Legalizing marijuana. I don't get it.
- Thread starter infinix
- Start date
Well, the question should be "why should it be illegal", not the other way around. Things are presumed to be legal until there is a compelling state interest in protecting society that justifies making it illegal. With Cannabis, there isn't really a compelling state interest, but there's a lot of inertia to keep the laws the way they are (which I think is the biggest reason it stays illegal, not massive conspiracy theories).
Aside from that, there are legitimate medical reasons to legalize it, at least in controlled circumstances. Granted, I think the California style "medical" marijuana makes a mockery of the actual medical uses, but if they want a weird quasi-legal, quasi-controlled drug system, that's their business. Certainly, for those who suffer from diseases or treatments that result in chronic pain, nausea, or loss of appetite, it's completely reasonable to give them access.
Because one's liberties should not be curtailed without very good reason.
Pretty much as I understand it, pot's addictive properties are more easily dismissed/shrugged off.
Indeed. When I first smoked it, I thought about wanting to do it again the next day and the day after, but only when I was unoccupied. When I had something to do I didn't think of it at all.
Now after about a year of doing it about once every 6 weeks I no longer get that feeling of want at all. The public image is really exaggerated.
Some people refuse to drive responsibly causing tens of thousands of deaths a year. Should cars be banned and everyone be forced into using public transport because of the minority?
Legalise marijuana, tax it and use the new income stream (as well as the savings made from no longer enforcing its prohibition) to provide treatment to the small minority that do have a problem. That would be a far more sensible way of dealing with the problem than a blanket ban that clearly doesn't work.
What's the benefit or you posting on Star Trek message board? For wider society, there is no benefit, you're just wasting your time. But for you and I, it is something we take enjoyment from and that's all the reason we need. No matter what we may think of them, pot smokers take enjoyment from their pastime and that's all the reason they need to do it.
You and I seem to have a fundamental disagreement about the role of government. I don't believe that government should be in the business of furnishing us with rights, those rights should be ours unless there is a compelling reason to take those rights away. There is no compelling reason to ban marijuana and as such I think governments are utterly wrong to take away my right to use it should I choose to do so.
No.
Governments are led by the wealthy. The wealthy want to stay wealthy. But wealth is relative, meaning that the poor have to be kept in their place, working the hardest but earning the least.
Governments have a compelling reason to ban things which detract from your productivity.
Because 30,000 overdose on booze every year, no one ever overdoses on pot.
America is supposed to be a free country, and yet we can't grow or smoke a plant, that like you said, doesn't really do anything but relieve pain.
So the better question is. If this is America, land of the free, why is it illegal in the first place? There is no reason besides someone (tobacco) most likely pays off the lawbreakers... I mean lawmakers.
No one is telling you can't do it. You can go right ahead and smoke your weed in your own home and no one can stop you unless you attract attention to yourself.
Laws are here to protect not to take rights away. When the government says I can't walk on the right side of the street because I'm a woman and women stay on the left then there's a problem. You wanna smoke weed, go right ahead. Smoke it -- it's not like its hard for someone to get a dime bag these days.
No one stops you from doing anything. You, instead, take the risk in suffering the consequences under the law of your state.
Firstly, I don't smoke pot. I tried it once during a dark period of my life and determined that it wasn't for me. I'm the kind of person that can sit on the floor, staring at the wall for an hour and my mind will find ways to amuse itself, I don't need a drug to help facilitate that. What I do need is a drug that helps to lower my inhibitions and allows me to do things that I wouldn't normally do and, luckily for me, I can buy that drug at a supermarket while buying Rice Krispies and a toothbrush. The fact that my drug of choice is more harmful and more addictive doesn't matter to my government.
I endeavour in my life not to be a hypocrite, and as my government is supposed to represent me and my interests, I want them not to be hypocrites either. They should either ban alcohol or legalise pot (and other soft drugs), and since I certainly don't want them to ban alcohol, I advocate the latter.
I agree, but I fail to see how banning marijuana is protecting anyone.
Not to me there's not, because I'm a man and I can walk wherever I want. Why should care care what happens to women?
The sad truth about me is that I'm a fairly conservative person. I don't do illegal drugs, I don't drink very often, I'm not sexually promiscuous, I have a strong moral will... my ideal life is to be married, have kids, maybe a dog, and a reasonably good job so that I can pay my taxes. But politically, I'm very liberal. Just because I have the opportunity to live my life the way I want doesn't mean that I'm content to allow my government to deny people with different goals to live their life how they want. If somebody wants to smoke pot all day long, that's their choice, and so long as my tax money isn't subsidising their habit then I don't give a damn.
Now, if we were talking about the really dangerous drugs like heroin or cocaine, there you can make a case that those drugs should be illegal, but marijuana is nowhere near the scale of those drugs.
And that's what I'm opposed to. I shouldn't be punished if I choose to do this thing. If I were to smoke a lot of pot and it took over my life and caused me to lose my job, that is my punishment.
Actually, it's the only question that makes sense to ask.
Take jumping out of the window. Why not? Because I'll splatter my guts on the concrete like an impressionist painting. Mmh. Doesn't sound good. No jumping for me. Now take smoking a joint. Why not? Mmh. Nothing comes to mind. Well, I guess it's puffing time.
I'm going to drink a big bottle of vodka in an hour, then go for a drive?
Why not?
You are exactly right. It's a plant, it's like banning salvia, are we going to ban common sage next? You can also get high from nutmeg! No more pie for you!
Pot is natural and (supposedly
) very easy to grow. Nothing is added to it to make you want to smoke it, and make it worse for you like cigarettes are. yet it's banned but "lawmakers" that every single one of them has smoked it.Make everything legal or make everything illegal, we can't just pick and chose random shit to make legal and other shit to make illegal.
You aren't really equating smoking pot with jumping out of the window, are you?
When I say "Why not?" isn't a good motivation, what I mean is that you shouldn't do something simply because its there to do. Your motivation for taking a deliberate action should be that the action will result in something beneficial.
If your reason is that pot makes me feel good, then that is a valid motivation. Only people who don't really know what the hell they are doing use "why not" as an excuse for doing something.
A
Amaris
Guest
No, "why not" is a neutral statement. It's an interrogative. If the answer is weighed as negative, don't do it. If the answer is weighed as positive, it can be done if one wishes.
You aren't really unfamiliar with how an analogy works, are you?
I think we are wondering into the realm of arguing semantics. I know, I probably started it. But doesn't the "not" in "why not" make it inherently negative?
We ask "why not" when we are looking for reasons NOT to do something (negative). We ask "why" when we are looking for reasons TO do something (positive).
At most, "why not" will return a null answer meaning there is no real reasons why not. But just because there isn't a reason NOT to doesn't automatically make it a reason TO do it. There must be compelling reasons of why something should be done. I hope you understand my logic.
I understand all of the points that people raised here, such as being less addictive and less damaging to a person as well as being a strain on the legal system.
But I have one more question. Let's take drinking for example. It typically take quite a few drinks to get a normal adult inebriated (non-functional). Why many joints does it take to get a person high? Does it also depend on age, weight and tolerance?
I'm simply curious at the specific analogy chosen. Why would someone chose an analogy that results in severe injury or death to use when talking about smoking pot? Especially when the person is pro legalization of pot.
You'd probably feel effects after one joint, probably after a couple of puffs much in the same way people will feel a "release" after a couple of puffs on cigarettes, your lungs are a bit more efficient in delivering toxins to your blood stream than your stomach, liver and kidneys are.
I've been around people who smoked it and I'm assuming the "distribution method" may play a role too, I was with a couple of people once smoking joints and they were laughing and just generally silly after a few puffs. It wasn't over the top "silly acting" like you see on TV/in movies but more like how a group of people might be watching a really silly movie.
Another person I was with smoked through a one-hitter pipe and it had no noticeable affect on his behavior.
Tolerances, delivery methods and even body type/size all probably play a role.
Irrelevant. How long it takes and what it does isn't a big deal even when comparing it to alcohol or tobacco. It's still a mostly harmless drug.
A
Amaris
Guest
"Not" does not make it negative, just as "Why" isn't inherently positive. The negative or positive comes in the answering of the question. "Why not" is also used in the rhetorical sense, where the statement gives the conclusion that there are no legitimate reasons to be against a thought or action.
It varies based, among other things, on the quality of the herb used, as well as the experience of the user. Some people can get high after 3 or 4 hits, some it takes more, much more. The difference is that one can shrug off the effects of marijuana a lot easier than one can alcohol, and marijuana is not addictive compared to alcohol.
You're really proving his point there, you know.
Similar threads
