Poll: Should marijuana be legalized?

I dunno. I don't really care.

*Revives those who have died of shock at the fact that I don't have an opinion on something.

Well at least according to Reafer Madness the musical it does.

Penn Jilette put it best on an episode of Politically Incorrect.

If we can't place whatever we choose into our own bodies, we aren't really free.

I think it should be put into the same category of legal drugs like alcohol. Legal with a certain amount of restrictions and no problem unless it leads to doing harm to others.

I can't think of a good reason to keep marijuana, or any other drug, illegal. For marijuana, it's the most obvious, since it doesn't have the same issues with addiction and physical side effects as other already-legal things like alcohol and tobacco (which is not to say I'm in favor of criminalizing those).
But even when dealing with the drugs that are more harmful, and that I don't think people should do, I don't believe it should be against the law to do them. Unless you actually harm someone else, it's your business.

But should it be against the law to sell them, since selling them would likely hurt someone else?

That's the part I'm not honestly sure on.
(see, this is why I can't be a politician. I'll admit when I'm not sure)
If I had to make the law up off the top of my head, I'd say that it shouldn't be illegal to sell either, because it's up to the buyer to use the product responsibly, but I know that the world doesn't always work like that.

This is, of course, simpler with lighter drugs like marijuana than it is with more harmful drugs. But it's not as if making them illegal has (or could have) prevented people from taking/trying the more dangerous drugs. The legality of it doesn't seem to be much of a factor either way.

well i guess in a way it may become a paradox.

"If I had to make the law up off the top of my head, I'd say that it shouldn't be illegal to sell either, because it's up to the buyer to use the product responsibly"

the problem here is that the seller was initially a buyer and the question is: Is dealing�the drug�out to others 'using the product responsibly'?

> problem here is that the seller was initially a buyer and the question is:
> Is dealing the drug out to others 'using the product responsibly'?

Assuming the person's in a position to give consent to using it themselves (not mentally ill, underage, etc), I think the answer is obviously "yes." People, at some point, need to take responsibility for their own actions.

responded to wrong post.

But if the seller makes no claim that the drugs are helpful, in fact, if the seller makes sure the buyer is aware of the dangers, then it is the buyer's responsibility.
90% of the time, the buyer would be the one deciding to use the drugs. Yes, there are cases where the seller is pushing drugs, but if they were legal and more easily available, a lot of the economic incentive to do that would be no more.

As I said though, I know I don't have all the answers to this, but it does not seem as if the drug use would increase if it were legalized (when was the last time you heard someone say "I'd love to try some crack, if only it were legal"?) and the majority of the people are doing it of their own free will. None of this is to say that doing most of these drugs is a good thing, but I don't believe something being bad is reason enough for it to be illegal.

edit: I think I responded to the wrong post as well, but the thead still seems to read clearly.

I can't think of any way to use heroin or crystal meth "responsibly".

Neither can I, (well, excepting a few rare health cases) but I still don't believe it should be illegal to be an idiot (to yourself at least). The main appeal of the most dangerous drugs is their availability (compared to other, similar drugs). If less-worse options were available, much of the demand for the worst of the worst would drop off.

That said, this is more an ideological point. I really don't expect them to be legalized (especially as we seem to be moving towards more restrictions), and there are many other things I'd like to see happen before heroin were legal, but in this case we're simply talking about "should vs. shouldn't".

Hmmm. What makes you a good arbiter of what's "responsible"?

I mean, I have a *ton* of friends who've gotten themselves into trouble with all manner of substances from alcohol to meth. But I also have a lot of friends who tried stuff out, decided it wasn't for them, and never touched it again.

A kitchen knife can be used to hurt someone else, should those be against the law? The purpose of the law is to punish someone violating the property, person, or freedom of another, not to legislate against likelihoods.

First of all, I wasn't actually making an argument either way, I was just curious about what seemed to me a logical extension of Talcott's opinion.

Second, I do not think your analogy is really appropriate. A kitchen knife can be used to hurt someone, but that is not its intended function - its intended function is to cut vegetables or meat or other foods. In the case of drugs, their intended function is to be inhaled or ingested in order to get someone high, and many of them harm the person while being used for that purpose. You can argue that you might cut your finger off while using a kitchen knife, but I really don't think that makes it the same situation.

Again, I'm not really arguing about whether drugs should be legal or not. Both sides have advantages and disadvantages, but as someone who almost certainly wouldn't use any of the drugs that are currently illegal even if they were over-the-counter medications, I don't really care that much. I do, however, think that the knife analogy is an oversimplification.

The intended function of drug users is not to hurt other people. It's to get high, so your argument falls apart there. Plus, most recreational drug users I've had experience with don't hurt anyone.

It's possible to hurt someone when you're drunk on alcohol and that's legal. I'd say far more many people have been hurt because of someone getting drunk, than say, smoking pot.

We should be held accountable for our actions towards others, not what we injest that may or may not cause those actions.

I was asking about the legality of selling drugs, not using them. Sellers may not actually intend to harm the people who use drugs, but that's often an unavoidable consequence of using the drugs for their intended purpose. That's all I said.

So why should it be the seller's responsibility for what the customer does when they use drugs?

I understand your point, but then someone HAS to get hurt for there to be a crime. in your argument there is no proactive protection for the innocent bystander.

I find this one quite tricky as though I have no problem with any of my friends smokin it I have a real probelmewiht me smoking it and wiht soem other people getting involved. For me it had a really negtive effect that was physical. If you have nay tendency toward mental illness it has been shown to have a deleterious effect which for me meant increased paranoia which I have been unable to shake since my smoking years. I have also witnessed some people lose it purely through smoking it which seems far fetched but does happen. It is too easy to suggest legalisation, really alcohol probably should not be legal either. I think the one benefit would be if it made it harder for people to start when they are 12 like some boys I knew did. I have lots fo opinions on this but they all contradict one another. In Britain they recently lowered the classification and now they are making it higher due to studies on the relationship between marijuana and mental illness. tricky this one.

With all the smoking bans these days, people are becoming less friendly to smokers. I doubt it'd ever get passed. For me, 2nd hand tobacco smoke is bad enough, but now having to deal with marijuana smoke? No way. Terrible idea.

But legal doesn't mean "legal in all public places", nor does marijuana always mean smoke.

There's nothing about legalizing it that would force [restaurant x] to allow it inside.

It might not, but any public place I go, I do not want to be near marijuana smoke. 2nd hand can be imparing to people too.

I just don't see any positive results coming from legalizing marijuana.

I just don't see any positive results coming from legalizing marijuana.

well..

..the prices would go down :D

Are you sure? 'Cuz you know they'd impose insane taxes on it. :)

yeah, but still, most of the cost now is due to the fact that so little is actually produced/imported. With crops being more plentiful, costs would certainly go down... even if you factor in taxes. :)

That and I imagine many casual users would just keep a few small plants of their own.
I could see it being much like aloe in that sense ;-)

Well, there is the issure of not really knowing what you are getting...you would if it was legal (not that i necessarily support it)

I just don't see any positive results coming from legalizing marijuana.

regulation of quality/additives.... a cash crop for farmers to grow... new industry... tax revenue....

I can think of a lot of positive results. :)

i'm�under the impression�that my mother, who (as far as i know) hasn't touched the stuff in a decade or two, would be TOE UP LIKE A MUFUCKA if she went anywhere near today's stuff.

hey, there should be some type of moore's law for marijuana.

my dad says, 'on the grass'.� how can i NOT laugh at that?� further more, how can i NOT laugh at that, since laughing when he says that probably leads him to believe i'm under the spell!!!!� THE SPELL!!�� NO!!!!�

there's too many people blowing smoke into everyone else's faces already.

agreed.
and too many people who don't use deodorant.

Get rid of them as well... I find it offensive.

What if it were legal to ingest it, smoke it at home, but not in public? At that point, it is a completely personal thing.

I really doubt that any legalization measures that somehow did get passed would be less restrictive than alcohol and tobacco laws are.

Everyone is missing the big reason to leagalize, less crime. When they baned alcohol look at all the gangsters that became prominent. The exact same is true of marijuana, legalize it, put it under government control just like tobacco, and the profit of illegal triaffic and sale dries up. Plus, keeping it illegal won't stop anyone who wants to use it, legalize it and you can control it better.

very well put.� i was trying to think of some way to repsond to this main thread/poll, but i couldn't come up with anything usefulworth saying.� you've managed to figure out what i was thinking.� prohibition is silly, and i'm sure just about anyone who wants to try it already has.� i can't picture ANYONE sitting there impatiently, just WAITING for it to become legal, so they can finally do/try it.� i don't know that many people have morals that operate in such a way.�

who knows what kind of kind (teehee) we'd see if the gov't decided to decriminalize.� i'm willing to bet that DUI infractions would have a steeper penalty, just as some sort of silly precautionary measure.� that's not to say that it would be lighter on alcohol DUI's if booze was illegal, but i doubt the gov't would legalize it and not touch the dui factors.�

so let me see if i get this straight... we can eat our cake, we just can't actually HAVE it.�

this sucks, since i really like cake.� metaphorically AND literally speaking.

i'd always pegged you as a cakehead. ;)

I dunno about that. It might be a decrease in crime for a short time, but I'd bet those previously selling the marijuana would just pick up other drugs.

as if there aren't other people already selling those other drugs?

ETA: Okay, that was snarky..... point is.... if you don't realize that there's an established an functioning market for these products already in place, you lead a VERY sheltered life. All legalization would do is to make said market open to regulation and safety precautions..... and allow for tax revenues to be made off of that market.

The bottom line was learned during prohibition..... if you make a drug illegal, people will buy it illegally...and cause more problems. If you make it legal, you can regulate it, and benefit as a society based on those who are willing to pay for it.

It's a win-win situation.

That wasn't my point, my point was simply: it won't magically take away crime - criminals find ways to make mischief, and they would default to the next illegal drug for selling.

So if this stuff is so obvious and right, why haven't people already voted it legal?

and if there's nothing wrong with homosexuality/bisexuality.... why haven't people voted gay marriage legal?

and if there's nothing wrong with homosexuality/bisexuality.... why haven't people voted gay marriage legal?

exactly. because people are idiots sometimes.

> That wasn't my point, my point was simply: it won't magically take away
> crime - criminals find ways to make mischief, and they would default to
> the next illegal drug for selling.

There's always going to be some way for people who don't care about obeying the laws to make money by breaking them. "The criminals will just start stealing/gambling/racketeering" is not a terribly persuasive argument.

To me, it's about freedom. What I want to put in my body is none of your or anybody else's business. Period.

> So if this stuff is so obvious and right,
> why haven't people already voted it legal?

For many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that against the interests of many governmental agencies. Plus, this country was founded by puritanical busybodies, and nothing much has changed in the past 200ish years.

Indeed. Alcohol also turned safer after prohibition because you didn't have bootleggers selling alcohol made out of bathtubs. Many people died because of poorly made alcohol. Just like some people die today from marijuana that gets laced with other drugs, or cocaine that's cut with baking powder.

Really, what drug cartel could compete with Phillip Morris if drugs were legal?

alcohol made out of bathtubs.

Whoa... isn't it usually made out of more... organic... materials?

;D

lol...yah, not quite what I meant, but it would definitely change the nature of a kegger party.

Topical, from CNN.com today.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/06/scotus.medical.marijuana.ap/index.html

Well it doesnt really matter if there is a law on it or against it.I think that people will do what they please even if its against the law.But most ppl think that its against the law because most people do drugs around the world.But who knows.