Legalizing Marajuana

[Quad4_72]

So this is something that has been on my mind lately. I am not a weed smoker. I did twice in high school but other than that nothing. But lately I have been thinking why is marijuana not legal? I know its a drug, but it seems to be much more harmless than alcohol. With our overcrowded prisons, it would be great to get a lot of the minor drug offenders out of there for simply using weed. Plus, the amount of resources devoted to policing this stuff could be directed towards the more hardcore drugs. Also, it seems that countries that DO have marijuana legalized do not have a problem with it.

I am merely speculating and that is all opinion, but can anyone offer me a more rational suggestion? It would also be great if we could tax marijuana and sell it legally.

 

[Luke T.]

Heh. Here it comes...


I don't smoke weed, either. I can't. I am an alcoholic in recovery. I cannot take any drug of any kind. I was so looking forward to getting high when I retired from the military, away from the constant urinalysis tests. But then I got sober 5 years before retirement. What a pisser!



I think you will find that most people here support legalizing marijuana. If you really want to start a fight, make a suggestion that crack cocaine should be legal.

There are a few here who oppose legalizing MJ. I used to be one. However, I no longer oppose legalizing it.

I am not as gung-ho about legalizing it as I used to be.

What bothers me most is the medical marijuana issue. It just seems incredibly stupid to legalize it for medical purposes, but then not provide it to the patient like any other medical drug. The analogy I like to use is having to raise your own sheep for insulin if you are a diabetic.

Just seems stupid to me.

 

[ChristineR]

Actually, the real reason it is illegal appears to be that poor people, especially poor black, red, and brown people, used it.

 

[Admiral]

I strongly hold the belief that the government shouldn't prosecute victimless crimes. We're spending billions and billions of dollars arresting people that haven't hurt anyone.

To make matters worse, drug criminalization:

-Justifies vast expanses in police power, leading to dangerous raids, invasions of privacy, and arrests for crimes like "loitering in suspicious areas" (in other words, Walking While Black)

-Creates crime- addicts steal to support their addiction, dealers fight over territory...

-Fosters a general disrespect for the law, just like Prohibition did in the 20s

-Gives murderers and thieves jobs- if drugs were legalized, the black market would collapse as legitimate companies started to sell them (there's a reason dealers don't make tobacco in their basements and sell it on the streets)

I'm more willing to be convinced about heroin and other extremely serious drugs... but for marijuana, it's just ridiculous.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

 

[clarsct]

I am for legalizing crack cocaine.


And all the other drugs. Prostitution, as well. Legalize, tax and regulate.

I do not, nor have I ever done any drugs aside from alcohol. I have never been to a prostitute.

 

[Schneibster]

Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

I suspect you of humor. If I am wrong, then howzabout we have Prohibition again, mmmkay?

 

[clarsct]

I suspect you of humor.

Must be a new guy.......

 

[AmateurScientist]

I strongly hold the belief that the government shouldn't prosecute victimless crimes. We're spending billions and billions of dollars arresting people that haven't hurt anyone.

To make matters worse, drug criminalization:

-Justifies vast expanses in police power, leading to dangerous raids, invasions of privacy, and arrests for crimes like "loitering in suspicious areas" (in other words, Walking While Black)

-Creates crime- addicts steal to support their addiction, dealers fight over territory...

-Fosters a general disrespect for the law, just like Prohibition did in the 20s

-Gives murderers and thieves jobs- if drugs were legalized, the black market would collapse as legitimate companies started to sell them (there's a reason dealers don't make tobacco in their basements and sell it on the streets)

I'm more willing to be convinced about heroin and other extremely serious drugs... but for marijuana, it's just ridiculous.

All of that is true. The same arguments you make for the decriminalization of possession of marijuana hold for heroin, cocaine, or any other substance that can make people high. The dangers the use of those drugs pose are irrelevant to the points you make.

When viewed as a series of decisions individual actors make through an economist's lens, like Milton Freidman's, and when considering the larger policy implications for our society and the costs to it imposed by Prohibition, the answer to the drug "problem" is crystal clear. Unqualified decriminalization across the board is the only rational solution.

Prohibition not only doesn't work, but it creates far more social problems than it "solves." Prohibition as a cure is much worse than the disease, even for heroin or cocaine, or for any other unlawful substance used recreationally.

AS

 

[webfusion]

So this is something that has been on my mind lately. I am not a weed smoker.

So, in regards to your attention span deficit, and lack of recall abilities? To what shall we attribute your short-term memory loss?


Previous thread opened on this same subject: 29 January, 2007.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73620
389 replies, 3240 Views "Should Marijuana be Legal? (poll -- 90% of 118 JREF responders are in favor)

 

[Quad4_72]

So, in regards to your attention span deficit, and lack of recall abilities? To what shall we attribute your short-term memory loss?


Previous thread opened on this same subject: 29 January, 2007.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73620
389 replies, 3240 Views "Should Marijuana be Legal? (poll -- 90% of 118 JREF responders are in favor)

Lol. Another member thinking that a subject can only be discussed once. Yes let me go and dig up threads that are months old. For your info, I just started posting in the politics section. If you think it is repetitive, DON"T CLICK ON THE TOPIC AND DON"T POST IN HERE. Simple enough? Anyways, lets disregard webfusion's useless post. Any other useful info?

After reading a few of the responses here my stance has definitely become more solid. It would make MUCH more sense to legalize it. Prohibition does not work, and the resources expended just aren't worth it.

 

[Mephisto]

I think it's a hoot that you can apply for a job with Wal-Mart, but if marijuana shows up in your pre-employment drug test you won't get the job. Our President refused to take a comprehensive drug test and members of Congress and the Senate (the ones who make the drug laws) don't have to take drug tests either.

Isn't this just a bit lop-sided? A job stocking shelves at Wal-Mart is more important than an elected position?

 

[webfusion]

...if marijuana shows up in your pre-employment drug test you won't get the job.

That's the same with a majority of jobs (pee tests are practically a universal requirement). Are you trying to argue that this testing is inappropriate and needs to be stopped?


Quad4_72 says:

Anyways, lets disregard webfusion's useless post.

It wasn't useless, since I provided a link to an existing thread on this same topic, where all your questions have most likely already been exhaustively answered. But, instead of thanking me, you repeat this already well-known line: "It would make MUCH more sense to legalize it."


Whatever...

 

[Mephisto]

That's the same with a majority of jobs (pee tests are practically a universal requirement). Are you trying to argue that this testing is inappropriate and needs to be stopped?

Nope, I'm saying it should be applied evenly across the board. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, or if the person applying for a minimum wage job needs to be drug tested, more so the person running for office.

Who is more likely to "make a mistake" that will affect the most people; the person stocking shampoo or the person in an elected position?

 

[Cleon]

That's the same with a majority of jobs (pee tests are practically a universal requirement). Are you trying to argue that this testing is inappropriate and needs to be stopped?

Weird, I hear that a lot, but I've never been piss-tested when applying for a job. In fact, I've never been piss-tested period.

In any event, I think from purely a practical perspective piss-testing makes sense for certain jobs (pilot, truck driver, cop, etc) but is pretty pointless for stuff like Wal-Mart greeters, computer programmers, accountants, and congressmen.

 

[Quad4_72]

Quad4_72 says:

It wasn't useless, since I provided a link to an existing thread on this same topic, where all your questions have most likely already been exhaustively answered. But, instead of thanking me, you repeat this already well-known line: "It would make MUCH more sense to legalize it."


Whatever...

Posting the link is great. Suggesting that I have short term memory loss, attention span deficit, and lack of recall abilities is uncalled for. You think I don't realize that there has probably already been a thread about it? There has probably already been a thread for just about everything. Does that mean that every single member took place in the discussions in previous thread? NOPE. Is it now a requirement that if a thread about a certain subject already existed months ago that you are not allowed to post the topic? NOPE. If its too repetitive for you, then by all means DO NOT POST IN THIS THREAD.

 

[Lonewulf]

I suspect you of humor. If I am wrong, then howzabout we have Prohibition again, mmmkay?

Prohibiting drugs is easier than prohibiting alcohol. Relatively. There were some good arguments for prohibiting alcohol: Mainly, "We want people to stop dying".

Unfortunately, banning the object altogether isn't the answer, especially when the economies of entire states practically hinge on the production and sale of that product (which a few southern states do; I forget which ones in particular, however. Nebraska? Dunno.)

There are many arguments for not prohibiting drugs; I find the arguments against prohibition of any kind to be more compelling than arguments for the prohibition, whether it's drugs, alcohol, or firearms.

 

[Mephisto]

Weird, I hear that a lot, but I've never been piss-tested when applying for a job. In fact, I've never been piss-tested period.

In any event, I think from purely a practical perspective piss-testing makes sense for certain jobs (pilot, truck driver, cop, etc) but is pretty pointless for stuff like Wal-Mart greeters, computer programmers, accountants, and congressmen.

I started my piss-testing career early when the military instituted "Operation Golden Flow." They were checking troops returning from Vietnam for drugs and I thought it was particularly noteworthy that most drugs they were looking for (heroin in particular) were out of the body within a relatively short time, whereas marijuana (being fat soluble) takes quite a bit more time to eradicate.

It seemed somehow ironic that the marijuana users were targeted early, when the heroin and coke users simply laid off for an average of three to four days before they were able to start up again. The tests were supposed to be random, but nearly everyone had a friend (usually a medic) "in the know" regarding when tests would be held for a particular unit.

The reason I believe this was ironic is because there has never been a single death attributed to marijuana overdose, while coke and heroin have taken a greater toll (still not as many as alcohol or tobacco) on human life.

I also read somewhere that Reagan's "war on drugs" actually promoted the use of heroin and cocaine in the U.S. simply because it was easier to smuggle those drugs across the U.S. border. Marijuana was bulky, smelly and didn't bring the street prices that either heroin or cocaine did and the risk to smugglers was basically the same as far as the law went. If I'm not mistaken, cocaine once cost more (likely in the 80s when it was fairly prolific) per ounce than gold.

 

[gnome]

I would make a distinction between different kinds of drugs. There are some, such as marijuana, that are not harmful if used in moderation. Are there not some that are harmful in any quantity? Throw in the matter of extreme addictiveness and you have a product that the FDA could not consistently approve for sale. So, for many substances my solution is to legalize possession and use, but leave sale criminal under consumer product safety laws.

I realize that to be consistent, my criteria includes cigarettes. Being a realist, I know this will not happen any time soon. However, I still support the general principle.

 

[AmateurScientist]

I would make a distinction between different kinds of drugs. There are some, such as marijuana, that are not harmful if used in moderation. Are there not some that are harmful in any quantity? Throw in the matter of extreme addictiveness and you have a product that the FDA could not consistently approve for sale. So, for many substances my solution is to legalize possession and use, but leave sale criminal under consumer product safety laws.

Sounds nice in principle, but doesn't work in practice. Case in point. Kids huffing gold spray paint.

The problem isn't the substances themselves. It's the abuse of them. You can allow the sale of some substances and prohibit the sale of others. From a drug abuse standpoint, it doesn't matter. Some people are going to get high, and some of them will use whatever is available, lawfully obtained or not.

Prohibition of substances in demand creates black markets. Substances that can get persons high will always be in demand, to varying degrees. The black markets themselves create tremendous problems, and to me, those problems, as viewed in terms of overall social cost to society, far outweigh the problem of persons getting high.

Continuing to prohibit the sale of substances that get one high perpetuates a black market in the trafficking and sale of those substances.

AS