Marijuana legalization

[Pimppeter2]

Legalization is stupid.

I smoke it and I even realize that. Its just a pointless thing to do that will just make an impact on Americas already shit schools.

Shit, just don't get caught.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I hope half the things you enjoy are criminalized for you. Way to decide for others what's right or wrong for them you audacious brat.

This is the heart of the argument right here. The hell with "pot is bad" or "pot is good."

UNLESS and UNTIL my drug problem hurts you, you have no right to tell me what to do (other than freedom of speech, and I already smoked that with my last bowl)

EDIT: I love another line you wrote: "Why can't people accept it's illegal and leave it at that."
Because the people, that is all of us, make the rules. When one group (ANSLINGER) attempts to make rules governing others, those rules will not always be followed. Sorry, I'm not a sheep, get over it. To put it differently, why can't you accept I'm ok with pot and leave it at that?
Damned pretentious world we live in, ain't it!

I don't mind if you're ok with it, I just don't understand your need to smoke an illegal substance for the purposes of enjoyment. It continually amazes me that people see some sort of wonderful thing in this substance. Maybe part of that could be the fact that it is illegal and hence has an air of defiance and mystique around it, maybe part of that is because it has some relaxative properties, I'm not sure. All I know is that it is an illegal substance which I have no interest in and I hope it stays illegal. In fact the more people complain around it being criminalised the more I hope the laws are never changed, the whole situation seems childish really. If it's illegal, why bother with it? There are many other ways for people to enjoy their lives apart from this, hence the need to use it seems odd.

By the way, you shouldn't attack your opponent in a debate, only their ideas. It makes it seem like you don't have a counter argument and can think of nothing better than to slur who they are as a person.

I have to agree with everyone that a) you don't understand what pot does to you until you've tried it several times, b) you're being a ignorant, judgmental cock by implying that people consume pot purely as a form of rebellion and c) it's current state as an illegal substance is not good enough to keep it illegal. If I wanted a government to tell me what was desirable to consume and what wasn't, I'd move to China. Then I could let the government decide if I was visiting harmful internet sites or listening to harmful music, too.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I think the sell of the seeds would be a niche that would be exploited and just used to increase the quantity of illegal marijuana available. If anyone can buy the seeds then small time drug dealers will pop up all over the place since they can just say "hey man I grew it for me" and it'd be harder to catch people on possession because they just say that they grew it themselves. This half legalization would only cause more trouble, either go one way or the other.

 

[Captain Blackout]

I hope half the things you enjoy are criminalized for you. Way to decide for others what's right or wrong for them you audacious brat.

This is the heart of the argument right here. The hell with "pot is bad" or "pot is good."

UNLESS and UNTIL my drug problem hurts you, you have no right to tell me what to do (other than freedom of speech, and I already smoked that with my last bowl)

EDIT: I love another line you wrote: "Why can't people accept it's illegal and leave it at that."
Because the people, that is all of us, make the rules. When one group (ANSLINGER) attempts to make rules governing others, those rules will not always be followed. Sorry, I'm not a sheep, get over it. To put it differently, why can't you accept I'm ok with pot and leave it at that?
Damned pretentious world we live in, ain't it!

I don't mind if you're ok with it, I just don't understand your need to smoke an illegal substance for the purposes of enjoyment. It continually amazes me that people see some sort of wonderful thing in this substance. Maybe part of that could be the fact that it is illegal and hence has an air of defiance and mystique around it, maybe part of that is because it has some relaxative properties, I'm not sure. All I know is that it is an illegal substance which I have no interest in and I hope it stays illegal. In fact the more people complain around it being criminalised the more I hope the laws are never changed, the whole situation seems childish really. If it's illegal, why bother with it? There are many other ways for people to enjoy their lives apart from this, hence the need to use it seems odd.

By the way, you shouldn't attack your opponent in a debate, only their ideas. It makes it seem like you don't have a counter argument and can think of nothing better than to slur who they are as a person.

You don't need to understand "my need". My liking of pot has NOTHING to do with it's legal status. It's relaxing properties are nice, but they alone aren't enough. Pot has different effects in different people, and the effects it has on me ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! This is the point you keep missing, like a blind man searching for his car keys.

The legal status of anything means very little to me. The real question is: Is this or that for me? If so, I proceed. If what I plan on proceeding with is illegal, I'll take that into account, but mostly for purposes of keeping from getting caught. I don't care what your laws are. Humanity has proven to me it can not provide a sensible legal system so I won't bother following stupid laws I don't care about. Just to put your over-tired "but it's illegal" line to rest. It's a silly argument, good for sheep who can't decide for themselves.

Finally, this isn't a debate. Silly mistake on your part. I tried that before and your myopia proved insurmountable. I'm just here telling you you should stay off the marijuana threads. Every time you post on one you come across, as someone else put it so perfectly, as a "ignorant judgmental cock." I'm not here to be nice, I'm here to be as rude as the stupidity I'm up against requires. I don't care if you think my slurs are to cover my lack of counter-argument. I only care that you get told exactly how you're acting every you post on one of these threads.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I have to agree with everyone that a) you don't understand what pot does to you until you've tried it several times, b) you're being a ignorant, judgmental cock by implying that people consume pot purely as a form of rebellion and c) it's current state as an illegal substance is not good enough to keep it illegal. If I wanted a government to tell me what was desirable to consume and what wasn't, I'd move to China. Then I could let the government decide if I was visiting harmful internet sites or listening to harmful music, too.

I understand that it can damage a teenagers developing brain during puberty, but you're correct, I don't understand what it does to me because I have never tried it and have no interest in trying it. I apologise, I did try to clarify that there are many reasons that people consume this illegal drug, which can range from, rebellion, relaxation, culture, social pressures, curiosity and for its analgesic properties, so saying that I simply think that users are doing it to rebel strikes me as rather strange. It's also interesting that you say that its current state as an illict drug is not sufficient to keep it that way, because it's saying that there would be beneficial reasons to legalising the drug. I can't think of many, there sure has been a lot of arguments pitched towards it, none of which so und overly convincing. Also the government already tells you what is desirable to consume and what is not, that's why we have health promotion which promotes healthy eating and nutritional information on foods - as guidelines for what to consume. That is nothing new.

 

[Inverse Skies]

You don't need to understand "my need". My liking of pot has NOTHING to do with it's legal status. It's relaxing properties are nice, but they alone aren't enough. Pot has different effects in different people, and the effects it has on me ARE NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS! This is the point you keep missing, like a blind man searching for his car keys.

The legal status of anything means very little to me. The real question is: Is this or that for me? If so, I proceed. If what I plan on proceeding with is illegal, I'll take that into account, but mostly for purposes of keeping from getting caught. I don't care what your laws are. Humanity has proven to me it can not provide a sensible legal system so I won't bother following stupid laws I don't care about. Just to put your over-tired "but it's illegal" line to rest. It's a silly argument, good for sheep who can't decide for themselves.

Finally, this isn't a debate. Silly mistake on your part. I tried that before and your myopia proved insurmountable. I'm just here telling you you should stay off the marijuana threads. Every time you post on one you come across, as someone else put it so perfectly, as a "ignorant judgmental cock." I'm not here to be nice, I'm here to be as rude as the stupidity I'm up against requires. I don't care if you think my slurs are to cover my lack of counter-argument. I only care that you get told exactly how you're acting every you post on one of these threads.

You have a long memory, I think we last got into a debate about this in April maybe? I can't remember now. I know it was shortly before I left this site for a while due to study reasons.

So in order to help me understand why people might use marijuana despite its illict status you decide not to tell me the reasons you use it? This whole debate I have been questioning why people might turn to marijuana and not understanding their need to, so you could have added real sway to your argument by providing a valid reason as to why. Unfortunately you chose to become angry instead, closing off a potential avenue for yourself.

It's interesting to hear you say that you take into account the legality of something to keep from getting caught. It's admitting that what you're doing is wrong but because of your need to keep using the substance you have to find ways to get around this. Curious. I would also like to hear why you think our justice system has failed us, like some specific examples of cases where you think the legal system is not working correctly. The argument that you wont follow stupid laws that you don't care about is in itself nothing but a childish act of rebellion, something you before said you didn't use marijuana because of, a clear contradiction in terms. You've basically said that you don't like the legal system so in order to show that I'll follow the laws I want to, nothing but an act of defiance. It's also curious as to likening my following of the law as to being a sheep who can't think for myself. I've made my choice, I've decided not to use marijuana because it's illegal and I see no purpose in using it for its properties, none of them interest me. There's a difference between blindly following and making a decision for oneself after consulting the facts, and in that sense I haven't been a sheep over this in the slightest.

I'll continue to post on these threads and voice my opinion, because not everyone has to agree on the issues presented in them. I know that there is a substantial proportion of the users on here who support the legalisation of marijuana, it doesn't worry me. I have my opinion in this debate and I'm quite happy to express it, despite the childish name calling I might receive in return. I only hope that the people I'm arguing against show me the same courteousy.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I have to agree with everyone that a) you don't understand what pot does to you until you've tried it several times, b) you're being a ignorant, judgmental cock by implying that people consume pot purely as a form of rebellion and c) it's current state as an illegal substance is not good enough to keep it illegal. If I wanted a government to tell me what was desirable to consume and what wasn't, I'd move to China. Then I could let the government decide if I was visiting harmful internet sites or listening to harmful music, too.

I understand that it can damage a teenagers developing brain during puberty, but you're correct, I don't understand what it does to me because I have never tried it and have no interest in trying it. I apologise, I did try to clarify that there are many reasons that people consume this illegal drug, which can range from, rebellion, relaxation, culture, social pressures, curiosity and for its analgesic properties, so saying that I simply think that users are doing it to rebel strikes me as rather strange. It's also interesting that you say that its current state as an illict drug is not sufficient to keep it that way, because it's saying that there would be beneficial reasons to legalising the drug. I can't think of many, there sure has been a lot of arguments pitched towards it, none of which so und overly convincing. Also the government already tells you what is desirable to consume and what is not, that's why we have health promotion which promotes healthy eating and nutritional information on foods - as guidelines for what to consume. That is nothing new.

I'm not sure if you're new to the concept, but many people, including myself, believe that the freedom to choose whether or not something we intend to purchase purely for personal use is not something that the government should violate. The issue here isn't whether pot is beneficial, although it clearly has at least some value in medicine as far as an alternative pain relief medication that doesn't cause the same nausea as many narcotics. The issue is whether or not people should have the freedom to choose what to do with their lives. As far as your argument that the government already tells you what is "desirable or not," that's a fart in the wind and you know it. The issue is legality, not government preferences, the government doesn't tell you that you can't eat pizza and potato chips. If the government's "preferences" on what was "healthful" for us was the issue, pot should and would be legal and sold with the same type of warnings on cigarettes and alcohol.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I also find it quite curious that you're willing to completely bastardize Captain Blackout's reasons for using pot and then pretend that he's the one throwing childish insults. Interesting, almost.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I'm not sure if you're new to the concept, but many people, including myself, believe that the freedom to choose whether or not something we intend to purchase purely for personal use is not something that the government should violate. The issue here isn't whether pot is beneficial, although it clearly has at least some value in medicine as far as an alternative pain relief medication that doesn't cause the same nausea as many narcotics. The issue is whether or not people should have the freedom to choose what to do with their lives. As far as your argument that the government already tells you what is "desirable or not," that's a fart in the wind and you know it. The issue is legality, not government preferences, the government doesn't tell you that you can't eat pizza and potato chips. If the government's "preferences" on what was "healthful" for us was the issue, pot should and would be legal and sold with the same type of warnings on cigarettes and alcohol.

The problem is that we come from different cultural backgrounds. The freedom of speech and freedom of use ideals are a lot stronger in America than here in Australia, hence why it's hard to grasp why you stand up so hard for your personal liberties. The system you describe would negate the whole drugs in sport issue because according to what you propose anabolic steroids would not be an illegal substance. Should they be legalised and athletes judged on how much they inject rather than personal talent? The system of preventing access to some drugs has to be in place somewhere and somehow, otherwise theoretically a person could access any medication they want - morphine, barbituates, anti-depressants such as lithium, chemotherapy drugs such as methotrexate, gemcitabine and taxol, all of which have disasterous effects on the body. Why should such a system exist, where the potential for harm is much greater than the potential for effective control and regulation? It's a cultural difference, I find it hard to grasp the American view of personal liberties and freedom. We just seem to have different grasps of boundaries and limitations, so we're always going to disagree on things such as this, it's just the way it is.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I also find it quite curious that you're willing to completely bastardize Captain Blackout's reasons for using pot and then pretend that he's the one throwing childish insults. Interesting, almost.

He didn't actually tell me his reasons. I'm curious to know what they are.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I'm not sure if you're new to the concept, but many people, including myself, believe that the freedom to choose whether or not something we intend to purchase purely for personal use is not something that the government should violate. The issue here isn't whether pot is beneficial, although it clearly has at least some value in medicine as far as an alternative pain relief medication that doesn't cause the same nausea as many narcotics. The issue is whether or not people should have the freedom to choose what to do with their lives. As far as your argument that the government already tells you what is "desirable or not," that's a fart in the wind and you know it. The issue is legality, not government preferences, the government doesn't tell you that you can't eat pizza and potato chips. If the government's "preferences" on what was "healthful" for us was the issue, pot should and would be legal and sold with the same type of warnings on cigarettes and alcohol.

The problem is that we come from different cultural backgrounds. The freedom of speech and freedom of use ideals are a lot stronger in America than here in Australia, hence why it's hard to grasp why you stand up so hard for your personal liberties. The system you describe would negate the whole drugs in sport issue because according to what you propose anabolic steroids would not be an illegal substance. Should they be legalised and athletes judged on how much they inject rather than personal talent? The system of preventing access to some drugs has to be in place somewhere and somehow, otherwise theoretically a person could access any medication they want - morphine, barbituates, anti-depressants such as lithium, chemotherapy drugs such as methotrexate, gemcitabine and taxol, all of which have disasterous effects on the body. Why should such a system exist, where the potential for harm is much greater than the potential for effective control and regulation? It's a cultural difference, I find it hard to grasp the American view of personal liberties and freedom. We just seem to have different grasps of boundaries and limitations, so we're always going to disagree on things such as this, it's just the way it is.

I wasn't aware that I was lobbying for legalization of steroids in sports (which involves much more serious issues than steroid usage, that being the agreements the players make when entering a professional sports league while using steroids to boost their performance, and the money the players make as professional athletes both from their organization and their endorsements based on enhanced performance not allowed by that league). I also wasn't aware that I was arguing for the rights of people to use drugs that could potentially kill the person or conceivably make them a threat to other individuals. Apparently the "cultural differences" argument wasn't strong enough to lead off with and needed a couple of straw man punchers to really get the ball rolling.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I also find it quite curious that you're willing to completely bastardize Captain Blackout's reasons for using pot and then pretend that he's the one throwing childish insults. Interesting, almost.

He didn't actually tell me his reasons. I'm curious to know what they are.

I thought it was obvious. He, like many people, like pot, and don't feel that the laws against it are adequate reason to prevent his using it. As people have already pointed out before, the laws against pot have virtually nothing to do with the effects of pot.

 

[Inverse Skies]

I wasn't aware that I was lobbying for legalization of steroids in sports (which involves much more serious issues than steroid usage, that being the agreements the players make when entering a professional sports league while using steroids to boost their performance, and the money the players make as professional athletes both from their organization and their endorsements based on enhanced performance not allowed by that league). I also wasn't aware that I was arguing for the rights of people to use drugs that could potentially kill the person or conceivably make them a threat to other individuals. Apparently the "cultural differences" argument wasn't strong enough to lead off with and needed a couple of straw man punchers to really get the ball rolling.

The system you propose has to be looked at in more than just the light of legalising currently illicit drugs, it's the sort of thing you have to consider when making policy changes: how is this going to affect the wider world in general outside of the thing I originally planned it for? Using the personal liberties and freedoms debate for the legalisation of drugs could very easily be used to lobby for the drugs in sport campaign or for the legalisation of prescription medictions. You can't just say "oh we'll legalise some things but not others because they don't fit in with our ideals" that just means you're doing the exact same thing that is happening right now but with different substances. Nothing has changed.

Also, your defence of Captain Blackout's use of marijuana basically sums down too "He likes it and doesn't feel that others should tell him not to use it". Hence part of him using it is an act of rebellion, the very thing he said he didn't use marijuana for. You've undermined his argument by what you said there.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

I wasn't aware that I was lobbying for legalization of steroids in sports (which involves much more serious issues than steroid usage, that being the agreements the players make when entering a professional sports league while using steroids to boost their performance, and the money the players make as professional athletes both from their organization and their endorsements based on enhanced performance not allowed by that league). I also wasn't aware that I was arguing for the rights of people to use drugs that could potentially kill the person or conceivably make them a threat to other individuals. Apparently the "cultural differences" argument wasn't strong enough to lead off with and needed a couple of straw man punchers to really get the ball rolling.

The system you propose has to be looked at in more than just the light of legalising currently illicit drugs, it's the sort of thing you have to consider when making policy changes: how is this going to affect the wider world in general outside of the thing I originally planned it for? Using the personal liberties and freedoms debate for the legalisation of drugs could very easily be used to lobby for the drugs in sport campaign or for the legalisation of prescription medictions. You can't just say "oh we'll legalise some things but not others because they don't fit in with our ideals" that just means you're doing the exact same thing that is happening right now but with different substances. Nothing has changed.

Also, your defence of Captain Blackout's use of marijuana basically sums down too "He likes it and doesn't feel that others should tell him not to use it". Hence part of him using it is an act of rebellion, the very thing he said he didn't use marijuana for. You've undermined his argument by what you said there.

Ah, so by your interpretation of my argument that the government has no domain over personal preference, my "system" would have serious implications on whether professional sports leagues decided that 'roids were alright. I suppose the self-imposed rules of the league would change as a result of decriminalizing some drugs in the government. I'm not sure why that is, there's no reason for them to change their rules and no one would expect them to, but that's apparently the argument you've made for me.

He's rebelling, and clearly he likes the rebellion element, although clearly he likes the pot more than just the act of rebelling. He's not doing it to rebel, he, like virtually all people that like pot or any other illegal or legal substance, does it primarily because he likes it, the rebellion being a bonus.

 

[Lord Krunk]

PurpleRain: I'd like to introduce you to a concept called Prohibition that we tried here in the United States back in the 20's.

It was a miserable failure, created more crime than our country had seen it's inception and made criminals out of ordinary folk who just wanted a beer.

This is what the criminalization of Marijuana is doing.

Uh... no it isn't. Seriously.

Australia had the Rum Rebellion as well, but that was because:

1) Beer is our culture.

2) Life was pretty shitty in Australia in the early years.

And neither, good sir, can be used to support your argument, as neither are the case for Marijuana or this age.

On topic: I agree with Purps. If you want it, grow it yourself.

 

[Inverse Skies]

Ah, so by your interpretation of my argument that the government has no domain over personal preference, my "system" would have serious implications on whether professional sports leagues decided that 'roids were alright. I suppose the self-imposed rules of the league would change as a result of decriminalizing some drugs in the government. I'm not sure why that is, there's no reason for them to change their rules and no one would expect them to, but that's apparently the argument you've made for me.

He's rebelling, and clearly he likes the rebellion element, although clearly he likes the pot more than just the act of rebelling. He's not doing it to rebel, he, like virtually all people that like pot or any other illegal or legal substance, does it primarily because he likes it, the rebellion being a bonus.

There we go, a very sensible reason as to why people use marijuana, for enjoyment purposes secondary to rebellion. I can understand why people might enjoy it, for its relaxative and hallucinogenic properties, but I myself don't see a need in using it, hence because of my personal stance I don't see the need for it to be de-criminalised, especially not when it can potentially cause harm. It's similar to being vegetarian (which I'm not) and understanding why others choose to eat meat, yet not wanting to do so themselves.

The argument for professional sport follows similar lines: if the government can't tell us what we can and can't put in our bodies then professional sporting organisations can't tell us what we can and can't do in order to succeed either, especially if the argument is that the steroid were legally used for personal purposes rather than competitive ones. It'd be a curious throwback of what you're proposing.

 

[Citrus]

As I see it, if alcohol and cigarettes are legal, marijuana should be as well.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Ah, so by your interpretation of my argument that the government has no domain over personal preference, my "system" would have serious implications on whether professional sports leagues decided that 'roids were alright. I suppose the self-imposed rules of the league would change as a result of decriminalizing some drugs in the government. I'm not sure why that is, there's no reason for them to change their rules and no one would expect them to, but that's apparently the argument you've made for me.

He's rebelling, and clearly he likes the rebellion element, although clearly he likes the pot more than just the act of rebelling. He's not doing it to rebel, he, like virtually all people that like pot or any other illegal or legal substance, does it primarily because he likes it, the rebellion being a bonus.

There we go, a very sensible reason as to why people use marijuana, for enjoyment purposes secondary to rebellion. I can understand why people might enjoy it, for its relaxative and hallucinogenic properties, but I myself don't see a need in using it, hence because of my personal stance I don't see the need for it to be de-criminalised, especially not when it can potentially cause harm. It's similar to being vegetarian (which I'm not) and understanding why others choose to eat meat, yet not wanting to do so themselves.

The argument for professional sport follows similar lines: if the government can't tell us what we can and can't put in our bodies then professional sporting organisations can't tell us what we can and can't do in order to succeed either, especially if the argument is that the steroid were legally used for personal purposes rather than competitive ones. It'd be a curious throwback of what you're proposing.

Uh, that's not what I said at all, I said the main reason people use pot is for the effects, the rebellion would be secondary. You're making a massive assumption in order to fit pot users into your idea of why pot users do what they do.

I would suggest not bringing up professional sports in an argument again until you learn some things about them. I'm not sure if they do it quite the same way in Australia, but in the U.S., professional sports leagues have their own sets of rules and punishments separate from the law. Violations can result in fines, suspensions, and expulsion from the MLB, NBA, NFL, etc. And all major professional sports leagues strictly prohibit a long list of enhancers, with people being caught and suspended for using banned substances every year, many of which are perfectly legal for people to obtain but are against league rules. The government doesn't enforce special rules on league players, the leagues do that to maintain integrity within the sport.

 

[Borrowed Time]

Personally, I think the Fed should get out of the business of the legality of it and let the states decide. I can guarantee you though that every time it comes up for a vote, I'll vote to make it/keep it illegal. I have about as much respect for potheads as I do for drunks or smokers for that matter.

I find the need to use controlled substances to drown problems or "cuzz it's fun, don't harsh my mellow, man" to be incredibly irresponsible, immature and self-depreciating. I've seen lives destroyed by alcohol just as I've seen them destroyed by weed. Everyone who says "it's harmless" is beyond full of crap, not just to themselves but to those around them.

I think it'd be great if health care costs skyrocketed for smokers (tobacco and weed) and drinkers because of their risky behavior, especially seeing as the USA is going to a socialized health care system. I don't want to be paying for anyone's stupidity down the road with my taxes. I already do that enough with irresponsible people popping kids out left and right because they don't know how to use contraception even though it's taught on almost every street corner these days.

If you want to get high, go for it, but don't come crying to me or expect any sympathy from me when you have complications down the road or have ruined your own or your family or friends lives because of it. Deal with your own problems that you've brought upon yourself. I have.

Don't even try to debate with me on this. I already said that I want the Fed to get out of it and leave it to the states. If you don't like it, move to a state that allows it or lobby to get it changed. If it gets changed in my state, I'll move to one that makes it illegal, easy as that.

[sub]*Yes this is all my opinion.
<-- Never smoked cigs or pot or been drunk in his life as he likes to deal with his problems instead of drowning them away and hurting those he loves.[/sub]