To both you and Grif, why exactly don't you want to see more of it around? If you have an emotionally negative reaction to it then that's fine, I'm not asking you to like it. But, quite frankly, it should be a person's right to choose whether they want to do it or not, just like it is with Alcohol and Tobacco. I see so many arguments like this, and with (most prominently) alcohol being legal, I honestly can't see the logic. No one's asking you not to have an emotional reaction to something, but don't try and force logic on that emotional reaction when there is none. If you're against legalisation of weed then you should be for making alcohol illegal, if not then you just haven't thought things through and are just happy to go with the status quo.
It doesn't make any sense to think the number of users wouldn't I increase with legalization. Many people I personally know want to try it but are afraid of it being illegal. There would be millions of others. And I don't like the alcohol is worse argument. A homicide isn't as bad as a double homicide, but we don't want to legalize the former do we? Just because one thing is worse doesn't mean everything that's not as bad should be legal.
It is against the law, and in my opinion that will not chnage because their are to many people that are against it. Yes, I know it doesn't really harm you in any way and doesn't really cause you to drive bad or hurt anybody, but it is illegal, so just abide by the laws the same as you do on Forgehub.
Sorry but that's just stupid. People shouldn't be afraid of something just because it is illegal, if they are then they're happy to be told something and not think about it, and I couldn't care less about them. So what if the numbers of users go up? People use this point without explaining why it is a bad thing. People should have the right to choose, just as they do with alcohol, and at the moment they don't, it's as simple as that. Again, this is a stupid way of looking at it. You're example is not only skewed by the fact that homicide has a solely negative effect on someone else, whereas neither alcohol or marijuana do necessarily. Furthermore, your example destroys your own point in that, in your example, both are bad, thus both should be illegal. If you transpose this on to the current discussion then you are, by your own logic, saying that alcohol should also be illegal. Didn't really think too hard about that now did ya? No one is denying that it is against the law, but fighting for change where you believe there to be an injustice is part of a healthy society. The whole POINT of democracy is the right of the population to define the way they live, and if you say that we should just mindlessly accept the law whether we think it unjust or not then think about this: what if it was made illegal to be blonde? What if the law was changed so that anyone who was blonde was sentenced to death? Would you be happy to stand by and let this go, simply, because 'it is the law'? There, doesn't sound so smart now does it? Tex is not telling people to start smoking weed, he is simply putting forward the case for what he, and a good many other people, see as an unjustice. Your lazy attitude to actually thinking about the law and just accepting what the all powerful and all wise government think hardly constitutes an actual argument, please try thinking before you criticise those who are that one important step ahead of you.
Ok, but think about. I do not really think it is that bad, because when people feel bad enough, I think it is ok for them to do it and make themselves in a better mood. I am just saying, I vote no.
I think you're misunderstand the principle put forward here. I wouldn't advocate marijuana as a way to make yourself feel better when you're down, in chemical and scientific terms it is a depressant, and whilst that means it relaxes you, it isn't a good place to turn when you're miserable. In fact, I'd specifically warn against that, it's a road that no one should start down in my opinion, if you think weed will solve any of your problems then it will actually only end up making them worse, just the same with alcohol. It should be seen as an option of leisure, a source of enjoyment if you're so inclined, but never something to make you feel better when you're down. And as for you voting no, that's fine by me, I completely support your right to vote how you choose, this is another essential part of democracy. I just saw in your post a point that I disagreed with and thought flawed, thus I responded to it with my view on things, I do not seek to force my views on others (since this is, in effect, what I am fighting against, people form a view on marijuana as an emotional reaction then force it on others without logic), just to make them known and participate in well thought out discussion.
If marijuana is legalized and it's set for legal usage at a certain age, wouldn't it just become easier for underage users to access it? Alcohol is legal, but underage children wind up purchasing it from strangers(which is dangerous in its own way). A simple pay-off of an adult could fill a kid's night with illegal activity, as harmless as you claim it to be. Organized crime will always exist, no matter how many objectives you eliminate from them. And if the kids start purchasing the drug from ordinary citizens, I believe that has more potential repercussions. Using the argument that because cigarettes or alcohol are legal then marijuana should be legal is just plain idiotic. NO drugs should be legal unless used for medicinal purposes. Cigarettes are overall extremely harmful, even to others around the tobacco user. On the other hand, they don't provide a high. Marijuana does. Any slowed reaction time is dangerous, as we see from alcohol. This is what I am personally afraid of. I also just hate the idea of smoking, but maybe that's just me. Again, this is just my opinion. Flame me if you want, I don't care.
See now this ^ demonstrates the kind of thinking I was asking for. Whilst I don't agree with you, you've actually thought through the logic of your perspective and realised that if weed is illegal then alcohol should also be. For that I thank you, I shouldn't have to since it should be common, but in fact it's rare as ****, so I do indeed thank you. On to your other points. You're right about the underage thing, but that on it's own isn't a valid reason to keep it illegal imo. I was just saying to Sarge on Skype that my general mantra on such things is principle vs. pragmatism, a balance between the two suited to each situation being the way forward. The extreme principle would be that people should have the right to choose what they do no matter what the effect on other people, and the extreme of pragmatism would be that, since there are often negative effects on other people, it should be outright banned. I think the happy balance would be that people can choose whether or not to take marijuana as long as it has no effect on other people (if it does then it should still not be balanced, but they should personally be accountable as it was their choice to do it and their choice to negatively impact upon others.) With your age argument principle vs. pragmatism comes in again, but this is where I see a flaw in your argument. You are saying that, if legalised, there would be a higher likelihood that underage users could get hold of it. I'm not denying this, but I don't see it as a valid argument for keeping it illegal as it's the extreme pragmatism at the cost of any principle. Just because there is an increased chance for people to break the law, you shouldn't restrict the human rights of the population at large, you just have to deal with those who do break the law and be done with it. Do we ban knives in any sense just because they're sometimes used to kill people? Or, more pertinently for the many americans here, guns? The same is true with the 'high' you speak of. Yes it can be dangerous, but knives and guns can be dangerous, cars can be dangerous. If someone is stupid enough to put themselves in a position where them being high threatens the safety of someone else then THEY should be accountable, not the drug itself. Being high causes your reactions to slow down, but if you drive when high then that's YOUR fault, and YOU should be punished for it, as opposed to the drug being banned outright and all those who would use it responsibly being put under the bracket of criminals.
If I could throw out more complex words, I would be so much more convincing...haha. I live my life on the basis that if I decide to destroy my own well-being that I don't interfere with another's well-being. To me, it's the worst thing you could possibly do in this world. I agree with your "happy balance". If we could find some system where a marijuana user would be locked in one of those foam-covered rooms from the beginning of the use to the end of the high, then(even though I wouldn't agree with using it in the first place) my mind would be put to rest. Actually in this scenario I didn't angrily attack my keyboard with ragetype. Again, I am just worried of the effect on other people. My mind won't let that concept go, as much as I loathe people. And although the drugs and guns idea can be compared, it can also be contrasted. Weapons can be used in defense which is the main purpose of manufacturing them(for the sake of my argument I'll leave out the issue of hunting). They have MASSIVE potential to destroy, but that same potential to protect. The same cannot be said for drugs in the case of full legalization. I'll bring this point back from the Marijuana debate thread, as I have done already in my earlier post. There is a demand in this fast-paced, high-tech world for the most efficient way of things. Which is why there are cars and advancements of arms. A drug isn't always something someone can control...which is why they're drugs(not going to copy/paste the definition from wikipedia, we're all big kids here D. The crime that user is held responsible for may not be what they intended to do. If someone's family member is killed indirectly by a drug, whether it's culpable homicide(BOOM! Just learned that one last week) or intended by the user's conscience at the time, then legalization just increases that likelihood. I wanted to bring this point up during this post so I guess it had to be at the end. Sometimes the specifics prove the general principle wrong. Maybe running the world on one idea doesn't apply to smaller things. I don't know. It's almost 1 a.m. and I'm rambling here.
Lol, only to fools. I know I may use some pretty flowery language at times, but it's out of habit more than anything, those who are convinced by long words instead of what those words are actually saying aren't worth convincing imo, and I think you're argument is worth more than any number of endless words in that it actually shows some thought . I can see your point, but I don't think it's quite fair to say that they should be locked in a foam box. In the UK we recently banned smoking in public places of work/train stations/pubs etc. and much as I am smoker I actually agree with this, because it means that other people don't have to suffer for someone else's choice to smoke. But this doesn't mean they should have to be locked in a box, just forced to do it in their own home or outside/away from other people etc. Sure if you say it's only allowed in your own home then you could still use the argument that family can be harmed etc., but this is a MUCH more complex argument where you must take into consideration people's choice to live with others and be in their family, and the massive amount of other things that families can do to one another that harm them, that's why governments controlling how families interact is such a touchy issue, and using this as an argument against legalisation is VERY shaky ground. Worry for other people is fair, more than fair in fact. It's the one argument in this debate that doesn't appear to me as selfish or biggoted, and for that you have my respect. But the guns debate is still more tricky. Sure they have the ability to defend as well as destroy, but this isn't a binary position. It's not one or the other, but one or both. Either they are used to destroy and not defend, or to defend and, in turn, destroy. If you kill someone in defense then you're still killing someone, and this is why it is a complex decision. I do not believe that any one person should have the right to take another's life, no matter what the situation. I know this means some people will die, and that may make me sound callous. Again, in some situations pragmatism must be balanced with principle in that killing someone else to save your own life is the pragmatic way forward, sometimes it's all you can do, but this is the pragmatism, not the principle, and that doesn't give you the RIGHT to kill someone, just means it's all you can really do in this position. Therefore, guns have no solely good side, all they can be used for is to kill, even if this has some positive effect, it is still destruction however you look at it. I'd actually say that drugs do have a good side when you say they don't. Quite simply, they can be fun. I know this isn't such a moral consideration as defending your own life or the life of another, but it's still a good side. And as long as other people don't suffer as a result of the drug (as I said before, if others do suffer then the person who made them suffer should be accountable, not the drug they were using, I know you have issues with this simple way of looking at it, but I'll get to that in a bit), then there is only a good side. You have, right here, exposed the single most difficult point in my view on this, props for that . What I said before about the person who takes the drug being accountable for negative effects on others, not the drug itself, is very difficult. This is, quite simply, because it is drugs we are talking about, substances which affect they way your mind functions. This makes it difficult to assign responsibility to the person who takes the drug, since the drug itself is affecting the way they think and act. But, even with this as the case, I can't stand by and let people shirk their own responsibility onto a substance which is not conscious in any way. Yes it may change the way you think, but the fact that we are talking about marijuana here is, I think, very pertinent. It isn't like LSD or anything, it doesn't change your perception to any real degree, nor does it affect your decision making abilities. What it does do is slow down your reactions and change your physical nature, as well as making you much more prone to introspection. Therefore I think this discussion is much easier than it would be with a more mind altering drug like LSD or something, since it doesn't really affect your capacity to make decisions in the same way as you would when sober, in fact it affects this capacity in a much less significant way than even alcohol. Once you establish the ability to make decisions as you would normally, then the responsibility is pretty much just the same as when you are sober. Yes it does affect your reactions etc., but that doesn't change your responsibility to think "wait, I'm stoned, I shouldn't drive", before getting in to a car and taking the wheel etc. And EVEN if it does somehow affect your capacity to make logical decisions such as "I shouldn't drive", then think about that before you take the drug. Give your car keys to someone else who won't give them back till you're sober again. I know this is just a single example of driving when high, but I think it extends outwards to all such incidents. If you don't trust your ability to make the right decisions where other people are concerned when stoned, then be sure to put yourself in a position where you don't HAVE to be trusted, and even one where you are never trusted with such decisions. As I see it, this is anyone's responsibility when they take any drug, to think about the possibilities before they take it and take responsibility for what they do on the drug on the basis that they should have thought before they took it. This is why I see this as a personal responsibility, not that of the drug itself, and why I believe that marijuana should be legalised, and any blame for any negative effects of the drug on other people should be held with the user, not the drug. Everyone has the capacity to think before they take a drug, and with weed you still have pretty much the same capacity to think even when you're on the drug, therefore anything you do should be on your head, and people should not be restricted from taking the drug because of some people who refuse to accept this responsibility when they screw up. Indeed, specifics don't prove the principle wrong imo, but they do mean that it's not always as simple as it would seem when looking simply and the principle of things. That's why I always rant about principle vs. pragmatism, pragmatism meaning pretty much the same as the specifics, it's always a balance between the two. And tbh dude, much as we may disagree, I think your's is one of the most cogent arguments in here, I wouldn't say you're suffering much from being up so late, this is some of the only actual debate I've been able to get going in here since I found this thread .
Petitioning isn't worth it. Even if this petition got a million signatures, it's only 0.3% of the US population.
i see sevral cons and pros of this pro could help economy less peple would go to jail for drug related crimes making it legal there would probably be reglations as to what goes into it cons drug lords would resort to other crimes to gain money it effects your brain permantely alot more people would gain access to it making our society less inteligent people ould want other drugs to be legalized overall i hope this doesnt happen to thorax alchol was legal then banned with prohibition then relegalized cocaine was once legal then baned
Just signed it hope it becomes legal that will save me as well as a lot of people I know the trouble.
@Peg Look I didn't want to say this, but I have had someone close to me die because of drugs. I would prefer not to talk about it... I believe that legalization will create an increase in users due to advertisement by companies. Also people who were too afraid to take it because they were worried they would be caught, and like tobacco and alcohol, it will be more easily obtained by underage users and you know there will be an age limit.
Marijuana is decriminalized. Not illegal. Of course not around children. It should be treated the same way as with tobacco. Schools already don't allow any tobacco or alcoholic products usually within 500 feet of the school. Marijuana wouldn't be any different. I still wouldn't buy my **** from those shady companies. They bog down their products with so many other chemicals, it feels dirty just smoking it. +!!! We thought there were a lot of people against a black president. Times change. And theres no excuses left for Marijuana to be illegal. It's already decriminalized, it shouldn't be long for the next step. With your logic it seems that if I was depressed it would be alright to sniff yipp (cocaine) but your logic is just to general. Marijuana is illegal, and anybody can purchase it. I purchase it, my friends purchase it and I know kids even younger who purchase it. And while if it was made legal, and there was a age limit that would only make it more difficult. Anyway, never ask strangers to buy you alcohol. You'll never know if it's an undercover or a DT. It's just not worth it. Anyway Tobacco creates a "buzz" not a high. Depending on what you smoke, cigarettes, cigars, cigarillo's depends on the type of buzz. IF you pack, that's the strongest buzz, but it's so gross that not many people do smokeless. It's still a step. Well prohibition wasn't exactly successful because everyone just supported it. There was no way to stop it, and that's the way it's going to be with marijuana. Why would you hope it doesn't happen? I'm going to go cruise through the Marijuana v2 thread, and i'll bring up all the old arguments. Anyway, it's been shown to reduce the cognitive ability of the brain in some people, but not enough were everyone goes stupid. Drug lords' one source of revenue will just decline. When you're pushing drugs, you are usually not just pushing a single drug unless in large amounts. Even the smallest pushers push E, Xanny, Marijuana and a bunch of pills. Never just a single drug. You're gateway theory is broken. It's decriminalized. The majority of people only get stopped when they have enough marijuana that it's constituted as "Intent to Sell" or when the cops decide to take your baggie and they find traces of yipp or other drugs.
I thought you quit Tex. Or is this for another reason, such as the economy? Well you know I won't bother with this petition. Still I really thought you quit.
Pegasi, calling all of my arguments "stupid" isn't going to do anything and is unnecessry. Anyway, you realize that alcohol was once banned In the US? So it's not that new of an idea. I haven't researched the effects of prohibition, but if it's positive then why not? Now, i'm underage as is so what would I be missing? Alcohol is stupid. Furthermore, just a let peeve, pegasi, but try to argue more for quality than quantity, because tl;dr for the argument of yours