Should marijuana be legalized?
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
BamBam
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 2974
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 01/27/05 - 12:43 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
keeps it out of the public eye, since this is a public site. I just felt more comfortable that way. |
You sent confidential matter to someone who could then post it anywhere....this breaks confidentialilty rules in so many ways.
While Go is a swell person, I don't think she is has any restrictions to not posting the results.
(and GO you are a swell person)
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 12:46 Post subject:
| BamBam wrote: |
(and GO you are a swell person) |
Right back at you Swell Guy
|
|
|
|
|
copteacher
Adjunct
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Jun 2002
Posts: 20588
Location: Teaching in the Halls of Justice
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 12:47 Post subject:
| BamBam wrote: |
You sent confidential matter to someone who could then post it anywhere....this breaks confidentialilty rules in so many ways.
While Go is a swell person, I don't think she is has any restrictions to not posting the results.
(and GO you are a swell person) |
I only gave her general information, no names were released etc. If she posts them that is on her. I gave them to her in confidence. That is why I went private. I respect and trust her enough that she would leave it at that.
Now if I gave bad guys names and stuff that would be different.
|
|
|
|
|
BamBam
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Sep 2002
Posts: 2974
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 13:11 Post subject:
| rtpd113 wrote: |
I only gave her general information, no names were released etc. If she posts them that is on her. I gave them to her in confidence. That is why I went private. I respect and trust her enough that she would leave it at that.
Now if I gave bad guys names and stuff that would be different. |
If you did indeed feed her info that was vague generalities then I don't see the reason that the info needed to be considered private.
As for trusting someone (if it were specific info), that doesn't have consent/authorization, you would be held liable.
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/27/05 - 13:47 Post subject:
| BamBam wrote: |
If you did indeed feed her info that was vague generalities then I don't see the reason that the info needed to be considered private.
As for trusting someone (if it were specific info), that doesn't have consent/authorization, you would be held liable. |
Careful... this is getting dangerously off-topic.
In Ontario, the marijuana laws are kind of screwy. Its a criminal offense to to sell pot, and its a criminal offense to possess more than a certain amount (I think 30g is the magic number). I think the penalty is a fine for possessing less than 30g (but don't quote me on that). This stops people from risking a criminal record over the sake of a couple of joints.
I think the pros and cons of legalized pot are pretty much the same as legalized booze. I know people who have ruined their lives by abusing pot, and I would probably know a few more if it was legal.
Social ills such as hatred, prejudice and poverty are the things that are really driving people to self (or social) destruction. If drinking or toking were both criminalized people would find another vehicle to get there.
In Canada, the aboriginal community has a real problem of teenagers getting high by sniffing gas fumes (and killing half their brain cells in the process). Is the answer criminalizing gasoline - probably not.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/28/05 - 11:25 Post subject:
Really good thread, CamBed.
A lot of issues already covered so I'll try to add my two cents to a couple.
Generally, I think pot should be legalized. How it came to be illegal to begin with in the 1930's is the subject of several good books, but in braod terms it had to do with racism, migration of blacks/latinos to urban US areas, fear of lax morals unloosened by 'the Jazz age', and the need to keep a big gov't bureaucracy running that had largely succeeded in pursuing its original goals (stopping widespread opiate and cocaine use in its day).
As for a gateway drug, I think if we de-coupled marijuana from harder drugs that would be less of an issue, in part because its rebellious allure would be diminished. If you associate with the guy selling pot and he also sells LSD and Coke, one is more likely to try those, too. Plus there is a psychic barrier--once you've started drugs you might keep on just going. Just look at how many people use/experiment with alcohol but don't make that psychic jump to pot and harder drugs.
Per legalities and taxing--you tax the sale, not consumption. It's just not easy or cheap to grow good pot. You'd have hobbyists who do and will try, but who here brews there own beer everytime they want a bottle when you can just buy it at the store for a lot less money, time, and effort?
I would encourage anti-legalization people to look at studies about places where it has been decriminalized/legalized--in large part they have suffered no negative effect of that choice. When one factors in the number of people in jail or the courts for marijuana-only offenses in the US it is truly staggering. The savings to the system (even if it were not legal but possession had the threat of a citation like a traffic ticket) are enormous. Talk about a great way to reduce the size and scope of government!!!!
I know people who are really brilliant, in far more demanding jobs than mine, who are daily smokers with no detriment. Of course, I also know people who have had a hard time with it and quit eventually, by choice or otherwise.
If we went legal tomorrow, I don't think it would be a problem. Of course we would keep hard drugs illegal, they have far more grave consequences than pot. One thing we would see is a huge increase in profits for RJ Reynolds and all of the tobacco companies. After all, in the 1970s they quietly bought up the commercial rights to many of the names and strains of pot folks are familiar with. The day we're legal, they'll be making money hand over fist.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/28/05 - 12:37 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
As for a gateway drug, I think if we de-coupled marijuana from harder drugs that would be less of an issue, in part because its rebellious allure would be diminished. If you associate with the guy selling pot and he also sells LSD and Coke, one is more likely to try those, too. Plus there is a psychic barrier--once you've started drugs you might keep on just going. Just look at how many people use/experiment with alcohol but don't make that psychic jump to pot and harder drugs.
|
Hmmm.....you bring up some of the most interesting points, Rex! I always love reading your posts. What do you think the reason is that people don't make the jump to pot and harder drugs from alcohol...because it is legal and easier to get, so why bother, or some other reason? I know some people do....or do them cojointly, and a couple of my current patients have picked up again because they're not getting the connection that alcohol loosens your inhibitions and clouds your judgment (you know the term "beer balls") thus making you forget both where you've come from in the recovery process, and where you are going to go to if you do pick up. They'll say, but I'm not an alcoholic, I'm a cocaine addict. But yet, when you drank this weekend out with your friends, where's the next place you went? And what brought you back here? But I know, that's not mainstream society.
Interesting food for thought though.
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/28/05 - 13:21 Post subject:
Damn! I just posted a long reply here and lost it when I had to re-sign on!!!!
Right, Genie. I think that people rightly view alcohol and tobacco differently because they are on a different plain. A HS heavy drinker would not consider themself a druggie even if we know it's all substance use.
But once someone tries pot and realizes (as many do in HS) that the boogeyman stories they've been fed about pot are largely false or overblown, I think the feeling often is, "Well if they lied about that, are they lying about the other stuff, too?" When you combine that with general association (eg the dealer of pot also being the LSD, Coke source) and the mystique of rebellion/druggie thing, you have alot more people trying other, potentially far more dangerous, substances.
I think if we made pot on a different plain, separate from hard drugs, you'd see more pot use/experimentation, and less of a tendency to go beyond that. And anecdotally, I think that's what they found in places like the Netherlands with more relaxed laws about soft drugs.
Of course, there are always people who are so damaged and seeking to do anything to relieve their pain that they will do anything and use anything available to do that (witness glue sniffing and TOSteve's comment about gas fume sniffing).
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/29/05 - 14:46 Post subject:
For those folks who would like marijuana to be leaglized, or have no problem with its use:
- Would you smoke it in front of your children?
- Would you discourage its use to your children?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/30/05 - 21:24 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | For those folks who would like marijuana to be leaglized, or have no problem with its use:
- Would you smoke it in front of your children?
- Would you discourage its use to your children?
|
No.
I would discourage their use of it.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/30/05 - 22:39 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
No.
I would discourage their use of it. |
I have another friend who says the same thing, yet she insists it should be made legal. Why the contradiction? (For the record, that's a public question to anyone who has similar thoughts) I don't get that at all. If it's safe enough or nonthreatening enough to make it legal, why wouldn't you let your kids smoke it? 
|
|
|
|
|
Sahara
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 May 2002
Posts: 3345
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/30/05 - 23:01 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
I have another friend who says the same thing, yet she insists it should be made legal. Why the contradiction? (For the record, that's a public question to anyone who has similar thoughts) I don't get that at all. If it's safe enough or nonthreatening enough to make it legal, why wouldn't you let your kids smoke it? |
lung cancer?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/30/05 - 23:08 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
I have another friend who says the same thing, yet she insists it should be made legal. Why the contradiction? (For the record, that's a public question to anyone who has similar thoughts) I don't get that at all. If it's safe enough or nonthreatening enough to make it legal, why wouldn't you let your kids smoke it? |
Would you let your kids drink?
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/30/05 - 23:15 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
Would you let your kids drink? |
Not at a time when it wasn't legal for them to drink, i.e. underage. I know they might, we did, but I wouldn't go out and buy it for them if they weren't of legal drinking age either. I'm not sure what that has to do with the pot thing though. I'm not in favor of making it legal, so I wouldn't let my kids smoke it or smoke it in front of/with them. But that's because I don't believe it should be legalized. I'm curious as to why people who would defend legalization would then not want their kids to partake. If you (meant collectively) would fight to have it legalized, then why not use it yourself? And why not let your kids use it, provided there's no legal age of consumption put on pot if it was legalized?
Sahara, that's a very good point, but then isn't that one more argument for it NOT to be legalized?
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/30/05 - 23:19 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
Not at a time when it wasn't legal for them to drink, i.e. underage. I know they might, we did, but I wouldn't go out and buy it for them if they weren't of legal drinking age either. I'm not sure what that has to do with the pot thing though. I'm not in favor of making it legal, so I wouldn't let my kids smoke it or smoke it in front of/with them. But that's because I don't believe it should be legalized. I'm curious as to why people who would defend legalization would then not want their kids to partake. If you (meant collectively) would fight to have it legalized, then why not use it yourself? And why not let your kids use it, provided there's no legal age of consumption put on pot if it was legalized?
Sahara, that's a very good point, but then isn't that one more argument for it NOT to be legalized? |
I think you need to clarify whether or not you are talking young children or children who are adults. Also, just because a person wouldn't partake of a substance doesn't mean there aren't reasons is should be legal. A lot of people choose not to drink but don't want alcohol made illegal.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
