Should marijuana be legal?

[Disneyphile]

In observance of National Stoner Day. By "legal," I mean the same way alcohol is legal. If you're over 21, you can consume as much as you want, provided you're not driving or otherwise engaged in an activity that threatens imminent harm to others.

[Goliath]

Yes, I think it should be legally available, from age 18 on, just like alcohol should be. Legalizing marijuana takes it out of the hands of the criminal gangs who're now providing it, and thus cut off their revenues. It would also mean extra taxes for the treasury, certainly a welcome addition in these times. The biggest benefit is that, were there legal 'coffeeshops' in the US, young people could buy and use pot in a safe environment, with enough supervision to make sure they handle it responsibly. Of course legalizing it also means the government could set up standards for marijuana, so anybody who bought it would be sure it's safe.

In The Netherlands, we have a special, yet absurd situation. It's not punishable anymore to sell pot in a 'coffeeshop', nor is it illegal to buy it, posses it or smoke it. (In written law, it still is, but that's not being enacted anymore.) In fact, you can smoke it in front of a cop and he wouldn't care. The problem is: it's not legal to produce it! So how do the coffeeshops get their hands on marijuana? Yep: through illegal production, most often done by criminals who use the revenue for other rotten business. Every health/crime expert has already pleaded with government to completely legalize it. But conservative parties rather put their (unsupported) principles before reducing crime. Go figure.

Meanwhile, these people have no problem at all with alcohol. Even when there are hundreds of thousands of alcoholics in the country. No, they don't care about that. The liquor lobby must be too strong. Wouldn't want to anger Heineken!

*Edited for typo's

[Scarred4life]

^ You know, I was originally thinking no, but you make some very valid points. Let's face it, people are going to smoke pot, whether it's legal or not, and it's certainly not hard to get a hold of. Why not make it legal, get the extra revenue from the taxes, and create a safer environment for the people using pot? This would certainly improve the situation, and I really doubt that a ton of people will start to use it because it's legal.

[Flanger-Hanger]

^ You know, I was originally thinking no, but you make some very valid points. Let's face it, people are going to smoke pot, whether it's legal or not, and it's certainly not hard to get a hold of. Why not make it legal, get the extra revenue from the taxes, and create a safer environment for the people using pot? This would certainly improve the situation, and I really doubt that a ton of people will start to use it because it's legal.

I wasn't orginally thinking no for the reasons listed here.

[Goliath]

^ You know, I was originally thinking no, but you make some very valid points. Let's face it, people are going to smoke pot, whether it's legal or not, and it's certainly not hard to get a hold of. Why not make it legal, get the extra revenue from the taxes, and create a safer environment for the people using pot? This would certainly improve the situation, and I really doubt that a ton of people will start to use it because it's legal.

Your last sentence is interesting. It seems there are people who think legalizing pot will lead to increased usage. I don't understand these people. I mean, if cocaine and heroin became legal tomorrow, I would never want to use it. Cigarettes are legal, yet I haven't taken up smoking. Like you said: just because something is legal, doesn't mean people are going to use it.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Like you said: just because something is legal, doesn't mean people are going to use it.

I know I won't care more for pot whether or not it's legal.

Before anyone suggests "won't someone think of the children?", go to a high school and see "the children" are using it anyway, even when it's illegal.

[Scarred4life]

Basically, how I view it, is that there is so much of it available, if you had wanted to use it, you already would be using it. Pot is everywhere, it's not very hard to get a hold of some. Like you said, if heroin became legal tomorrow, I wouldn't use it.

And Flanger Hanger, since the children you're referring to are high school students, then trust me, there is not shortage of drug availability in my school. The faculty has even designated a 'smoking pit' (off school grounds, of course) for the 'children' to get high on lunch hour.

[Goliath]

And Flanger Hanger, since the children you're referring to are high school students, then trust me, there is not shortage of drug availability in my school. The faculty has even designated a 'smoking pit' (off school grounds, of course) for the 'children' to get high on lunch hour.

Really?! That's ridiculous! Pot should not be available to minors. Nor should alcohol or tabacco.

[Flanger-Hanger]

Really?! That's ridiculous! Pot should not be available to minors. Nor should alcohol or tabacco.

I'm not suprised to hear what Scar said, at my high school students would smoke (tabacco) basically in front of the school entrance and never get in trouble.

My comment was more to do with the theory that if it becomes legal, parents of HS students (often argued as children) would have easier access to it. It's not and they have easy access to it anyway. Is it still wrong? Yes, but I don't think legalizing pot will change that situation one way or the other.

[Scarred4life]

Really?! That's ridiculous! Pot should not be available to minors. Nor should alcohol or tabacco.

Well, it's not like they want people to smoke/do drugs, and they don't supply it. They just designate this area so that people won't do it in empty classrooms. But they have this ridiculous rule (that no one enforces) that grade 9s can't go there, but it's still illegal for the other grades to be smoking!

[Elladorine]

Holy crap! Just as I find this thread I realize the date is 4/20, and the local time is 4:20pm.

[Super Aurora]

yeah it should be legal.

speaking of, I present you this:








<center></center>

[my chicken is infected]

I voted yes, but my opinion is more along the lines of "I strongly support legalizing it for medicinal purposes and I feel that it should be legalized for recreational purposes too, but my feelings towards medicinal marijuana are stronger." Most of the reasons I feel this way have already been stated in this thread, along with the conditions that I feel should be attached.

For the record I do not smoke and don't intend to. I don't smoke or drink and it's perfectly legal for me to do those, so I don't think people who had no intention of smoking weed will magically start toking up just because it became legal either.

[milojthatch]

No. And while you are out it, I'd love to see tobacco smoking as well as alcohol outlawed. I supported prohibition and am sad that it was abolished. I know many say it didn't work, but the reality is that the only reason the US government got rid of it was to make money and make up some debts, NOT becuase it didn't work.

Society works better when such things are not in use. Things like smoking of any kind, drugs or drinking hurt society by adding to larger then necessary death rates, destroying families and destroying person integrity. I hear many say that a free society would allow these things, but the flaw there is that by using in these products, you are anything but free. In fact you become nothing but a slave to these substances. Friends, there is nothing free about such uses. You want REAL freedom, avoid them at all cost! Make your life better and help make a stronger society in general.

Yes, I understand many here will disagree with me and you are welcome to do just that, but don't expect me to respond to anything after this. I said what needs to be said and I'm moving on.

[my chicken is infected]

The US already made alcohol illegal once. "Prohibition." The government created a constitutional amendment - the 18th Amendment, in fact - to make it illegal. Before the age of tape recorders, MP3's, and DVD-RW drives, bootleggers were the people who made and sold illegal liquor - usually moonshine, sometimes bathtub gin. None of it good quality, some of it damn near toxic. Crime rate rose, people were killed over this stuff. Eventually an amendment - the 21st Amendment, in fact - to the Constitution had to be made in order to make the one banning alcohol null and void.

Some things from the Prohibition era still remain today - mostly the term "bootleg"/"bootlegger" and NASCAR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibitio ... ted_States

[SpringHeelJack]

I hear many say that a free society would allow these things, but the flaw there is that by using in these products, you are anything but free. In fact you become nothing but a slave to these substances.

Yeah, if you're an addict. By that logic, shouldn't anything that creates a compulsive addiction be outlawed? If you eat twenty bags of chips a day because you have a psychological dependence on salty snack foods, isn't that basically the same? If a person spends all their paychecks on collectable plates with pictures of state birds on them, aren't they also slaves to those substances?

It's moderation. Moderation is key. You're going to have people always abusing something, but forbidding people from accessing things doesn't make them less of a "slave."

[MagicMirror]

I agree with Goliath that consumption and production should be legal. We can argue until the cows come home about the level of regulation (personally I would be in favour of as little as possible within reason, and would probably not even outlaw it for certain age groups, ditto alcohol), but regulation of the draconian kind we have in America and the UK does more harm than good. In the UK there does seem to be a realisation on different sides of the political spectrum that the current system is not working - even the current Conservative Prime Minister entertained the notion of more liberal drug laws when he ran for party leadership.

Incidentally - so that I'm not accused of wanting it to be legal so I can get it - I've no interest in taking marijuana personally and my opinion would not change were it legalised.

[Wonderlicious]

Though I smoke neither tobacco nor marijuana (doctor parents drilled enough propaganda into me advising against the former, while I'm plain indifferent to the latter), I voted yes. Allowing its legalisation would certainly cut off criminal revenues, and regulated production of it would mean none of the nasty bulking that plagues illegal pot. Having said that, it is still a drug as much as alcohol and tobacco, so I would most certainly enforce a few constraints:

1. Obviously, it would be unavailable to minors (whether the cut-off age were 16, 18 or 21 is another matter).
2. "Coffee shops" would be set up as a way of providing a comfortable and regulated environment for consumption. Alcohol and caffeine would not be served at these joints (excuse the dreadful pun ), as a mix of too many stimulants could be toxic.
3. You'd be allowed to produce your own marijuana and get licences to grow it, but you would not be allowed to sell it outside of a "coffee shop" setting.
4. Laws on illegal marijuana would be further tightened.
5. Public safety information on drug driving would be increased.

[Duckburger]

Yes, I think it should be legal. For reasons already listed above by others.

[Elladorine]

I hear many say that a free society would allow these things, but the flaw there is that by using in these products, you are anything but free. In fact you become nothing but a slave to these substances.

Yeah, if you're an addict. By that logic, shouldn't anything that creates a compulsive addiction be outlawed? If you eat twenty bags of chips a day because you have a psychological dependence on salty snack foods, isn't that basically the same? If a person spends all their paychecks on collectable plates with pictures of state birds on them, aren't they also slaves to those substances?

It's moderation. Moderation is key. You're going to have people always abusing something, but forbidding people from accessing things doesn't make them less of a "slave."

Yes . . . I was just about to say if going by the reasoning above, sugar should be banned as well, since in many people it causes physical, psychological and behavioral changes upon consumption, affecting the brain just like a drug.