Some people eat so much McDonald’s food that they develop health problems. But McDonald’s is still legal. Think for a second what kind of message this sends to children.
Won’t anybody think of the children???
We shouldn’t have to ban it, people should be able to control themselves.
Wishful thinking? No not really, but apparently we have failed to do that as a society (or country in this case).
So prohibition of alcohol failed, fine, doesn’t mean we should go through all that with drugs.
War on drugs costs a lot; yet the war on society (a result of unchecked drug use, even weak marijuana) is the alternative and that’s worse.
Unfortunately ‘freedom’ comes at a cost. And when society cannot police itself; our governing systems have to do it for us.
Should it be banned, no, but is it being banned justified, absolutely.
I have the same concern about bagels. The US market for packaged bagels is nearly $700 million annually. Bagel-related injuries (BRIs) send as many as 2,000 Americans to the hospital annually, primarily hand lacerations, often requiring tendon repair.
Unintended consequences. I’m not against legalization, but it isn’t the slam dunk that some posters in this thread are making it out to be such that no rational person could possibly have a reason for keeping it illegal.
Alcohol, tobacco, and other things are known quantities, heavily regulated, and pose significant societal problems. Who knows what would happen with legal marijuana distribution? Nothing, a little, a nation of weed smokers passed out in the street?
The fight to legalize “gray machines” in West Virginia 10 years ago is instructive. The idea was that every bar had a poker machine in it that was not supposed to pay out. But everyone knew that if you were a regular and got to know the bar tender, they would pay out under the table.
So, the state got the idea, why not legalize and tax these machines? Have the state lottery commission regulate them so that they are “fair” and have this gambling out in the open instead of underground so that the state can monitor it?
Now, ten years later, you can’t swing a cat around by the tail without hitting a “Hot Spot”: little neighborhood bars with 5 slot machines that are in the dumpiest communities, offer sucker odds, and have addicted thousands of poor workers in the poorest state. And you can’t outlaw them now because the state depends on revenue from these machines.
It went from a couple of people being able to gamble at a neighborhood bar a little bit to slot machines state wide.
The assumption seems to be that marijuana legalization would keep everything the same, just no penalties for doing it. It may spread out of control like the slot machines in this state. Who knows, so why take the chance just so a few people can smoke weed legally? What’s the great upside?
So by that reasoning, nothing should interfere with any person’s right to decide to do anything?
But before this rolls into an argument of slippery slopes and reductio ad absurda, let me rephrase my argument.
There are downsides to unlimited access to marijuana (even excluding children.) Are there upsides? Does society have the right to say, “the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits” and limit or prohibit something?
The upside is that people like me, who own businesses and are generally productive members of society, are no longer de facto criminals.
Marijuana is underated as a drug. I see a lot of benefits to it but I also see a lot of dangers.
If they do legalize it and someone has an accident at work they should be unable to collect workmen comp benefits if they test positive. They should also be personaly liable if someone else is hurt. MJ is mind altering, judment altering, impairs reflexes and perception, reduces ones ability to focus, inhibits short term memory. The list could go on and on. Alcohol is not nearly as bad if used responsibly, any amount of pot can affect us like this. My pot addiction played a big part in my family breaking up, my education being short circuited etc. I quit smoking pot at 40 yrs old and started getting my life back on track.
You say this like marijuana use is an immutable trait. You can stop being a de facto criminal by not using marijuana.
But, I’m sure you would say, that you aren’t harming anyone and are able to function in life and you should be left alone. I don’t necessarily disagree, but many of our laws act in the same way. Yes, I wouldn’t harm anyone by burning garbage, catching more fish than permitted, or owning a fully armed tank.
However society has deemed that the aggregate of these activities are dangerous to society as a whole, so they are banned for everyone.
No. “Society” does not have a “right” to tell me that I can’t smoke marijuana because the potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. Leave me alone. I’m a free adult. I’ll take the risks and responsibility. That does not mean I can “do anything.” This particular thing, I should be able to do. It’s simply not the kind of authority our founders envisioned giving to the government. Less than 100 years ago a Constitutional Amendment was passed to allow the prohibition of alcohol. It was widely agreed that the federal government did not have the power to prohibit alcohol consumption without changing the Constitution. You may have noticed, there has been no amendment to allow the regulation of marijuana. Leave me alone. Don’t tread on me. Live free or die. res ipsa loquitur.
You asked what the upside would be, I attempted to answer. Pretty much everyone I know occasionally smokes. I think that by branding these people “criminals” society potentially affects how they behave in a variety of circumstances.
I agree that it should be unconstitutional for the feds to regulate drugs under the guise of the interstate commerce clause. But the Supreme Court has consistently held for nearly 70 years that our interpretation is not going to be followed.
Notwithstanding that, you think you should be allowed to legally smoke it; others think you should not. In a democracy, the majority rules. I think that there are a million stupid laws, but I can’t see why the freedom to smoke marijuana is so inherent and so sacred that it somehow stands outside the democratic process.
Isn’t that an inherent upside to the repeal of any law: People who want to engage in that activity now legally can?
Ex: What’s the upside to repealing the seat belt law?
Answer: Now my friends and I who don’t wear seat belts are no longer criminals.
That seems to be an “upside” that’s not really an upside.
Sure, whatever. Thing is, about 6% of Americans use marijuana on a regular basis. Over 100 million (41%) of all Americans admit to having tried it. Seriously, do whatcha want.
Yes, the right to personal autonomy stands outside the democratic process. The majority can’t (or should not be able to) violate my right to do as I please without a compelling reason. How would you feel if the “majority” passed a law saying you could not sleep naked, or wear tennis shoes on the beach, or drink diet coke? None of those things are “so sacred” are they?
Out of curiosity, how many of your friends have done time for failure to obey seat belt laws?:rolleyes:
That might be persuasive, if the prohibition of marijuana was a rational step intended to remedy a tangible harm.
However, the prohibition of marijuana was brought about on the strength of absolute nonsense. Take a look a some of the source material from the time. One of the seminal works responsible for making society-at-large aware of the menace of cannabis is The Black Candle, written by Canadian judge Emily Murphy, generally well-regarded for her proto-feminism.
The assertions that led to the prohibition are at best absurd, such as “Persons using this narcotic smoke the dried leaves of the plant, which has the effect of driving them completely insane. Addicts to this drug, while under its influence, are immune to pain, and could be severely injured without having any realization of their condition. While in this condition they become raving maniacs and are liable to kill or indulge in any form of violence to other persons, using the most savage methods of cruelty without, as said before, any sense of moral responsibility.”
Worse, the book posits an active conspiracy of shifty negroes and inscrutable chinamen, bent on weakening and dominating the white race.
The arguments which led to prohibition are ludicrous and embarrassing after nearly a century - but we remain saddled with their consequences. Why?
Yet you’ve failed to show any danger to society that will arise if marijuana is not illegal.
You’ve raised the point that we don’t know if there will or will not be adverse effects, but surely you’re argument isn’t that we should make things illegal without solid evidence that the adverse effects outweigh and imbalance the net positives, is it?
The Danger to Society argument hardly seems cogent as many things that we have proof are a danger to society are legal and partaking in them is not a criminal activity.
Why? The question is “Is there a good reason for NOT legalizing marijuana? “ Not “Should marijuana be legalized?” which is a completely different question.
I have a small one. I don’t think anyone should be allowed to smoke anything in public, and that includes skunkweed. I hate the smell.
Now, in your own home- stay loaded my friends.
Yeah, that’s part of the point I was trying to make: none of jtgain’s sort-of arguments is very strong in favor of continued illegality, and currently there are no other (to my knowledge) actual cogent reasons given for it’s continued illegality.