn't be imposing mind-altering substances on bystanders.

Are you suggesting that tobacco has no effect on the mind? We simply have to stop this false differentiation between legal and illegal drugs. Alcohol and tobacco are NOT safer than many of the drugs that are currently illegal.

Nowhere did I state that alcohol and tobacco were safe, nowhere did I state that they weren't mind-altering. I could get nitpicky and say you left caffeine off the list, too.

However, where caffeine and tobacco are stimulants that, in moderate doses, can actually enhance performance of complex tasks such as driving, alcohol and marijuana pretty much uniformly screw with one's ability to operate such machinery. I wouldn't want, say, the pilot of an aircraft to have his/her ability to fly either legally or safely fucked up because some jackass lit up a joint in a public area. I don't want the city bus driver to have altered reaction times because of some jackass, either. It's different than alcohol because you don't get "second-hand drinking". Your rights to get high end where other people's bodies begin. It's a public safety issue, not one of personal health.

[General Zod]

Hillary wrote:

That's just retarded. The arguments being put forward in this thread for legalisation/regulation are ENTIRELY DIFFERENT to that of the libertarian loons.

The Libertarian platform is the only US party platform that even addresses the issue, which is why I referenced it. The Democrats and Republicans don't touch that issue. I pointed it out as a bit of irony considering the nickname on this board for Libertarians.

You're either ignorant or grossly misinformed. A bill was introduced in Congress earlier this year to decriminalize it, although it never made it out of discussion. Guess who sponsored it? Democrats and Republicans.

[Mayabird]

I say legalize (and let all those hundreds of thousands out of jail; it's expensive and wasteful), regulate like crazy (like tobacco, only more so), and tax the ever-loving fuck out of it. Marijuana companies would no doubt end up just like tobacco companies, but if people are going to do it anyway, you might as well harvest the windfall from it. Keep it in the open where people can see it (and also keep illegal pot operations out of the middle of national parks, where they're currently causing a LOT of damage, along with destroying a good bit of the whole black market section of it), and instead of pouring money into prisons for guys who smoke a joint on the weekends, get tax revenues and pour it into schools, like what North Carolina did with its tobacco money very successfully.

[Count Chocula]

Zod, I don't count failed legislation as an example. If you look at each of the three parties' explicitly stated platforms, the Libs are the only ones who address the criminalization issue.

While I'm not denying that many Republican and (probably more ) Democrat voters are pot smokers, the official policy of the party for which they vote maintains that their actions are illegal.

What's more, Rep. Franks' sponsored legislation misses part of the OT. From the Thomas site:

WHAT THE BILL WILL NOT DO

 It would not affect federal laws prohibiting the sale of marijuana for profit, import and export of marijuana, or manufacturing (cultivating) marijuana.

 It would not legalize major drug dealing or create obstacles for agents of the federal government seeking to prevent major drug dealing.

 It would not affect any state or local laws and regulations.

 It would not alter the legal status of marijuana as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 801 et. seq.).

In other words, the bill maintains that marijuana's still illegal, but offers pot smokers a slap on the wrist instead of jail time.

I highly doubt that ANY bill allowing for the production, sale and use of pot will ever make it out of committee in this Congress. Tobacco, drug, and alcohol companies spread out wayy too much green on the Hill.

[RedImperator]

Im not so sure about that.
<snip>

There's an ennsy-weensy difference between tobacco and marijuana that article failed to address: namely, nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man while THC (marijuana's active ingredient) has no physically addictive qualities whatsoever (and comparatively mild psychologically addictive qualities). Nicotine addicts 33% of of everyone who ever tries it; marijuana addicts less than 10. Twenty cigarettes (and there are studies that have different numbers; the most common figure I've heard is 3-5) won't give you lung cancer. Twenty thousand do, and you're far more likely, if you try both drugs, to smoke twenty thousand cigarettes than a thousand joints.

Incidentally, twenty cigarettes is full pack. So do the math--how many pack-a-day cigarette smokers are there, and how many joint-a-day marijuana smokers are there? Anyone who claims marijuana is anywhere near tobacco on the scale of public health risks is full of shit.

[General Zod]

Zod, I don't count failed legislation as an example. If you look at each of the three parties' explicitly stated platforms, the Libs are the only ones who address the criminalization issue.

What legislation have the Libertarians ever passed? If you're going to say that no party addresses the issue don't start backpedaling when someone says you're full of shit; or phrase your posts more clearly.

[ray245]

By the way, should other drugs that is much more addictive like nicotine be legalized in your opinion?

[FireNexus]

Then invent a better fucking testing method. I don´t want to lose my drivers license just because these stupid tests aren´t accurate enough. They treat having smoked a joint two days ago the same as being high as a kite.

That's just a matter of testing for shorter-lived metabolites, or even direct testing for THC itself. The metabolite that is detectable for long periods isn't the only one, obviously.

As far as the OP, of course you legalize marijuana. It's level of societal harm is lower, certainly, than alcohol. Marijuana makes users docile and hungry, rather than alcohol's violent and/or unpredictable. Legalization would remove the criminal element from the sale of marijuana, which I think is good for all involved.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Then invent a better fucking testing method. I don´t want to lose my drivers license just because these stupid tests aren´t accurate enough. They treat having smoked a joint two days ago the same as being high as a kite.

That's just a matter of testing for shorter-lived metabolites, or even direct testing for THC itself. The metabolite that is detectable for long periods isn't the only one, obviously.

I think they choose the one with the longest half-life on purpose to establish a zero-tolerance stance on marijuana smoking, advertise how 'effective' the tests are to companies and law enforcement, and cast the widest net possible.

[Darth Wong]

From a utilitarian perspective, you'd do better just setting all that drug control money on fire.

And then smoking it?

More seriously, I think we're all agreed that it's a colossal waste of time. I see the same sentiment usually wins even on right-wing forums. The Internet is generally pretty friendly to marijuana legalization proponents. However, the Internet is also a youth-heavy venue. The old-fashioned "around the water cooler" workplace discussion forum (sorry, no URL) is still heavily weighted the other way.

[Ender]

From a utilitarian perspective, you'd do better just setting all that drug control money on fire.

And then smoking it?

More seriously, I think we're all agreed that it's a colossal waste of time. I see the same sentiment usually wins even on right-wing forums. The Internet is generally pretty friendly to marijuana legalization proponents. However, the Internet is also a youth-heavy venue. The old-fashioned "around the water cooler" workplace discussion forum (sorry, no URL) is still heavily weighted the other way.

Which is rather ironic when you consider how many of them have smoked it compared to how many of us.

[Ryan Thunder]

By the way, should other drugs that is much more addictive like nicotine be legalized in your opinion?

Hells no.

[Guardsman Bass]

By the way, should other drugs that is much more addictive like nicotine be legalized in your opinion?

Hells no.

Like cocaine? That's much more dangerous and addictive shit, although you would get the satisfaction of almost completely destroying a massive, international New World criminal enterprise stretching from South America to the US. If you were lucky, you might be able to bankrupt many of the gangs at the same time.

[RedImperator]

By the way, should other drugs that is much more addictive like nicotine be legalized in your opinion?

Hells no.

That's the reflex answer, but it might not be right for all drugs. I think there are some which are obviously just too dangerous to legalize (meth, which might be the one drug which is actually as bad as your teacher said drugs are, for example), but for others, a more nuanced policy is called for. Tossing people in jail for smoking crack or shooting heroin hasn't done a damn thing to help anybody. And while I'd stop short at outright legalization of those two for recreational use, it's worth noting that the US's historical all-time high for opiate and cocaine addiction came in the late-19th/early-20th century, when patent medicines were full of the stuff, and we didn't suffer the kind of social destruction associated with them now. And of course, one strong argument for legalization is that we could pay poor Colombian and Afghan farmers for their crops directly, instead of letting the FARC and the Taliban take a cut first.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Im not so sure about that.
<snip>

There's an ennsy-weensy difference between tobacco and marijuana that article failed to address: namely, nicotine is the most addictive drug known to man while THC (marijuana's active ingredient) has no physically addictive qualities whatsoever (and comparatively mild psychologically addictive qualities). Nicotine addicts 33% of of everyone who ever tries it; marijuana addicts less than 10. Twenty cigarettes (and there are studies that have different numbers; the most common figure I've heard is 3-5) won't give you lung cancer. Twenty thousand do, and you're far more likely, if you try both drugs, to smoke twenty thousand cigarettes than a thousand joints.

Not to necessarily suggest you're wrong, but going on the rate of physical addiction alone and neglecting the extent of psychological addiction that occurs in practice doesn't give you the whole picture. I can speak from experience, both secondhand and personal, that the extent of psychological addiction is significant enough to warrant serious consideration in the final picture and needs some research of it's own.