California Marijuana Regulation Act of 2010
- Thread starter AndyFromMonday
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Aint gonna happen, countries will go the other way, like Canada, and begin banning tobacco instead. Then they won't be hypocrites for having one unhealthy smokable substance legal and others illegal. Alcohol will never be banned in democratic country, unless, like cigarettes, enough people begin to quit voluntarily and the government is weened off it's revenue through taxes slowly, to the point they can phase out the dependence on its' income. It's a governments' responsibility to protect the population from preventable disease as much as possible, while minimalizing the impact on their free will and rights. Legalizing harmful, unhealthy substances goes directly against this directive, and can't begin to be tolerated within the community to satisfy the impulses of the minority.
It's a persons choice as to what they do with their body and not yours nor anybody else's. It's insane that drugs are illegal in the first place and even more insane that all drugs weren't legal from the first place.Captain Placeholder said:
It's not actually legal in Amsterdam, it's just tolerated.ghostalker.cepo said:
--edit--
I am actually just backing up the argument here by the way. If weed is only tolerated then I can't imagine the theory straying far if it became legal there.
Frankly, I don't give a damn what drugs people do, as long as I retain the ability to get the hell away from them if they annoy me. I've been around people who were getting high, and it was funny. Yeah, the stuff smelled like shit, but I coulda left at any time. I'm in favor of this Proposition 19.
I keep hearing that marijuana is a lot less harmful then alcohol and many other drugs, but when ever I see someone who smokes it they seem to get more stupid by the minute.
I don't smoke weed that often(about once a week) and I've been smoking L&M's for about 3 years. I'm not sure I can qualify as a "long time drug user", but thanks for caring. I don't seem to understand your second point. How could I be a drug dealer? If I was a drug dealer I'd support all drugs remain illegal since I'd profit from that. Your analogy makes no sense. So, now that we've established I'm neither of your analogies, what am I? A person that supports the right of a human being to use his own body what way he or she deems fit.Captain Placeholder said:
I am very much aware certain drugs can kill you. Still, the decision to use those drugs should be up to the person and not the government. The government has no right to tell you what you yourself can do with your own body. Still, drugs are easily procured. All that making them illegal does is fuel the drug industry and forcing people who do want to use drugs engage in shady deals and use unclean methods of ingestion(like dirty needless for e.g.). Not only that, but you can't know with what the drug is cut with, which might have potential fatal consequences.
No, it's not "fucking stupid". Think for a second. The drug industry thrives on the fact that the government has made drugs illegal. They are making millions, even billions. If the government made all drugs legal and taxed them the country could earn billions and at the same time destroy the so called drug empires. It would also bring addictions to light making it easier for those addicted persons to get help.
How, exactly? I can see the arguments for legalizing marijuana, even if I disagree, but cocaine? Heroin? Bullshit. Firstly, it's their choice, but make it legal and a lot of naive people are going to end up doing hard drugs and ruining their lives. Secondly, it isn't an issue that only affects the user. What about crime? Not just committing crime to afford the drugs, which would be lesser if it were legal (but most likely still an issue), but people who get high and go out and murder someone? Have you thought about the wider consequences for the country and society of rotting the minds of a decent chunk of the populaton?AndyFromMonday said:
Your argument is that people should not be given the option to take actions which will lead to their own destruction. However, should it not be a person's right to do with their body as they like? Whether for ill or good, if a person's activity has no effect beyond his own person, interfering is, frankly, none of anybody else's business.Captain Placeholder said:
Further, as you appear to be supporting qualified prohibition for the purpose of harm reduction, you neglect the fact that in areas where even the worst drugs are tolerated you'll find facilities such as needle exchange clinics, which help reduce the spread of diseases caused by dirty needles, and can check for unwanted harmful chemicals used to cut the drug. Instead of sticking to the shadows, or being thrust into jails or given punitive fines to heighten the despair and desparation of the problematic drug users, the drug users will be allowed to exist in the open where it is easier to seek treatment, regulate supply, and otherwise save lives.
Your argument, sir, is killing people by the thousands. Looking at the indirect harm of drug use now, there exist states where drug gangs have become the de facto government, such as in Columbia. This is facilitated by the illegal drug economy - drug dealers don't particularly care about the suffering caused by the manufacture of their product, and cannot be regulated into doing so, as they exist only in the shadows. Made legal, these drugs can then be cultivated with oversight by licensed companies. As these drugs will be of a higher quality and purity, as well as being a legal choice, possibly even cheaper, this will drive the illegal drugs trade out of business. I'm not saying it'll free the afflicted countries from the yoke of the drug cartels, but it will at least heavily damage the gangs' profits and weaken them. Who knows how many lives will be saved in this regard alone?
So no, sir, it's not "fucking stupid" at all. It may be, in fact, the only sensible option. I welcome any counter-argument.
they are freaking out about pot?
what the?
the Netherlands is a society with has legalized pot and there society has no collapsed although they have legalized prostitution as well.
if you put something out of a child's grasp and say don't touch it then they will want to get it. if you don't make it a big deal then they won't care. they will not find it trilling and they won't think it is such an awesome thing to do.
what the?
the Netherlands is a society with has legalized pot and there society has no collapsed although they have legalized prostitution as well.
if you put something out of a child's grasp and say don't touch it then they will want to get it. if you don't make it a big deal then they won't care. they will not find it trilling and they won't think it is such an awesome thing to do.
I think it could still pass. I live in that Republican based area, near Fresno. I digress though, a good number of people in this area are starting to want it legal now. To stop the drug conflicts and field burnings during the season. Of course these are just the people living out in the mountians where that kind of stuff frequents every year. Not so sure what the more inner city people want.Branches said:
It won't pass, because the privatized prison system in the US relies on constant business from convicting individuals for the penny-ante crime of carrying half an ounce. If you legalize marijuana, you're probably eliminating 20% of the prison population, and we can't have that. So even if by some miracle it passes in California, the DEA and feds will just smack it down in the name of the failed "War on Drugs" (AKA, the "War of Passing Public Money Into Increasingly Paramilitary Police Forces and Privatized Prison Corporations With No Appreciable Reduction in Crime Rates or Drug Use in the Last 25 Years").
Here in Canada, a Ministry of Justice survey a few years back indicated that while two-thirds (66%) of adult Canadians tried marijuana at least once, less than 2% ever tried hard drugs. So the "gateway" drug theory is pretty much crap. So while there might be arguments in favour of criminalizing hard drugs, I can't think of any rational reasons to continue criminalizing marijuana that don't already apply to tobacco, alcohol or caffeine.
On a related note, five years ago water testing revealed that rates of cocaine use in Northern Italy were almost three times higher [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4746787.stm] than officially estimated. Unlike the poverty and crime-ridden south, Northern Italians are generally wealthy, prosperous, well-educated and largely free of violent crime. And yet so many of them are coke addicts. Imagine that.
For the record, I'm not in favour of legalizing hard drugs. At least not without a lot more study. But I do favour treatment and education over ineffective law enforcement and judicial penalties. The Portugese system [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html] just might be a model for the rest of the world.
Here in Canada, a Ministry of Justice survey a few years back indicated that while two-thirds (66%) of adult Canadians tried marijuana at least once, less than 2% ever tried hard drugs. So the "gateway" drug theory is pretty much crap. So while there might be arguments in favour of criminalizing hard drugs, I can't think of any rational reasons to continue criminalizing marijuana that don't already apply to tobacco, alcohol or caffeine.
On a related note, five years ago water testing revealed that rates of cocaine use in Northern Italy were almost three times higher [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4746787.stm] than officially estimated. Unlike the poverty and crime-ridden south, Northern Italians are generally wealthy, prosperous, well-educated and largely free of violent crime. And yet so many of them are coke addicts. Imagine that.
For the record, I'm not in favour of legalizing hard drugs. At least not without a lot more study. But I do favour treatment and education over ineffective law enforcement and judicial penalties. The Portugese system [http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1893946,00.html] just might be a model for the rest of the world.
Ok, my bad, but it can be purchased and consumed legally in permitted establisments and homes, much like this bill is proposing, and they did this in 1976. Technically under US law, it will still be illegal, so what california is proposing is essentially the same tolerence and distribution.Georgie2x4 said:
AndyFromMonday:Captain Placeholder said:
All drugs were legal at the beginning of the 20th century, Heroin (well opium), cocaine and more were sold in superstores, and generally only the rich could afford them. This was during the Great Binge, around the time of World War 1. They were made illegal after that for obvious reasons, and marijuana got caught up in it. Since then, any substance that messes with your head is made illegal, save alcohol because that's been around for centuries, and tobacco, which had no apparent ill effect and was thought to improve physical health, and most of the world was already hooked.
Modern drugs like ecstacy or LSD are semi-synthetic, and their structures theorised in the 30's, but the technology didn't exist to create them till the 60's, but due to their similar mind altering effects, were made illegal. In fact all illegal drugs were once legal.
CaptainPlaceholder:
You may not be able to see why, and in part I think it's what feeds your moral stance on drugs and alcohol, which in turn fuels your inability to see. At a guess, you've never really tried drugs or alcohol, or you have and you didn't like it. Some people like the lack of control, some people enjoy an altered mental state, and some don't, but if you get morally superior on me because you don't enjoy it or have never tried it, please go die in a fire. These moralities have been imposed upon you by a fear mongering government who thinks the best way to stop people doing these bad things is to make them scared, and it hasn't worked. You don't wanna do it, then don't, it's your choice.
We don't need to get fucked up to have fun, but we enjoy it and it can make the night more interesting. I think it depends on where you live too, Attitudes towards alcohol and drinking specifically differ all round the world, but the the drugs/anti drugs morality seems to be the same. I like to drink, but I don't like to drink so much that I puke, I think people who enjoy doing that are pathetic. Get a bit pissed, have a laugh, remember how you get home.