Should marijuana be legalized?
|
|
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
 Posted: 01/31/05 - 00:13 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
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. |
I'll bounce that first part back to Cappy then, since it was his question. I'm guessing he wasn't taking into account a possible legal age of consumption, but perhaps I'm wrong. You're right, that does change things a bit. Obviously I wouldn't let little kids smoke it even if it was legal, nor would I let them smoke cigarettes. I'm thinking that's a given, no?
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 06:39 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
Would you let your kids drink? |
That isn't what I asked, nor is it the relative to the topic you started.
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 08:30 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: |
That isn't what I asked, nor is it the relative to the topic you started. |
It is relevant to the question genie asked.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 08:31 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
It is relevant to the question genie asked. |
but its not relevant to the topic 
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 08:46 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: |
but its not relevant to the topic |
Yes, it is. Genie argued that saying you won't let your children smoke pot (a drug) or that if you would never partake in pot yourself, is an arguement against legalization. I am simply showing the falacy in her arguement by applying it to alcohol (another drug) as it is legal.
Staying on topic does not mean you nothing but the word marijuana can be mentioned. Bang your head all you want, it IS relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
Cappy
Excelent
|
|
|
Joined: 16 May 2002
Posts: 27368
Location: Spreadsheetylvania
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 08:54 Post subject:
Fair enough.
I am curious to see how you stand on the legalization issue.
To answer your question, no it should not be legalized.
To answer my question. No I wouldn't smoke it in front of my children, nor would I encourage them to do so
|
|
|
|
|
camelia bedelia
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 15 May 2002
Posts: 2808
Location: God's Country
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 09:06 Post subject:
| Cappy wrote: | Fair enough.
I am curious to see how you stand on the legalization issue.
To answer your question, no it should not be legalized.
To answer my question. No I wouldn't smoke it in front of my children, nor would I encourage them to do so |
I'm not sure. My gut instinct is to not legalize it, but I think Go and Rex have made some interesting arguements in favor.
|
|
|
|
|
Bill_Sev
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 21 Sep 2004
Posts: 727
Location: Marietta, GA
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 09:39 Post subject:
If we legalize it, some of the lib's will think were out to invade Hawaii!!!! Oh wait.....we own that....better invade South America........ Gotta have control of the cocca plants too! LMAO
|
|
|
|
|
TOsteve
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 08 Dec 2004
Posts: 1468
Location: Out for a run
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 10:35 Post subject:
| RexRacer wrote: |
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. |
I think the best conclusion most arguments for legal pot can ever arrive at is that “no real harm will come of it”. There is one "social harm" that has always concerned me a little though:
I had read somewhere about Big Tobacco already owning the commercial rights to many pot strains but was afraid to bring it up in this thread because I wasn't sure where I saw it - but I'll take RR's word for it as this topic seems to be near and dear to him.  I would have to think twice about supporting any legislation that would give Big Tobacco even more power to spread the much more deadly drug that they are already marketing to our children. In my mind, a problem with legalizing is that it would just change the direction that the money is flowing and put it right in Big Tobacco’s pockets.
To me the question comes down to: who is more dangerous to society? Is it the giants of the tobacco industry or the petty drug dealers? Any thoughts out there….
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 12:03 Post subject:
| camelia bedelia wrote: |
Yes, it is. Genie argued that saying you won't let your children smoke pot (a drug) or that if you would never partake in pot yourself, is an arguement against legalization. I am simply showing the falacy in her arguement by applying it to alcohol (another drug) as it is legal.
Staying on topic does not mean you nothing but the word marijuana can be mentioned. Bang your head all you want, it IS relevant. |
No, actually that's NOT what I was saying, CB. I was pointing out that I saw, just my personal perspective, a contradiction between "yes, legalize it, it's not really that harmful whether it's a drug or not" type statements (paraphrasing here) and "I would discourage pot use in my kids." I was merely trying to do it politely so that Go or anyone else would not think I was calling them a hypocrite, but in fact, as a general, broadbased viewpoint, I DO feel that this attitude is somewhat hypocritical. I was just trying not to target one specific person, which is why I brought my friend into it.
To me, if it's harmless enough to the rest of us that someone feels it should be made legal (i.e. there are less mean stoners than there are mean drunks type rationale) then why would you not feel that it's harmless enough for your own kids to use? I'm not saying you have to be an advocate of use for yourself to want it legalized, although obviously the majority of users would argue that point, but what I'm saying is, if you don't think it's that harmful, then what is the specific rationale for not wanting your kids to use it??
To me, that sounds contradictory and that's what I was trying to get clarified. Is it harmful, in your eyes (you meant collectively) or not?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 12:11 Post subject:
Um, I don't want the kids playing with matches or wearing short sleeves in the winter, either. It's not like people who think pot should be legalized are by definition stoners who advocate the use of marijuana to everyone. I didn't say it was healthy or a good idea to use it. I just don't think it should be illegal.
Or if it should be, so should alcohol. I think the point is it's no worse for one than alcohol, which is legal.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 12:19 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: | Um, I don't want the kids playing with matches or wearing short sleeves in the winter, either. It's not like people who think pot should be legalized are by definition stoners who advocate the use of marijuana to everyone. I didn't say it was healthy or a good idea to use it. I just don't think it should be illegal.
Or if it should be, so should alcohol. I think the point is it's no worse for one than alcohol, which is legal. |
OK, that's fair. That's what I was trying to get at really. I don't think that everyone who thinks pot should be legalized is a stoner. I certainly am not, although until I started working with addicts, I was more in favor of legalization than I am now. Mainly for medicinal purposes, pain relief, appetite regulation during chemo, etc...things I know people have had success with. I guess I just worry that by broadly legalizing it to everyone for any purpose, you open the door for a lot of potential trouble.
But then that does address the obligation of an individual to use responsibly, just like alcohol. By not legalizing it, you make it harder, but not impossible, for those who would not use responsibly to do so, thus decreasing the potential harm to others as a result of that irresponsibility. But you're right--alcohol is legal and if we start making everything harmful illegal, that's no good either. Is there a middle ground here?
|
|
|
|
|
Gogirlgo
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 4777
Location: No deal, stalker.
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 13:10 Post subject:
| genie wrote: |
But then that does address the obligation of an individual to use responsibly, |
You bring up a good point, about handling things responsibly. I think the core concern, legislatively, is that people wouldn't. But I don't think it's the government's place to try to legislate morality, which is what that argument comes down to.
It's similar to not giving pornography protection under the 1st Amendment. I don't think porn is an interesting thing to look at nor do I think it has any artistic merit and it probably contributes to the subjugation of and violence toward women, but I also don't want the gov telling me that I should or shouldn't be having certain thoughts. That's too invasive.
Here, I don't think the gov ought to decide what anyone can handle or not. It lets people drink but sanctions them if they drink too much. But it doesn't let them use marijuana, whether or not they can use it responsibly. I also see this as too invasive.
|
|
|
|
|
genie
Master of Prissface
|
|
|
Joined: 14 May 2002
Posts: 16194
Location: Finding serenity one day at a time
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 01/31/05 - 13:21 Post subject:
| Gogirlgo wrote: |
You bring up a good point, about handling things responsibly. I think the core concern, legislatively, is that people wouldn't. But I don't think it's the government's place to try to legislate morality, which is what that argument comes down to.
It's similar to not giving pornography protection under the 1st Amendment. I don't think porn is an interesting thing to look at nor do I think it has any artistic merit and it probably contributes to the subjugation of and violence toward women, but I also don't want the gov telling me that I should or shouldn't be having certain thoughts. That's too invasive.
Here, I don't think the gov ought to decide what anyone can handle or not. It lets people drink but sanctions them if they drink too much. But it doesn't let them use marijuana, whether or not they can use it responsibly. I also see this as too invasive. |
EXACTLY!!!! That's why I fear that there will never be a middle ground reached on a lot of these issues, and that bothers me. On one hand, our society is already quite capable of avoiding responsibility and blaming something or someone for "influencing" their negative behavior. Yet on the other, I think the government does or should have the right, to a reasonable extent, to protect its citizens, but the question then arises: how do they do that without being too invasive or without absolving people of their own moral responsibilities? IS there a middle ground or is that just pipe dreaming?? (pun intended )
|
|
|
|
|
RexRacer
Member
|
|
|
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 814
Location: A pancake house of ineffable crappiness
|
| Back to top
|
|
Posted: 02/03/05 - 19:07 Post subject:
| TOsteve wrote: |
I think the best conclusion most arguments for legal pot can ever arrive at is that “no real harm will come of it”. There is one "social harm" that has always concerned me a little though:
I had read somewhere about Big Tobacco already owning the commercial rights to many pot strains but was afraid to bring it up in this thread because I wasn't sure where I saw it - but I'll take RR's word for it as this topic seems to be near and dear to him. I would have to think twice about supporting any legislation that would give Big Tobacco even more power to spread the much more deadly drug that they are already marketing to our children. In my mind, a problem with legalizing is that it would just change the direction that the money is flowing and put it right in Big Tobacco’s pockets.
To me the question comes down to: who is more dangerous to society? Is it the giants of the tobacco industry or the petty drug dealers? Any thoughts out there…. |
Near and dear, indeed, Steve.
Yeah, they own commercial rights to names and various strains, so thus they would have a leg up, but that was their plan all along. Still, it would take what is now a vast unregulated, untaxed source of revenue and move it to at least more legitimate businesses than many organized crime groups who now run marijuana and other drug distribution organizations.
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
|
|
|
