Oddly enough, Sam Stone is all for legalization.
I guess we’re stuck with lekatt.
Well, other countries have certainly legalized or decriminalized marijuana without legalizing all drugs. I believe the Netherlands has legalized “soft drugs”, including marijuana and mushrooms, while keeping “hard drugs” such as cocaine and heroin illegal.
But the distinction between “soft” and “hard” drugs is mostly arbitrary (is alcohol hard or soft? what about LSD?), and tells us nothing about drugs that haven’t been discovered or become popular yet.
What I would do is come up with a set of criteria that can help decide how strictly regulated each drug should be: Does it have therapeutic use? What is its potential for addiction? What are the health effects of using it? Is it dangerous for amateurs to produce illicitly? Is a person who’s under the influence of this drug dangerous to others? Is there a less harmful drug that could be substituted for this one?
Once again, you ignore marijuana and remind us instead that alcohol is a dangerous drug.
Say, Mac, you better shy away from that stuff if you know what’s good for ya, see? It’ll put ants in your pants and before you can say Jack Robinson you’ll be hopped up on goofballs, rolling on wagon wheels, and cashing in your war bonds to buy 45s!
Thing is, you could say that about anything. Most alcoholics start out drinking milk and water. It’s no surprise that many people who use unpopular drugs have also used popular drugs; in fact, I’d expect prior use of alcohol and tobacco to be even more common among opiate users than prior use of marijuana.
But the “gateway drug” theory isn’t just about correlation, it’s about causation - the idea that someone who uses marijuana is more likely as a result of using it to move on to other drugs. That’s where it breaks down.
YES, legalize it. Handle it as we do alcohol: legal, taxed, and regulated. I’d make 18 the legal age for both alcohol and marijuana. I’m actaully against “sin” taxes, but I see no chance of legalization unless the politicians see something in it for them. So, let tax revenues be what’s in it for them. And once it’s legalized, we should immediately release everyone who’s in jail solely for marijunana “crimes”.
I’m mystified as to why this has yet to happen.
One theory I came across is that govt officials want the war on drugs for various reasons, so don’t dare legalize pot. The statistics promulgated about the size of the “drug crisis” would not be big and alarming if they were not inflated by lumping marijuana in with the hard drugs. But is this really the case? Does the publc really pay any attention to these numbers?
I thought Europeans had libertarianism, but called it something else? “Classic liberalism,” maybe?
Why not just stop people who are driving erratically or endangering others, period? What difference does it make if the person is impaired by a substance, or cold sober – but stupid, or distracted, or sleepy, or just a really poor driver? Never mind the cause, if someone is a danger, get him/her off the road. OTOH, if someone is driving okay, shouldn’t they be left alone? No one should be pulled over without probable cause to believe they are a danger, should they?
You talk as though outlawing a substance actually kept people from using it. This is not the case. Outlawing pot does not stop anyone from using it. It just means that a lot of criminal justice resources that could have been better used are wasted, and a lot of people who have not actaully done anything wrong are sent to jail.
It’s not so much that the politicians want to pump up the scary statistics. People are scared about drugs anyway, so any politician with a lenient view (eg legalisation of pot) can be painted by his opponent as a weak liberal who’s practically selling heroin to school kids. Even if they truly believe in legalisation, they don’t want the image problem.
Well, most Europeans never really had the ‘classic period’ of liberalism, and certainly most don’t venerate it the way many Americans do. I don’t think classic liberalism is a viable force in European politics today, and libertarianism as it is understood in the US is not popular either. Many European nations have very socially liberal policies, but this isn’t the same thing, among other reasons because it doesn’t take into account fiscal policies which are important to libertarians.
If they’re intoxicated, they might appear to be driving well. At the moment the police see them, they might not be swerving all over the place. Nevertheless, they’re far more likely to crash and hurt themselves and others if they are under the influence of alcohol or some other drugs, and therefore driving under the influence should be a crime in and of itself, which it is.
Uh… what? John Locke, Jeremy Bentham, Kant, Rousseau, Hugo Grotius, Adam Smith, Bernard Mandeville, David Hume, Montesquieu, Godwin, Mary Woolstonecraft, Germaine de Stael, Tocqueville, von Humboldt, David Ricardo, J.S. Mill, Carl Menger… all Europeans.
Fiscal or monetary liberalism is common principle among the classical liberals but certainly isn’t a sine qua non.
I used to be a heavy Marijuana smoker. My fat cells are now free of THC, and have been for many years.
For the longest time I was with the “Hell yes, legalize it!” crowd. I am now firmly against the legalization of Marijuana (although I do think the criminal penalties need to be lowered in all states, especially that three-strikes-and-your-out crap).
The reasons why I am against legalization:
- The effects of heavy marijuana use among the “masses”.
Contrary to popular opinion, pot is not always easy to get. You have to know the right people, it’s often a hassle, the quality flucuates, and the threat of being “busted” is always in the air. You may go through long stretches of your life where you can always get “kind bud” after one phone call. But things always change (that’s life). Connections move away, people get busted, you have to relocate to a different city (and attempt to make new connections), etc.
If pot becomes legal, access to the drug becomes available to everybody (over 18?), the stigma associated with it is largely removed, thereby causing the number of marijuana smokers to increase by huge proporations. You now have all kinds of people, who previously did not use with any kind of frequency, smoking pot.
With this large increase in the number of pot smokers comes this:
Source- http://www.nida.nih.gov/Infofax/marijuana.html
Granted, there are lots of responsible, well-adjusted, hard-working, mortgage-paying, family-supporting pot smokers out there. I knew a lot of them. But I was not one of them. Pot was my drug of choice, and it caused a lot of problems in my life: Anxiety, withdrawal, non-motivation, laziness, poor social skills, responsibility issues, and in general, a “foggy” outlook on life. I never had these problems with any other drugs (and I have tried lots of them), including alchohol.
How many other people out there will experience these same problems if pot is legalized? Something they would not have gone through (for a large number of people) had pot not been legalized, because of the stigma-removal factor and ease of access.
And make no mistake, this will happen to a large number of people.
2)The health issues
3)The increase in DUI accidents/fatalies caused by the increase in the number of people driving under the influence, due to the addition of a new, legal, mind-alter drug into society.
4)Increase in number of teenagers who smoke pot with without a doubt cause further problems for our already strained education system.
5)The obesity problem will only get worse due to chronic “munchie” sydrome (sorry, I couldn’t resist).
Like I said, I’m all for decreasing the severity of the criminal penalities for marijuana, I just don’t think legalization is a good thing.
It always comes as a surprise to outlaws, that a very large majority of people in this country do follow the law. They are honest, moral people.
I have a friend who wishes the government would outlaw cigarettes, because he said he could stop smoking if it was against the law.
No, not everybody are outlaws. Very few are, and we don’t want them to join those who harm themselves doing dope.
I said it before, it is the insurance companies that will pay millions to stop drug legalization. They don’t want to pay for all the damage it would bring.
Love
lekkatt,
Observe the post above yours, by Kings_Gambit1 (not that you’re going to, considering you’ve failed to acknowledge a single post of mine after the first even when I’ve actually directed specific questions to you, which leads me to believe that you’re not even taking your position seriously but are simply trying to get a rise out of people).
While I don’t agree with his post, at least the guy knows how to construct a logical, coherent and non-insulting argument.
You could learn a lot from him.
Kings,
The detrimental effects of marijuana you described and provided back-up for can also be used for alcoholics. All of those effects were experienced by people who smoked marijuana 27 out of 30 days. That’s nearly every day. And my experience leads me to believe that anyone who smokes every day most likely smokes more than once a day, or smokes multiple bowls or joints at one sitting.
Anything in excess isn’t good for you.
In reality, how many people are going to end up excessively smoking weed to the extent your study subjects did? If pot was legalized, the government is going to tax the living crap out of it. We’re talking multiple times the price of a pack of cigarettes. Who can afford to smoke that much?
Yes, most likely a chronic weed smoker (in terms of frequency, not type 
) will have the same detrimental effects to their social skills, career and family relationships as an alcoholic would. In all actuality, the detrimental effects would most likely be less in a chronic weed smoker than an alcoholic.
So basically, where your argument falls apart is the fact that while chronic consumption of alcohol has the same if not worse effects than the chronic consumption of weed, alcohol is legal and weed is not.
Also, the fact that all of the effects you described effect no one but the user is not good for your argument. If their use is effecting their employer negatively, they can be fired. So, if an individual wants to live their lives in a foggy haze (how many pot smokers realistically smoke that much?) who are you (or the government) to tell them otherwise? I believe the only time any individuals rights should be infringed is when those rights infringe on the rights of others. So I repeat, if an individual wants to live their life in a foggy haze and is not affecting anyone else but themselves, why shouldn’t he have that right?
Now, what is your theory on why that is? And why do you suppose that the world at large is not so much in favor of it?
Same here, except that I am a college student now. I’ve never had any real interest in any sort of drug (other than caffeine) myself and the closest I’ve ever gotten to trashed was having about 9 beers in two or three hours. I didn’t like the mental effects and I really wasn’t fond of the hangover the next morning. (In my defense, I did have a P Chem final earlier in the day. That thing would’ve sent the hardest teetotaler in the world to the bar.)
Hey, nobody should argue that pot is good for you (except maybe if you’ve got AIDS or terminal cancer). The benefits of chronic low-level EtOH consumption seem to be at least counterbalanced by the problems it causes, with the possible exception of red wine. The average person probably shouldn’t drink or smoke at all, or only very occasionally.
Thing is, we tried the alcohol prohibition solution, and it was a spectacular failure. All evidence seems to indicate the drug prohibition solution has also been a spectacular failure. It simply is not difficult to get drugs. Anyone who is motivated to get them can get them, especially weed, in my experience. At most it will take a couple months to establish new connections, and plenty of people grow their own. Canadian growers are producing strains of Mary Jane that are around 30% (!!!) THC, and you can buy this stuff over the internet. That’s around ten times the THC levels most high-school punks can get their hands on usually, and at least twice the THC levels the finest South-of-the-border bud can show. The Hells Angels make a killing trafficing the stuff (BC Bud, Quebec Gold, Winnipeg Wheelchair, among a few of the “ultra” strains). This primo bud can fetch five grand a pound for growers (and it only takes about three months per crop with the advanced hydroponics these guys use), and who knows what the markup is by the time it has changed a few hands and been distributed. As far as I know, the only real obstacle to aquisition is price; plus a lot of experienced users won’t touch it because it packs such a punch; hence the “wheelchair” nickname.
The Canadian govt., as far as anyone can tell, basically tolerates this production. There’s little real motivation to crack down heavily on it North of the Border. That means the job of enforcement is well-nigh impossible here, because the Canadian border is a sieve. I know this well, having grown up in Maine, where riding a snowmobile into Quebec for shits and grins is as easy as traversing Moosehead Lake, and probably less dangerous. I knew a guy in the Mountain Men biker gang (worked construction during summer break with him during my college years…tough guy who nobody fucked with, but a good shit on the whole) who could hook me up with anything I wanted, via Quebec. As I mentioned before, lobstermen are active smugglers up and down the coast, and again, all the stuff comes in through Canada (NC, NB, in their case). The Coast Guard? Hah. They make maybe one major bust a year, a bunch of petty busts that amount to a bucket in a rainstorm.
Face it: The shit may as well be legal. It’s coming in through every hole in the walls, and nothing is stopping it substantially to prevent the flood.
I agree. It is pretty obvious that marijuana, especially when smoked, has a negative effect on one’s health. It would be idiotic to expect an every day recreational drug user to be unaffected by what would be called side effects if it was a prescription drug. The desired effect comes with negative side effects which will most likely be worse if drugs are used more chronically.
I disagree completely with this, simply because it’s easy to produce marijuana. Tobacco can’t easily be grown and prepared for use, but marijuana is routinely grown and prepared by home users. Assuming that marijuana production was allowed by individuals, I don’t see how it could be effectively taxed. The commercial stuff certainly could be, though.
We can’t outlaw everything that is unhealthy. On balance, I think marijuana and a lot of other recreational drugs can be used as safely (or as dangerously) as some drugs that are legal.
You are basing this argument on an assumption that marijuana use would increase, which I think is far from a given. Although there are no firm numbers, it is thought that alcohol use was lower during the first two years of Prohibition and then steadily climbed back up to pre-Prohibition levels. I think, at worse, you would see the reverse occur with drug legalization (an increase of use at first followed by usage rates shrinking back to approximately the same as previous levels).
Since you’re bringing up danger to society, the bottom line when looking at Prohibition as an example is that you end up with fewer people dead and much less crime by allowing legal trade rather than creating prime circumstances for a highly profitable black market, and that is not even getting into the damage caused by prosecuting and punishing drug users. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html
Again, you are going on the assumption that use would increase. I have encountered two schools of thought regarding teenagers. One is that use would increase because of the legality, while another is that part of the appeal right now is the fact that it is forbidden, so use would not change much or would drop. I think use would probably increase in the shortterm, but don’t expect longterm changes to be significant.
lezlers
Points well taken.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of people I knew when I was in the “scene” smoked pot virtually every day. Blue-Collar, White-Collar, Teenagers through early-30s. There were people who were able to use only occasionaly (weekends, etc.), but they were a rare bird in my experience. I know there are more birds out there like this, but, for a variety of reasons, I just never encountered their flock that much.
I guess the main point of my argument is this:
Given the fact that legalizing pot will increase the number of pot smokers substantially (due to decreasing the stigma and ease of availability), which will increase the number of people who can not smoke pot responsibly (people who wouldn’t have had the chance to develop this problem had pot remained illegal, which places a variety of additional problems on society (problems I listed in my original post: Increase in DUI’s, additional educational problems, additional work issues, additional health problems, etc.).
Why place this additional burden on society?
It would be great if we legalize pot and the vast majority of people would use it responsibly and in moderation. I just don’t see that happening. I see a whole shit load of people developing habitual pot smoking related problems. People who, if pot were illegal, would’t normally develop these problems. I see teenagers smoking pot all over the place (currently, most do not…yep, it’s true). I see grades falling. I see a huge increase in behavior-related issues. I see society turning into a giant army of bong-heads, smoking kind bud in their parents basement all day, while watching Jerry Springer. I see…just a bunch of problems in general.
Funny. The reason I don’t smoke weed anymore is because I don’t want to. The legality or illegality of pot is simply a non-issue for myself and anybody know who used or uses. Maybe it is for the vast majority, I don’t know, but for my small sampling of the population, the only effect the law has is on the level of discretion shown during use (e.g., you don’t go down on the Boston Common, throw out a picnic blanket, and toke up in broad daylight; you stay in your back yard or your living room.)
Not in my experience.
A significant percentage of people do not smoke pot because it is illegal. Because it is illegal, it is often a hassle to obtain, and comes with a very real threat of being busted. This barrier, in my opinion, prevents a lot of people from using. People who actually enjoy (or would enjoy) the effects of smoking pot. If the door were opened up, a certain percentage of these people would develop problems, problems that don’t develop with other legal drugs (namely alchohol). In short, these people find out that their drug of choice is pot, and a lot of them came to find that they lack self-control and moderation. Habitual pot use ensues and BAM! You have a lot of people who now have a drug problem. A problem that, for most of them, would not have occurred had pot not been legalized.
It’s easy to see the scenario played out:
*A soccer mom, an accountant, a software engineer, whoever wakes up one day and discovers that pot has been legalized across the country. A variety of different types of weed are now sold in stores everywhere. The media coverage of this historic legislation is huge! Pretty soon they discover that most of their friends are trying it, so they decide to give it a try. And what do you know, a lot of them come to find out they really enjoy the effects of it.
“This is a lot better than I remember it in college,” lamented Mrs. Soccer Mom.
Pretty soon Mrs. Soccer Mom and Joe Accountant are buying glass bongs and 2 lb. bags at Cosco. They stop going out on a regular basis. All they want to do is get stoned and watch TV, etc. etc. They never had a problem with alchohol, but they now have a problem with pot*.
I’ve obviously exaggered this scenario, but you get the point. There are a lot of people who do not smoke pot because it is illegal (hassle to obtain, threat of being busted). It it is legal there will be a lot of these people who will try it. Of these people, there will be a significant percentage who will become habitual pot smokers and will develop a host of related problems.
Why place this burden on society?
Why is there a pressing need to legalize? Why not just decrease the severity of the existing laws, while remaining illegal?
Because the burden imposed by increased usage would be less than the burden now imposed by prohibition?
Is this true? If we can get a good answer to this question, it would help a lot in these debates…