Marijuana legalization

[Inverse Skies]

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.

To quote myself: "why people use marijuana, for enjoyment purposes secondary to rebellion". We've just said exactly the same thing, hence I'm not sure where you're coming from with the assumption idea.

My argument stems as such "If the government can't tell us what we can and can't put into our bodies why should professional sporting organisations?" Where is your distinction between the two?

 

[Serge A. Storms]

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 contreception even though it's tought almost on 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]

Here, let me get you a bigger brush, I think you missed the outer corners of the Milky Way.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

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.

To quote myself: "why people use marijuana, for enjoyment purposes secondary to rebellion". We've just said exactly the same thing, hence I'm not sure where you're coming from with the assumption idea.

My argument stems as such "If the government can't tell us what we can and can't put into our bodies why should professional sporting organisations?" Where is your distinction between the two?

Maybe it's an Australian thing, but in American English it appears that you're saying that the enjoyment purposes are literally second to the rebellion, as in, it sounds like rebellion is the main reason when you say "purposes secondary to rebellion."

I already told you before. The leagues don't have a responsibility to give its players absolute freedom, their primary goal is maintaining the integrity and profitability of professional sports. It's a privilege to be a part of one of these leagues, and the players must agree to the code of conduct set by the league in order to remain part of the league. The code of conduct is a result of every league deciding what detracts from the league, and all of them agree that performance enhancers do just that by diminishing the importance of athletic ability.

 

[Borrowed Time]

Spoiler: *snip*

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 contreception even though it's tought almost on 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]

Here, let me get you a bigger brush, I think you missed the outer corners of the Milky Way.

Ooh, they make those? Been looking in the hardware stores for one for a while, thanks! *looks to the edges* Damnit, you're right, I did miss some. *starts sweepin'*

Just because a lot of people fall under those categories doesn't make my arguments any less valid. Heck, here in the states nobody tried to stop the gang rape of that 15 year old high school girl, did that make it suddenly ok to do?*

Many people supported the Iraq war at first. Does that magically make it ok now?*

[sub]* Disclaimer: I'm in no way relating smoking weed to rape or war. I'm only stating that because many people do something or many stand by and allow something to happen, does not lessen the points I made earlier.[/sub]

 

[Inverse Skies]

Maybe it's an Australian thing, but in American English it appears that you're saying that the enjoyment purposes are literally second to the rebellion, as in, it sounds like rebellion is the main reason when you say "purposes secondary to rebellion."

I already told you before. The leagues don't have a responsibility to give its players absolute freedom, their primary goal is maintaining the integrity and profitability of professional sports. It's a privilege to be a part of one of these leagues, and the players must agree to the code of conduct set by the league in order to remain part of the league. The code of conduct is a result of every league deciding what detracts from the league, and all of them agree that performance enhancers do just that by diminishing the importance of athletic ability.

Hahaha! I'm an idiot! I just realised you're completely correct, I have been writing that entire sentence backwards! It was meant to read along the lines of "rebellion is secondary to enjoyment", except for some reason I inverted it and didn't realise. That's hilarious! Ok, we're on the same page there now.

As for the sports issue everything you mention is true, but must you not also agree that the primary aim of the government, other than to serve it's citizens would also be to maintain the integrity of society as a whole? In that sense, how is the government saying "No you can't use this substance because it's bad for you and its effects on you could potentially cause a detriment to society" different to sporting codes saying "You can't use this because it brings down the integrity of the sport"? It's like how organisations employees from operating heavy machinery under the influence of any alcohol, or here in the state of Australia I live in (Victoria) the police drug test as well as breath test, people need boundaries and limits. They do ever since they're children.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Maybe it's an Australian thing, but in American English it appears that you're saying that the enjoyment purposes are literally second to the rebellion, as in, it sounds like rebellion is the main reason when you say "purposes secondary to rebellion."

I already told you before. The leagues don't have a responsibility to give its players absolute freedom, their primary goal is maintaining the integrity and profitability of professional sports. It's a privilege to be a part of one of these leagues, and the players must agree to the code of conduct set by the league in order to remain part of the league. The code of conduct is a result of every league deciding what detracts from the league, and all of them agree that performance enhancers do just that by diminishing the importance of athletic ability.

Hahaha! I'm an idiot! I just realised you're completely correct, I have been writing that entire sentence backwards! It was meant to read along the lines of "rebellion is secondary to enjoyment", except for some reason I inverted it and didn't realise. That's hilarious! Ok, we're on the same page there now.

As for the sports issue everything you mention is true, but must you not also agree that the primary aim of the government, other than to serve it's citizens would also be to maintain the integrity of society as a whole? In that sense, how is the government saying "No you can't use this substance because it's bad for you and its effects on you could potentially cause a detriment to society" different to sporting codes saying "You can't use this because it brings down the integrity of the sport"? It's like how organisations employees from operating heavy machinery under the influence of any alcohol, or here in the state of Australia I live in (Victoria) the police drug test as well as breath test, people need boundaries and limits. They do ever since they're children.

It's different because the league is there to maintain integrity and profitability in the sport played in the league, not to govern the lives of its players. All rules are in place entirely to maintain the integrity of the organization itself, the goal isn't to govern the lives of the players. The government has an entirely different set of responsibilities, first and foremost being a servant of the people. It has much, much broader responsibilities, including deciding what should actually be legal and what shouldn't, while a sports league only decides what substances compromise the league itself. Thus, the government actually must decide how far personal freedom goes, while the sports league isn't concerned with the concept of personal freedom, only maintaining itself and its sport.

 

[Pyro Paul]

what i find intresting is that Marijuana is acctually very harmful to the human brain because it produces a canibinoid. yet every one that says 'it isn't harmful' bases all of their studies on a artifically produced Medical Marijuana which acctually has a canibinoid inhibbitor laced in it taking out what is harmful.

this one oversight is what causes such stupidity in both parties.

home grown pot is poisonus and can be degrading to a personals mental state and cognitive capabilities. it is medically proven to degrade brain cells and cause irreversable damage (nerves don't grow back, or else paralaysis wouldn't be perminent)

however, not all pot is the same, much like how not all alchole is the same. a blanket statement such as those commonly held by anti-pot camps would be similar to me using Absinthe to condemn Miller Lite beer...

 

[Inverse Skies]

It's different because the league is there to maintain integrity and profitability in the sport played in the league, not to govern the lives of its players. All rules are in place entirely to maintain the integrity of the organization itself, the goal isn't to govern the lives of the players. The government has an entirely different set of responsibilities, first and foremost being a servant of the people. It has much, much broader responsibilities, including deciding what should actually be legal and what shouldn't, while a sports league only decides what substances compromise the league itself. Thus, the government actually must decide how far personal freedom goes, while the sports league isn't concerned with the concept of personal freedom, only maintaining itself and its sport.

Ah yes, but if your system of legalised drugs were in place then indeed the sporting codes would be governing the lives of their players by saying "You're not allowed to use that substance" when the government allows them free reign to do so. Besides, major sporting codes already do that to a certain extent with rules on drinking and curfews. True this is because they want to protect their profitability as a company but in the same sense they're still governing players lives, just in a seperate way to what the government does.

The argument seems to come down too "The government shouldn't be allowed to say what is good and not good for us and we should be allowed to use whatever we want" yet sporting codes having a moral code to ban certain substances is different. But I don't see how. The government restricts the use of illicit drugs because of their addictive or damaging properties and because their use can detrimentally affect society as a whole... which is analogous to the same idea as the sporting code, just approached from a different angle.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Spoiler: *snip*

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 contreception even though it's tought almost on 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]

Here, let me get you a bigger brush, I think you missed the outer corners of the Milky Way.

Ooh, they make those? Been looking in the hardware stores for one for a while, thanks! *looks to the edges* Damnit, you're right, I did miss some. *starts sweepin'*

Just because a lot of people fall under those categories doesn't make my arguments any less valid. Heck, here in the states nobody tried to stop the gang rape of that 15 year old high school girl, did that make it suddenly ok to do?*

Many people supported the Iraq war at first. Does that magically make it ok now?*

[sub]* Disclaimer: I'm in no way relating smoking weed to rape or war. I'm only stating that because many people do something or many stand by and allow something to happen, does not lessen the points I made earlier.[/sub]

Yes, I get it, you're being antagonistic, that's nice.

 

[Borrowed Time]

It's different because the league is there to maintain integrity and profitability in the sport played in the league, not to govern the lives of its players. All rules are in place entirely to maintain the integrity of the organization itself, the goal isn't to govern the lives of the players. The government has an entirely different set of responsibilities, first and foremost being a servant of the people. It has much, much broader responsibilities, including deciding what should actually be legal and what shouldn't, while a sports league only decides what substances compromise the league itself. Thus, the government actually must decide how far personal freedom goes, while the sports league isn't concerned with the concept of personal freedom, only maintaining itself and its sport.

Ah yes, but if your system of legalised drugs were in place then indeed the sporting codes would be governing the lives of their players by saying "You're not allowed to use that substance" when the government allows them free reign to do so. Besides, major sporting codes already do that to a certain extent with rules on drinking and curfews. True this is because they want to protect their profitability as a company but in the same sense they're still governing players lives, just in a seperate way to what the government does.

The argument seems to come down too "The government shouldn't be allowed to say what is good and not good for us and we should be allowed to use whatever we want" yet sporting codes having a moral code to ban certain substances is different. But I don't see how. The government restricts the use of illicit drugs because of their addictive or damaging properties and because their use can detrimentally affect society as a whole... which is analogous to the same idea as the sporting code, just approached from a different angle.

I think the issue is more that the sports players make the choice to play under said codes. The government doesn't give you the choice. I can completely understand that point of view, which is why I believe that the Fed should have no bearing in that regard. States on the otherhand should be handed the responsibility as they more closely align with the wants, desires and opinions of their population. If you don't like the laws in your state, it's easy to move. (here in the US at least)

 

[Serge A. Storms]

It's different because the league is there to maintain integrity and profitability in the sport played in the league, not to govern the lives of its players. All rules are in place entirely to maintain the integrity of the organization itself, the goal isn't to govern the lives of the players. The government has an entirely different set of responsibilities, first and foremost being a servant of the people. It has much, much broader responsibilities, including deciding what should actually be legal and what shouldn't, while a sports league only decides what substances compromise the league itself. Thus, the government actually must decide how far personal freedom goes, while the sports league isn't concerned with the concept of personal freedom, only maintaining itself and its sport.

Ah yes, but if your system of legalised drugs were in place then indeed the sporting codes would be governing the lives of their players by saying "You're not allowed to use that substance" when the government allows them free reign to do so. Besides, major sporting codes already do that to a certain extent with rules on drinking and curfews. True this is because they want to protect their profitability as a company but in the same sense they're still governing players lives, just in a seperate way to what the government does.

The argument seems to come down too "The government shouldn't be allowed to say what is good and not good for us and we should be allowed to use whatever we want" yet sporting codes having a moral code to ban certain substances is different. But I don't see how. The government restricts the use of illicit drugs because of their addictive or damaging properties and because their use can detrimentally affect society as a whole... which is analogous to the same idea as the sporting code, just approached from a different angle.

As I already mentioned, the leagues already ban many substances that are otherwise perfectly legal, all because they are protecting the profitability of the league by protecting its image and its status as an enhancer-free league. Nothing they do is for any reason other than maintaining the league, and they only "govern players lives" in the sense that they have a set of rules they must follow to avoid punishment, hardly equivalent to an actual government.

As far as the argument that sports leagues have a "moral code to ban certain substances," that relies on a government and a sports league haven't equivalent roles, and they don't. Just because a league sets up rules does not make it equivalent to a government, because, as I've explained before, they have completely different jobs. The government exists to serve the people, a sports league exists to maintain itself and doesn't address any of the issues a government must address regarding legality of all possible consumer goods.

 

[Mr.Black]

The only people that want it legalised are the losers who smoke it. So, lol? Keep that shit banned mang.

 

[Inverse Skies]

As I already mentioned, the leagues already ban many substances that are otherwise perfectly legal, all because they are protecting the profitability of the league by protecting its image and its status as an enhancer-free league. Nothing they do is for any reason other than maintaining the league, and they only "govern players lives" in the sense that they have a set of rules they must follow to avoid punishment, hardly equivalent to an actual government.

As far as the argument that sports leagues have a "moral code to ban certain substances," that relies on a government and a sports league haven't equivalent roles, and they don't. Just because a league sets up rules does not make it equivalent to a government, because, as I've explained before, they have completely different jobs. The government exists to serve the people, a sports league exists to maintain itself and doesn't address any of the issues a government must address regarding legality of all possible consumer goods.

So because of the differing roles of the two groups the argument is that it is justifiable to say that one (sports) is allowed to ban a substance to protect itself while the other (government) isn't because the rights of the people are violated in doing so? The government exists to serve the people yes, hence why it's elected in a democractic society. But a government also exists to self-perpetuate its own party and hence ideals, something it is not going to do by making bad choices by its citizens. The legalisation of marijuana would be seen as such a decision, and any government would have a hard time pushing that legislation through. The government exists to serve its citizens, and part of that role is imposing boundaries on them. It's how society works - this is just another barrier within society that doesn't need to be crossed, there is no benefit to doing so.

 

[Gonad23]

I don't think it should be the governments business to tell people what to do with their bodies. Its the height of hypocrisy to say smoking cigs and drinking alcohol are ok, but smoking marijuana isn't.

All you have to do is look at the "deaths caused by" and "dollars spent enforcing" to see how stupid the whole thing is.

Anti-drug? Great, eat a cookie, put out a public service announcement, and talk to groups at your church. Prohibition has a long history of abject failure. Why is marijuana cut with shit? Because its illegality makes it expensive, and a limited supply can be bolstered by cutting. Thats the government's fault, not marijuana's. Also, gangs are interested in it because smuggling is lucrative.

California does the grow it at home thing quite frequently, and its not really working out too great. The best option is to end the stupid prohibition, and regulate through the ATF&E. Then we get on to doing more important things.

Also, there is little credible evidence to support brain damage caused by marijuana.

You are my new best friend.

 

[Lord George]

I see no harm in smoking weed, its a nice way to waste some time and I've found it beneficial to my state of mind, and I've experienced no health issues from it also I know I'll end up a lot better off the next day compared to my friends who decided to go and get completely pissed. It should be a persons choice to do whatever they want to there body.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

As I already mentioned, the leagues already ban many substances that are otherwise perfectly legal, all because they are protecting the profitability of the league by protecting its image and its status as an enhancer-free league. Nothing they do is for any reason other than maintaining the league, and they only "govern players lives" in the sense that they have a set of rules they must follow to avoid punishment, hardly equivalent to an actual government.

As far as the argument that sports leagues have a "moral code to ban certain substances," that relies on a government and a sports league haven't equivalent roles, and they don't. Just because a league sets up rules does not make it equivalent to a government, because, as I've explained before, they have completely different jobs. The government exists to serve the people, a sports league exists to maintain itself and doesn't address any of the issues a government must address regarding legality of all possible consumer goods.

So because of the differing roles of the two groups the argument is that it is justifiable to say that one (sports) is allowed to ban a substance to protect itself while the other (government) isn't because the rights of the people are violated in doing so? The government exists to serve the people yes, hence why it's elected in a democractic society. But a government also exists to self-perpetuate its own party and hence ideals, something it is not going to do by making bad choices by its citizens. The legalisation of marijuana would be seen as such a decision, and any government would have a hard time pushing that legislation through. The government exists to serve its citizens, and part of that role is imposing boundaries on them. It's how society works - this is just another barrier within society that doesn't need to be crossed, there is no benefit to doing so.

That, good sir, is exactly what I'm saying. In the U.S., the idea of the government perpetuating its own existence is not something that most people like to think about or agree with, although that is largely the case in the U.S., and pot isn't close to real legalization largely because it's too easy to stand against legalization (and other stances many liberals take, such as abortion rights and gay marriage, which have been caught in the same political sludge pot legalization has been in for awhile) and get Republican votes. The government, or rather, our representatives are imposing boundaries to stay in office, not because they care about the health of the people, but because they want to remain in power, which really makes that rebellion more satisfying while doing nothing to prevent the people that want pot from getting it. You see it as a boundary that doesn't "need" to be crossed, I stand with many people that see it as one of many boundaries that need to be challenged just to prevent more of our freedoms from being lost to partisan dickwaving.

EDIT: I realize this may not quite translate to your culture, and we obviously do have cultural differences. And that all being said, it's 9:30AM in Atlanta and I got shit to do, starting with sleep.

 

[Inverse Skies]

That, good sir, is exactly what I'm saying. In the U.S., the idea of the government perpetuating its own existence is not something that most people like to think about or agree with, although that is largely the case in the U.S., and pot isn't close to real legalization largely because it's too easy to stand against legalization (and other stances many liberals take, such as abortion rights and gay marriage, which have been caught in the same political sludge pot legalization has been in for awhile) and get Republican votes. The government, or rather, our representatives are imposing boundaries to stay in office, not because they care about the health of the people, but because they want to remain in power, which really makes that rebellion more satisfying while doing nothing to prevent the people that want pot from getting it. You see it as a boundary that doesn't "need" to be crossed, I stand with many people that see it as one of many boundaries that need to be challenged just to prevent more of our freedoms from being lost to partisan dickwaving.

So basically the argument comes down too "The government does things mainly to stay in power and doesn't put the interests of the people at heart". This is nothing new and never has been. In Australia there is a lot of debate (around very different topics to you Americans admittedly) around the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme), which proposes to cut CO2 emissions to help counter climate change. The detractors (the party I support) argue that it will cost jobs by driving up prices forcing companies offshore (which even the government in power admits it will do) and have a neglible effect on CO2 emissions (considering we emit less than 1% of all the Earths CO2). The supportors argue that by doing nothing and heating up the world it doesn't matter what the cost is.

See? It doesn't matter to the government in power that jobs will be lost (especially considering the majority, over 90% at least) of our electricity comes form coal-fired power stations which will be hit hard by an ETS, what matters is bowing to the publics will, and the majority of the public believe global warming is a threat (I don't). Same thing here, the majority of your conservatives in the US believe marijuana is harmful hence it won't be legalised while they still have a strong political voice. My advice here is deal with it. There's a very curious thing about America and it's freedoms that I will never be able to understand by not living there, but it seems that those ideals govern a large percentage of your political ideas. I don't understand, I don't see how the government saying "ok this is bad, you're not allowed to use it" constitutes and amazing breach of human rights. When there is evidence that it is bad, then fair enough it should be banned. To me it makes sense and I don't mind that it is. There's just something about 'freedom' that I can't quite understand. I've experieced freedom all of my life, by enjoying what I do and following the rules. Following rules does not make you a sheep or a conformist, it simply means you're able to live your life the way you want too within a set of social norms. And if that offends you, that is the way society works, always has worked and always will work, so complaining about it seems pointless. Laws are there for a reason, they don't have to be crossed, and the idea of freedom being eroded because the government bans a few substances doesn't seem to gel with me. Must be an American thing.

 

[Player 2]

 

[Serge A. Storms]

That, good sir, is exactly what I'm saying. In the U.S., the idea of the government perpetuating its own existence is not something that most people like to think about or agree with, although that is largely the case in the U.S., and pot isn't close to real legalization largely because it's too easy to stand against legalization (and other stances many liberals take, such as abortion rights and gay marriage, which have been caught in the same political sludge pot legalization has been in for awhile) and get Republican votes. The government, or rather, our representatives are imposing boundaries to stay in office, not because they care about the health of the people, but because they want to remain in power, which really makes that rebellion more satisfying while doing nothing to prevent the people that want pot from getting it. You see it as a boundary that doesn't "need" to be crossed, I stand with many people that see it as one of many boundaries that need to be challenged just to prevent more of our freedoms from being lost to partisan dickwaving.

So basically the argument comes down too "The government does things mainly to stay in power and doesn't put the interests of the people at heart". This is nothing new and never has been. In Australia there is a lot of debate (around very different topics to you Americans admittedly) around the ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme), which proposes to cut CO2 emissions to help counter climate change. The detractors (the party I support) argue that it will cost jobs by driving up prices forcing companies offshore (which even the government in power admits it will do) and have a neglible effect on CO2 emissions (considering we emit less than 1% of all the Earths CO2). The supportors argue that by doing nothing and heating up the world it doesn't matter what the cost is.

See? It doesn't matter to the government in power that jobs will be lost (especially considering the majority, over 90% at least) of our electricity comes form coal-fired power stations which will be hit hard by an ETS, what matters is bowing to the publics will, and the majority of the public believe global warming is a threat (I don't). Same thing here, the majority of your conservatives in the US believe marijuana is harmful hence it won't be legalised while they still have a strong political voice. My advice here is deal with it. There's a very curious thing about America and it's freedoms that I will never be able to understand by not living there, but it seems that those ideals govern a large percentage of your political ideas. I don't understand, I don't see how the government saying "ok this is bad, you're not allowed to use it" constitutes and amazing breach of human rights. When there is evidence that it is bad, then fair enough it should be banned. To me it makes sense and I don't mind that it is. There's just something about 'freedom' that I can't quite understand. I've experieced freedom all of my life, by enjoying what I do and following the rules. Following rules does not make you a sheep or a conformist, it simply means you're able to live your life the way you want too within a set of social norms. And if that offends you, that is the way society works, always has worked and always will work, so complaining about it seems pointless. Laws are there for a reason, they don't have to be crossed, and the idea of freedom being eroded because the government bans a few substances doesn't seem to gel with me. Must be an American thing.

I never said that people that believe pot should be legalized are the majority in the U.S. The representatives take an easy stance, such as being against pot, and they get votes for it. Politicians in the U.S. are generally manipulative and will do what is necessary to get in office, where they'll proceed to do nothing about the social issues they were talking about and instead concern themselves with their own agenda. This is why abortion, gay marriage, decriminalizing pot, and many other social issues don't change much in the U.S.. As far as you not believing that it's a major breech, clearly that's your opinion living in a society that doesn't encourage the same type of ideals. The U.S. was founded on the idea that the government's purpose was to serve the people, and that it would never interfere with our rights to live as we please except in cases where our lives interfere with the lives of others. The government deciding what "the pursuit of happiness" means and what it does not mean goes against the founding principals of the U.S. itself, which is why all liberties short of those that affect other people's pursuit of happiness should be protected, at least, in the U.S. That's why this issue won't die until it reaches a real conclusion. Besides, I have plenty of trustworthy sources if I want to score, just like many other people.

 

[Serge A. Storms]

Anyways, it appears we're at an impasse. Clearly you don't get American ideals and I will never understand Australian submission, unfortunately. Nice chatting, anyway.