Should marijuana be illegal, legal, or heavily regulated.

[Lovelife090994]

Do you think marijuana should be illegal, legal, or heavily regulated. I am neutral on this but I think jailing all in posession of marijuana a bit extreme. Marijuana being illegal in America has many going to jail over it, many drug cartels smuggling it, and many getting sick off of imitation marijuana or other drugs. But, like I said I am neutral. I have never used drugs and personally like cigarettes I hate the smoke but this is something I can kinda ignore or mask against. What is your opinion?

Please keep this civil. If you disagree with someone then that is fine you are both different in thinking which creates diversity.

[andybn]

I think it should be illegal.

[Miserabilia]

I don't think it should be completely illegal. Take a look at the netherlands ! :D

[phuckphace]

I would decriminalize possession and use by people over 21, and pardon everyone jailed for cannabis possession.

the drug cartels would still operate even if it were legal/semi-legal (see California for example, the cartels remain very active in supplying cannabis despite it being de-facto legal in that state). the money we save by freeing non-violent offenders can be redirected towards tackling the cartels.

[Abyssal Echo]

I think it should be legal. just like Alcohol is legal for people over 21

[Gamma Male]

Legal with little to no regulations. The imprisonment of marijuana users is just ridiculous. It's a perfectly harmless drug.

[Lovelife090994]

Legal with little to no regulations. The imprisonment of marijuana users is just ridiculous. It's a perfectly harmless drug.

I agree until the latter, because no drug is 100% harmless.

[Gamma Male]

I agree until the latter, because no drug is 100% harmless.

No permanent negative side effects have thus far been observed. It isn't illegal because it's dangerous, it's illegal because
1In the 30's Hemp threatened to replace wood as a raw material and fuel.
2 It was seen as an ethnic drug and so naturally, they wanted to quell it.

It is also currently being used as a painkiller, anti-depressant, and epileptic drug worldwide.

[Lovelife090994]

No permanent negative side effects have thus far been observed. It isn't illegal because it's dangerous, it's illegal because
1In the 30's Hemp threatened to replace wood as a raw material and fuel.
2 It was seen as an ethnic drug and so naturally, they wanted to quell it.

It is also currently being used as a painkiller, anti-depressant, and epileptic drug worldwide.

Anti-depressants, painkillers, and epilectic drugs all have side effects. Plus, some people are allergic to certain drugs so I doubt there are no cases of cannibis allergy. Yes hemp is versatile but it is still a drug and does have risks. Some regulation should be in play to protect children.

[Gamma Male]

Anti-depressants, painkillers, and epilectic drugs all have side effects. Plus, some people are allergic to certain drugs so I doubt there are no cases of cannibis allergy. Yes hemp is versatile but it is still a drug and does have risks. Some regulation should be in play to protect children.

Yes, children should only use it with a prescription. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Also, driving while high should remain illegal. But aside from those two things I don't really see the point of any further regulation.

[Lovelife090994]

Yes, children should only use it with a prescription. I don't think anyone is disputing that. Also, driving while high should remain illegal. But aside from those two things I don't really see the point of any further regulation.

Maybe a limit on amount at a single purchase, but other than that I agree.

[tovaris]

Its no better than tobacco or alcohol so either ban all of these drugs or just tax them hard and regulate them, is what I think

[BuryYourFlame]

I think it should be legalised with driving regulations and age regulations at 18, and only those regulations. Once you're an adult you should be able to decide what goes in to your body when it doesn't hurt other people.

[NeuroTiger]

Heavily moderated

[Living For Love]

Portugal was the first country in the world to decriminalise the use of all drugs, in 2001. Here you can use any drug you want as long as it is for personal consumption only. However, "decriminalise" doesn't mean "legalise". The use of drugs it's still considered illegal, yes, but if you are caught with an amount superior or the maximum amount limits allowed for each substance (25 grams for cannabis), you would be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than going to jail.

We also have what we call "salas de chuto", or injection sites in English, which are basically places where doctors, nurses and psychiatrists provide the clean and sterilised materials to the drug users so that they can use them safely, mainly to avoid overdoses and increase the hygienic conditions of the whole process.

Since the decriminalisation, there have been much less cases of deaths by overdose, HIV cases and consumption among teenagers, so those are all positive aspects. Still, there should be a certain control because of the use of drugs by children, and to avoid public health issues as well.

[tovaris]

I think it should be illegal.

why is that?

[britishboy]

Illegal. I think the police need to get tough on this as clearly people have a very relaxed attitude towards this issue as kindly demonstrated by this thread.

[Harry Smith]

Illegal. I think the police need to get tough on this as clearly people have a very relaxed attitude towards this issue as kindly demonstrated by this thread.

But surely as you always like to say our police are having to go under public service cuts so if they focus/get tough on this it's going to cost more money/fill up prisons and waste police time. Time that can be spend tackling real crimes that actually have a negative effect. Heck if you think Cannabis is bad just look at alcohol.

The police arresting people won't change the attitude towards it-people have been relaxed about it since the 1960's. People have a relaxed attitude to booze, do we ban that? People have a relaxed attitude to coffee, do we ban that? People have a relaxed attitude to sugar, do we ban that? The police shouldn't enforce something just because the public are relaxed about it

Just look at the very good example from Portugal-they decriminalized it and

there have been much less cases of deaths by overdose, HIV cases and consumption among teenagers, so those are all positive aspects.

Judging by every metric, decriminalization in Portugal has been a resounding success," says Glenn Greenwald, an attorney, author and fluent Portuguese speaker, who conducted the research. "It has enabled the Portuguese government to manage and control the drug problem far better than virtually every other Western country does."

Compared to the European Union and the U.S., Portugal's drug use numbers are impressive. Following decriminalization, Portugal had the lowest rate of lifetime marijuana use in people over 15 in the E.U.: 10%. The most comparable figure in America is in people over 12: 39.8%. Proportionally, more Americans have used cocaine than Portuguese have used marijuana.

[Vlerchan]

Legalise, Tax, and Regulate. Decriminalise the harder stuff whilst you are at it.

Note: there's a distinction between legalise and decriminalise. If decriminalisation goes well then I'll start favouring legalisation of hard drugs.
Illegal.
On what grounds?

[britishboy]

But surely as you always like to say our police are having to go under public service cuts so if they focus/get tough on this it's going to cost more money/fill up prisons and waste police time. Time that can be spend tackling real crimes that actually have a negative effect. Heck if you think Cannabis is bad just look at alcohol.

The police arresting people won't change the attitude towards it-people have been relaxed about it since the 1960's. People have a relaxed attitude to booze, do we ban that? People have a relaxed attitude to coffee, do we ban that? People have a relaxed attitude to sugar, do we ban that? The police shouldn't enforce something just because the public are relaxed about it

Just look at the very good example from Portugal-they decriminalized it and

People have a relaxed attitude to vegetables that's not a reason to ban it and I never said it was.

If it costs more, it costs more. It is cheaper to shot prisoners. It is cheaper to ignore all illegal substances. Not being rude but debate like the others, I've been told you're asking for help from communists?

You sound like the working class wannabe gangster with the 'go after real crimes' it is illegal. That makes it a real crime and justifies the enforcement.

Look at the people that smoke it.


On what grounds?

Why it should be illegal or why the police should be more tough and clear on it.

[Vlerchan]

Look at the people that smoke it.
There tends to be two different stereotypes in terms of weed smokers. Which one would you prefer to strawman?

Why it should be illegal or why the police should be more tough and clear on it.
Both.

Though, I'm more interested in the former.

[britishboy]

There tends to be two different stereotypes in terms of weed smokers. Which one would you prefer to strawman?
.

Unintelligent
Working class
Living off of the state (unemployed)
No contribute to the economy
Disrespect for the law
Lacks social skills (violent and rude)



Though, I'm more interested in the former.

Health problems and can be a stepping stone onto more harmful substances.

The police should be tough because people are disrespecting the law, they do not fear enforcement or the consequences and often seems easy for children from a rough background to get hold of it and involved in crime.

[Harry Smith]

People have a relaxed attitude to vegetables that's not a reason to ban it and I never said it was.

If it costs more, it costs more. It is cheaper to shot prisoners. It is cheaper to ignore all illegal substances. Not being rude but debate like the others, I've been told you're asking for help from communists?

You sound like the working class wannabe gangster with the 'go after real crimes' it is illegal. That makes it a real crime and justifies the enforcement.

Look at the people that smoke it.


Why it should be illegal or why the police should be more tough and clear on it.

Eh something being a crime doesn't justify it, homosexuality was a crime up until 1967.

My class has nothing to do with this debate.

Look at the people who smoke it?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01939/david-cameron_1939896c.jpg

Unintelligent
Working class
Living off of the state (unemployed)
No contribute to the economy
Disrespect for the law
Lacks social skills (violent and rude)

Which one is David Cameron?

[britishboy]

Eh something being a crime doesn't justify it, homosexuality was a crime up until 1967.

My class has nothing to do with this debate.

Look at the people who smoke it?

image (http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01939/david-cameron_1939896c.jpg)

Unintelligent
Working class
Living off of the state (unemployed)
No contribute to the economy
Disrespect for the law
Lacks social skills (violent and rude)

Which one is David Cameron?

Of course you bring up gays.

David Cameron admits it was a mistake and does not call for it to be legalised. He was 15. He is embarrassed about it now.

[Vlerchan]

Unintelligent
Working class
Living off of the state (unemployed)
No contribute to the economy
Disrespect for the law
Lacks social skills (violent and rude)
Lol. This is somewhat off: even if we pretend it is only the stereotype who smokes.

Also, everyone, by existing within the economy, contributes to the economy in some form or another.

Health problems and can be a stepping stone onto more harmful substances.
This is applicable to both alcohol and cigarettes - and to a statistically greater extent. Do you want to make alcohol and cigarettes illegal, too?

The 'Gateway Theory' is also pseudoscientic bullshit.

The police should be tough because people are disrespecting the law, they do not fear enforcement or the consequences and often seems easy for children from a rough background to get hold of it and involved in crime.
What do you believe the penalties should be for possession?

Which one is David Cameron?
Unintelligent, Living off the state, No (beneficial) contribution to the economy?

Am I close?

[Harry Smith]

Of course you bring up gays.

David Cameron admits it was a mistake and does not call for it to be legalised. He was 15. He is embarrassed about it now.

Of course I would, it's a relevent example of how something can be illegal yet made legal. Do you think homosexuality should be made illegal? You know back in the 1960's all these terrible working class lazy rude men where sleeping with each other and they had no respect for the law. The police should of stamped it out.

You said that people who smoke were
Unintelligent
Working class
Living off of the state (unemployed)
No contribute to the economy
Disrespect for the law
Lacks social skills (violent and rude)

Which one is David Cameron, or Barack Obama, or Paul McCartney?

[britishboy]

Also, everyone, by existing within the economy, contributes to the economy in some form or another.


I hate to admit it but you are right, that is common knowledge. I walked into that one.



This is applicable to both alcohol and cigarettes - and to a statistically greater extent. Do you want to make alcohol and cigarettes illegal, too?



Cigarettes yes alcohol no. However currently cigarettes would be politically bad.



What do you believe the penalties should be for possession?

Possession isn't the problem, a fine or community service.

Of course I would, it's a relevent example of how something can be illegal yet made legal. Do you think homosexuality should be made illegal? You know back in the 1960's all these terrible working class lazy rude men where sleeping with each other and they had no respect for the law. The police should of stamped it out.

You said that people who smoke were
Unintelligent
Working class
Living off of the state (unemployed)
No contribute to the economy
Disrespect for the law
Lacks social skills (violent and rude)

Which one is David Cameron, or Barack Obama, or Paul McCartney?

Firstly because gays was illegal is not a reason for everything you want to be legal, to be legal. Sorry about that. Also use a different example, it would have more impact than the same gay stories.

You have made that point twice?

[Harry Smith]

I hate to admit it but you are right, that is common knowledge. I walked into that one.



Cigarettes yes alcohol no. However currently cigarettes would be politically bad.



Possession isn't the problem, a fine or community service.

I thought you were a fan of UKIP?

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1111963/thumbs/o-NIGEL-FARAGE-570.jpg?6

[Vlerchan]

Cigarettes yes alcohol no. However currently cigarettes would be politically bad.
Alcohol is:

more harmful than weed, and
the biggest gateway drug, if you believe the gateway theory.

Out of interest, do you support the idea of bodily autonomy?

[Harry Smith]

Firstly because gays was illegal is not a reason for everything you want to be legal, to be legal. Sorry about that. Also use a different example, it would have more impact than the same gay stories.

You have made that point twice?

No but you said that since it's illegal that the police should spend all there time and money since people are disrepcting the law-the same was true in the 1960s? I mean your whole argument seems to be some right wing wank from Theresa May about how the police need to tackle this terrible epidemic. If you actually talk to the police, they'll tell you that they don't care about 15 year's smoking pot.

Even the liberal democrat major candidate in 2008, who was a former police chief said that they needed to be reform. We've tried your approach to drugs for the last 50 years, and it hasn't worked

I have, since you've yet to answer. You said that people who smoke are blah blah blah, you do know that most of the greatest people in the later 20th century smoked cannabis. Do you want me to do another picture gallery?

[britishboy]

Alcohol is:

more harmful than weed, and
the biggest gateway drug, if you believe the gateway theory.

Out of interest, do you support the idea of bodily autonomy?

People are too hooked on alcohol. I doubt we would be able to avoid a similar situation that the USA experienced during prohibition.

Alcohol is regulated and most drink responsibly. Taxes should be raised to encourage responsible drinking.

As for bodily autonomy no. Children can not make an informed decision. The NHS would be the one taking the bill.

I thought you were a fan of UKIP?

image (http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1111963/thumbs/o-NIGEL-FARAGE-570.jpg?6)

Half and half.

[Vlerchan]

Alcohol is regulated and most drink responsibly. Taxes should be raised to encourage responsible drinking.
Is this not possible with weed?

Anecdotely, I've found that people smoke more responsibly than they drink.

As for bodily autonomy no. Children can not make an informed decision.
Allow me to rephrase, do you believe that adults (defined: 18+) should have a right to.bodily autonomy, as guaranteed under the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

The NHS would be the one taking the bill.
This could be paid for in the taxes raised or, even the money saved from pointless enforcement (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report) alone.

Tell me, do you believe in a balanced budget? This could help.

[britishboy]

Is this not possible with weed?

Anecdotely, I've found that people smoke more responsibly than they drink.


Allow me to rephrase, do you believe that adults (defined: 18+) should have a right to.bodily autonomy, as guaranteed under the UN Declaration of Human Rights.


This could be paid for in the taxes raised or, even the money saved from pointless enforcement (http://www.theguardian.com/society/2009/apr/07/drugs-policy-legalisation-report) alone.

Tell me, do you believe in a balanced budget? This could help.

It could be possible with weed but to be honest? Is it worth the political energy so people cab get high?

Over 18s yes.

I disagree, the media make it look like everybody gets drunk but the truth is people drink everyday at restaurants and wine bars without problems.

I do not think we should disregard public health in favor of money.

[Harry Smith]

It could be possible with weed but to be honest? Is it worth the political energy so people cab get high?

Over 18s yes.

I disagree, the media make it look like everybody gets drunk but the truth is people drink everyday at restaurants and wine bars without problems.

I do not think we should disregard public health in favor of money.

The same could of been said in 1929 about prohibition, is it worth the political energy to let people get drunk?

I think that in politics you should always be skepetical when people claim it's not worth the energy/fighting/time, it just means that they're too afraid to touch the issue.

Whilst it's true that drinking is not as much of problem as some would think I'd say crime wise that drinking has a worse effect than smoking e.g drunk and disorderly, drink driving, assault

[Vlerchan]

Is it worth the political energy so people cab get high?
The political energy already exists.

Over 18s yes.
It seems strange that you would hold such a position, and then be comfortable illegalising the consumption of weed by those who you support the rights to bodily autonomy at the sane time.

I disagree, the media make it look like everybody gets drunk but the truth is people drink everyday at restaurants and wine bars without problems.
I'm talking about from personal experience.

I realise that in monitered and/or respectable environments people drink more responsibly.

I do not think we should disregard public health in favor of money.
You are acting like weed possess a significant health risk.

[britishboy]

The same could of been said in 1929 about prohibition, is it worth the political energy to let people get drunk?


Cough Alphonse Capone cough



I think that in politics you should always be skepetical when people claim it's not worth the energy/fighting/time,

Agree, fight for what you're passionate about.



Whilst it's true that drinking is not as much of problem as some would think I'd say crime wise that drinking has a worse effect than smoking e.g drunk and disorderly, drink driving, assault

I would agree yes.

[britishboy]

The political energy already exists.



You don't get it.



It seems strange that you would hold such a position, and then be comfortable illegalising the consumption of weed by those who you support the rights to bodily autonomy at the sane time.




Should I be able to buy and drink high-level nuclear waste?

[Vlerchan]

You don't get it.
I do.

You've run out of defensible arguments to make and have reverted to this nonesense.

Should I be able to buy and drink high-level nuclear waste?
You are not 18.

However, as far as I'm aware there is no law against it anyway. Go ahead, though I wouldn't advise it.

[britishboy]

ahead, though I wouldn't advise it.

If I was 18. Do you think I should be allowed to drink and deal nuclear waste.

If yes why?

[Harry Smith]

If I was 18. Do you think I should be allowed to drink and deal nuclear waste.

If yes why?

No.

Can you make a dirty bomb out of Cannabis?

[britishboy]

No.

Can you make a dirty bomb out of Cannabis?

Assuming it would just be damaging my health.What the bloody-hell is a dirty bomb?

[Vlerchan]

If I was 18. Do you think I should be allowed to drink and deal nuclear waste.

If yes why?

No.

It's possession imposes adverse risks on those about you.

Assuming it would just be damaging my health.
I wouldn't support a law against it in such a case, because laws against it would be unenforceable and so pointless.

Do you support laws against individuals drinking bleach?

[britishboy]

No.

It's possession imposes adverse risks on those about you.

True... bleach then? Or syndite? You get the point I'm trying to make.

[Harry Smith]

True... bleach then? Or syndite? You get the point I'm trying to make.

You can buy bleach from the shop

[britishboy]

Do you support laws against individuals drinking bleach?

I would but how could one enforce it?

[Vlerchan]

True... bleach then? Or syndite? You get the point I'm trying to make.

"I wouldn't support a law against it in such a case, because laws against it would be unenforceable and so pointless.

Do you support laws against individuals drinking bleach?"

I would but how could one enforce it?
You can't.

Here's a question, do you support laws against suicide?

[Harry Smith]

Assuming it would just be damaging my health.What the bloody-hell is a dirty bomb?

Never heard of a dirty bomb http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_bomb

It's a cheap nuclear bomb you make from nuclear waste-that's in laymans terms at elast

[Zachary G]

I think it should be made legal and decriminalized because its not a manufactured drug and has been around and in use for centuries, plus it has a lot of medical benefits. And heres a question - how many times have you heard in the news that somebody who was high on pot robbed, killed, or stole? None that I know of.:metal::metal::metal::metal:

[Jean Poutine]

Unintellagent
Working class
Living off of the state (unemployed)
No contribute to the economy
Disrespect for the law
Lacks social skills (violent and rude)



Health problems and can including ping stone onto more harmful substances.

I an a cannabis smoker and...

-125 IQ, top grades on a demanding program
-Well...I was raised working class, on my own I'm middle class (yay economic mobility)
-45k CAD job, looking at a management promotion (70k+) and I'm not even out of university. 45 or 70k don't seem like a lot until you realize I'm a civil servant, so I get badass social perks and a pension fund that basically automatically makes me a millionaire. Time off is the true wealth and I've got a lot of them paid vacations and stuff.
-I contribute more than you to the economy because I actually have a job, I consume like a motherfucker and actually pay income tax. And munchies. The small diner next to my place survives almost singlehandedly because of me.
-I disrespect laws that are unjust like any decent human being. Gandhi was such a bad person for disrespecting the laws!
-Stoners are the chillest people around, including myself. Pothead subculture is almost completely focused on sharing, communality and peace. Are you sure you are going from personal experience and not Reefer Madness-fuelled propaganda?

The gateway drug theory is a sham, has been proven so. I smoke weed because I like weed - I fail to see how it makes me more likely to sniff coke or inject heroin. I don't like stimulants and I don't like opiates (they make me feel stupid, like booze). Even if rhe gateway drug theory was true, then it would be the easiest drug to obtain that woyld be the gateway and that's alcohol/nicotine. Health problems due to cannabis consumption are mostly genetic in nature (ie schizophrenia).

Legalise it already. Decriminalisation is a midway point that pleases nobody and the status quo is horrendously stupid.

[britishboy]

I an a cannabis smoker and...


If you proudly admit that I'm not going to bother debating with you.

[Harry Smith]

If you proudly admit that I'm not going to bother debating with you.

No your chosing not to debate with him because he clearly proved you wrong. You can't claim that all cannabis users are moral failures, because as said above it's simply not true. As I also said before many of the best world leaders, song-writes, poets, sports stars and actors used cannabis. If your going to stop talking to people because they smoked then your going to have to ignore about 70% of the population

[britishboy]

No your chosing not to debate with him because he clearly proved you wrong. You can't claim that all cannabis users are moral failures

It's disgusting! Where has British class gone from the working class? There is nothing to be proud of doing drugs.

[Harry Smith]

It's disgusting! Where has British class gone from the working class? There is nothing to be proud of doing drugs.

What? The guy in question is quite clearly Canadian. Class and drugs are not related at all-you see millions of working class people smoking and drinking, and you see millions of middle class people do it, I hear many people talk about how much they enjoy coffee, that's a drug, or do you disagree?

Do you admit that he proved your cannabis smoker profile wrong?

[StoppingTime]

It's disgusting! Where has British class gone from the working class? There is nothing to be proud of doing drugs.

Besides that this "class" is literally complete bullshit, you've decided to not argue his points because there's nothing to argue - he's right, and you're not. He's provided a counter to every single one of your "positions" and all you can say is "but class."

[britishboy]

Besides that this "class" is literally complete bullshit, you've decided to not argue his points because there's nothing to argue - he's right, and you're not. He's provided a counter to every single one of your "positions" and all you can say is "but class."
Happy now? I do not respect anybody that breaks the law and thinks it's cool to be a "pothead"
I an a cannabis smoker and...

-125 IQ, top grades on a demanding program
-Well...I was raised working class, on my own I'm middle class (yay economic mobility)
-45k CAD job, looking at a management promotion (70k+) and I'm not even out of university. 45 or 70k don't seem like a lot until you realize I'm a civil servant, so I get badass social perks and a pension fund that basically automatically makes me a millionaire. Time off is the true wealth and I've got a lot of them paid vacations and stuff.
-I contribute more than you to the economy because I actually have a job, I consume like a motherfucker and actually pay income tax. And munchies. The small diner next to my place survives almost singlehandedly because of me.
-I disrespect laws that are unjust like any decent human being. Gandhi was such a bad person for disrespecting the laws!
-Stoners are the chillest people around, including myself. Pothead subculture is almost completely focused on sharing, communality and peace. Are you sure you are going from personal experience and not Reefer Madness-fuelled propaganda?

The gateway drug theory is a sham, has been proven so. I smoke weed because I like weed - I fail to see how it makes me more likely to sniff coke or inject heroin. I don't like stimulants and I don't like opiates (they make me feel stupid, like booze). Even if rhe gateway drug theory was true, then it would be the easiest drug to obtain that woyld be the gateway and that's alcohol/nicotine. Health problems due to cannabis consumption are mostly genetic in nature (ie schizophrenia).

Legalise it already. Decriminalisation is a midway point that pleases nobody and the status quo is horrendously stupid.

The comments in bold I will disregard as they're just claims, how do you know your IQ?

I go on shopping trips nearly every weekend, I also contribute to the economy so don't try the age gap against me.

You're comparing yourself to gandhi because you smoke illegal substances? No criminal respects the laws he is breaking.

"Potheads" Maybe awesome I would not know. No I am not going on personal experience thanks! Potheads are not cool when they steal to fuel their addiction and are beaten up by dealers because they can not pay off their debt.

[Harry Smith]

I would not know.

This sums up the whole debate.

You claimed they don't contribute to the economy-they quite clearly do, if someone is one 40-70k they're going to be paying a good amount of tax on that-more than you spend with your VAT when you buy sweets.

You claimed their stupid-the fact that a 'pothead' can put forward a rather good argument that other's agree with shows that's not true.

You can't respect a law-it's not a person. Stop acting as if when you smoke mother government has some sort of crippling pain.

I've seen children steal money to buy sweets-those damn sugar addicts ruining our society. Lets ban it

[britishboy]

This sums up the whole debate

Are you saying you know a lot about "potheads"?

[StoppingTime]

Happy now? I do not respect anybody that breaks the law and thinks it's cool to be a "pothead"


The comments in bold I will disregard as they're just claims, how do you know your IQ?


....As if the other ones aren't "claims?" You can't prove anything mentioned, so to selectively call some "claims" seems rather strange, no?

I go on shopping trips nearly every weekend, I also contribute to the economy so don't try the age gap against me.

...With money you make? With the gas you buy to drive to your "shopping trips?" No? Oh.


You're comparing yourself to gandhi because you smoke illegal substances? No criminal respects the laws he is breaking.


He compared the fact that people break the law to smoke weed as a protest against ridiculous laws to Gandhi's protests. That's not really the point of this discussion, though.


"Potheads" Maybe awesome I would not know.


Then stop pretending like you do and either do unbiased research, or stop making replies that are simply your opinions.

[sqishy]

Should be legalised in my opinion, will make the situation better as purer forms can be present in the country (safer then bcause you know what's in it), and it's not as dangerous and unhealthy as tobacco is.

[Harry Smith]

Are you saying you know a lot about "potheads"?

I know a lot more than you do about them because I've actually talked to them, meet them and socialized with them. All you've got is some out of date crap from reefer madness

[britishboy]

....As if the other ones aren't "claims?" You can't prove anything mentioned, so to selectively call some "claims" seems rather strange, no?

They can't be proved correct either, if they are correct I am happy for him but it does not sound legit to me.


...With money you make? With the gas you buy to drive to your "shopping trips?" No? Oh.
You're 16, you study and spend your father's money just as much as me. I am contributing to the economy.

[StoppingTime]

You're 16, you study and spend your father's money just as much as me. I am contributing to the economy.

Yes? No? Sure? I just...I'm a bit unsure as to why this has anything to do with the debate as I never claimed otherwise, nor would I have any reason to as this debate isn't titled "Do you spend your own money"

[britishboy]

I know a lot more than you do about them because I've actually talked to them, meet them and socialized with them. All you've got is some out of date crap from reefer madness

You tell me public schools are better than private schools? Why on god's earth would you even talk to them?

Yes? No? Sure? I just...I'm a bit unsure as to why this has anything to do with the debate as I never claimed otherwise, nor would I have any reason to as this debate isn't titled "Do you spend your own money"

I have no interest in who funds your lifestyle. You attacked me saying I lived of my father pretty much so thought I would point out so do you. You are right however, this irrelevant.

What side of the fence do you sit on?

Do.not.double.post. -Cygnus David

[Jean Poutine]

If you proudly admit that I'm not going to bother debating with you.

I wouldn't have been able to disprove your "pothead profile" using myself as a test subject without disclosing the fact that I do enjoy a toke every now and then, would I?

I take no pride in the fact that I like me some boom trees. It is a relevant fact. "Pothead pride" derives from the fact that a) some people obtain pride from belonging to a community (I don't), the same way nationalism or cultural pride is birthed, and b) pride is more likely to arise if whichever community a person chooses to identify him/herself with is viewed as being threatened (I live in Canada, weed is basically de facto legal, even if not de jure).

Pride for belonging to a community I can understand, even if I don't share it. But pride for an action? Nobody can be proud of smoking weed. It's like being proud of eating spaghetti. So, no, I am not (and can't be) proud of smoking weed.

I eschew pride in things I don't influence. I choose to be prideful of what I have accomplished first-hand. I'm proud of my high level of education, my decently-paying, social advantages-filled job, the smart, beautiful, caring and downright awesome girlfriend I managed to bag (maybe by being smart, beautiful, caring and downright awesome myself), the fact that I am completely self-sufficient and don't need my mom to pay my rent, etc. I'm not proud of being a part of stoner culture, because it would be what it is with or without me belonging.

So no, I am also not proud of being a stoner, but neither am I proud of being Canadian, or white, or agnostic. I could be proud of being part of the counterculture, but I choose not to, not because it is negative, but because it is irrelevant to my eyes.

Feel free to debate with me now.

What? The guy in question is quite clearly Canadian. Class and drugs are not related at all-you see millions of working class people smoking and drinking, and you see millions of middle class people do it, I hear many people talk about how much they enjoy coffee, that's a drug, or do you disagree?

Canadians are well known for loving a good toke, eh.

To add on to the discussion :

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/13/canadian-kids-marijuana-unicef_n_3077296.html#slide=2326701
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_lifetime_cannabis_use_by_country

Sorry to disagree, eh. If we were all as britishboy paints us, Canada would be like, eh, some third world backwater. The same can be said aboot the United States, New Zealand and Denmark (to name a few, eh). Sorry for linking Wikipedia but, eh, sources on cannabis use are kind of few and far between.

Using cannabis, as you rightly point out, is, eh, aboot as terrible a vice as using caffeine. Not because pot is harmless, but because both caffeine and cannabis are not without their share of danger and have zero effect on an individual's objective worth, eh. True story : caffeine is more addictive than marijuana, eh.

Sorry for being so long-winded, eh, but I still hope you enjoy what I am writing.

It's disgusting! Where has British class gone from the working class? There is nothing to be proud of doing drugs.

Even if class had any bearing to the discussion at hand, I assume you brought "Britishness" in the discussion because I live in an old British colony (pretty hard to ignore the fact that I'm Canadian). You'd be wrong either way since I never had any "Britishness" to begin with. I'm overwhelmingly of French descent and I am of French-Canadian culture. Our people are kind of well known for not liking the Brits very much, you kicked our asses after all.

What's with your obsession with class anyway? Are you descended from landed aristocracy or something? In today's world, in countries that run well, class is meaningless because anybody can shift anywhere. Being born x does not mean a person is worth less because he/she wasn't born y. That's actually the fundamental thing about capitalism, isn't it? It's supposed to be a meritocratic economic system where people who fail, fail, and people who succeed, succeed, no matter their race, creed, or social status. I know you like capitalism, so I really can't understand your class fetish. That being said, I'm from a working class family. Deal with it.

Happy now? I do not respect anybody that breaks the law and thinks it's cool to be a "pothead"

Yes, because the only reason I choose to use cannabis is because of the oodles of coolness dripping from every spliff. It makes me feel so edgy and cool, like I actually stick it to the man and that makes me...So. Powerful.

#yolo #counterculture #BRINGIT #420pryde

The comments in bold I will disregard as they're just claims, how do you know your IQ? [1, 2, 3 in order]

I go on shopping trips nearly every weekend, I also contribute to the economy so don't try the age gap against me.[4]

You're comparing yourself to gandhi because you smoke illegal substances? No criminal respects the laws he is breaking.[5]

"Potheads" Maybe awesome I would not know. No I am not going on personal experience thanks! Potheads are not cool when they steal to fuel their addiction and are beaten up by dealers because they can not pay off their debt. [6]

I'm stealing Vlerchan's quoting procedure because I find it efficient. Thanks dude!

[1] that's easy, psychiatrists administer the test, which actually takes a few hours to complete. If I were basing my IQ score off some online test site I would just have said it's 180+ and left it at that. My medical records are off-limit, so basically you're going to have to semi-trust me on this one, but I think to regular posters who have been here a long time, I'm quite far away from being unintelligent and stupid. The fact that I am debating you intelligibly in your language (I speak French natively) ought to at least show I'm not mentally deficient.

Granted, for most of my anti-stoner profile, you're going to have to trust me, but I don't see why I would not be a trustworthy person at first glance. I'm almost 24, I semi-stick around because of nostalgia (I was 16 when I joined), and I really have no interest or incentive to lie to you to bolster my e-cred, and to give a chance to anonymous teens I don't know in real life to think I'm hot shit. If I want to titillate my ego, I call my mom and she tells me what a wonderful son I am (as do nearly all moms). Or do you distrust me just because I smoke trees?

[2] do you want a look at my income tax form along with my mother's? I mean I'm not gonna give it to you for obvious reasons, but they will clearly show a salary for me of 24k$ last year (I obviously work part-time while I study) and 11k$ for my mom. A single-parent mom managing to raise a kid with only 11k as a revenue every year, for 21 years (the age I left home), because she retired to raise me and lives on her pension funds...I'd say that's pretty much the definition of working class.

[3] that's actually pretty easy (and painless) to prove, since I am a public servant my salary is available online : http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/pa/pa08-eng.asp#toc288725027. I'm a CR-03 grade on the last step (I admit I rounded up). I'm due for CR-04, first step, later this year because I am awesome. The promotion would be PM-05, lowest step again, which is : http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/hrpubs/coll_agre/pa/pa08-eng.asp#toc288725031. My department has a managing draught and I have a law degree and I'm hooking myself up with an MBA. My bosses have said that if I stick with them, when I'm done studying, the promotion is nigh-on guaranteed. If you still don't believe me, there's actually a directory for federal Canadian public servants on the Internet and I'm in it, although you'd need my last name to find me which I'm not giving out on the net, again, the reasons should be obvious. If you feel so strongly about it to the point that not being able to prove without a reasonable doubt my employment status is a death sentence on my credibility I'll PM it to a mod and he'll verify it for us. So, do you want a look at my contract while you're at it along with transcripts of conversations I've had with my managers or are you good?

Oh ye people of little faith.

I hope you realize I've given you much more of an insight into my private life that you or anyone else on this forum deserves, just to stump you. I am spiteful like that. In the end though, I hope you learned that people can't be summarised for easy reference and that there is a vast majority of people that do use weed that do not fit into your narrow, hare-brained perception of things. That was the intention of the comparison with myself.

[4] either fuelled with daddy's money or a lower paying job than I, which means that in the first case, it's your dad stimulating the economy as its his own capital injecting money in the economy and he would have spent it with or without you, and in the second, I still stimulate the economy more than you, so I'm still right on both counts. I mean it isn't a diss, it's just the truth, I was dependent on my mom for my consumption too when I was your age.

[5] I compare myself to Gandhi not because I'm as good of a man as he is (I'm not), but because there is a difference between disrespect for a law just because it keeps you from doing objectively reprehensible things that you do anyway and disrespect for a law that is fundamentally wrong. There is nothing objectively reprehensible about using cannabis, and actually, for using any drug in a safe, responsible manner that ensures you cause harm to no one, perhaps not even yourself. It is fundamentally wrong to ban it because how a person chooses to safely entertain himself, when it causes harm to nobody but himself, is his/her business alone, certainly not the state's. By all means, do outlaw driving under the influence, for example, because there's a real risk of harm to somebody else, and keep allowing employers to fire people showing up under the influence, because that can be a risk to their business, but not possession and sale. I want to have bud and I want to smoke it at home watching The Inbetweeners, so I conclude a bilateral business contract with a supplier so I can get bud, which I then proceed to consume in the peace, quiet and safety of my place, not lowering my productivity as a worker, nor lowering my worth as a citizen. How is that wrong?

Judo is dangerous for myself too, I broke my clavicle three times, my ankle and one of my toes once during practice. I can even harm others while practicing it, and heck, I even get high (from the endorphins). Yet it isn't illegal because everybody understands the risks, as should anybody using any substance from caffeine to heroin.

As for "criminals don't respect the laws they break", you might be surprised to learn that I am technically not a criminal, since possession of marijuana is decriminalised in Canada for amounts up to an ounce. While decriminalisation usually means a fine (like traffic violations, which are also not crimes), they go even farther in Canada because cops simply cannot be bothered with an activity they rightly view as harmless and just either confiscate your buddha (as the stereotype goes, to smoke it themselves afterwards) or even just let you actually walk away with it, telling you not to be so obvious about it next time. Either way, I fail to see how laws should be respected because they are laws. That's incredibly narrow. According to you, we should respect a law that calls for the slaughter of every children after the first-born because it's a law. It's what they actually do and the reasons why they are enacted that are important. Study legal philosophy for more than a second and you will come to the same conclusion.

[6] you're hilarious. I have never heard of anybody contracting a debt to a dealer from cannabis use, if only because dealers know full well they might never get paid as the person has no physiological need to come back to the same dealer, buy some more and pay up the debt while he's at it. Weed on credit (I admit it is sometimes possible) is done out of friendship or at the very least consumer loyalty and reliability which entails that this is not a recurrent matter, not to bank on somebody's addiction (people truly addicted to weed are as common as people truly addicted to video games, meaning not common at all). That arises from addiction, and actually is only understandable if the substance causes physical addiction (hint : cannabis doesn't). Did you know it's as easy to stop smoking weed as it is to eat chocolate? It's only any hard if you're psychologically addicted to it, but not only is that a person's own fault for trying to hide from their problems with a substance, literally anything in the world can cause psychological addiction, so I suppose everything should be banned. Besides, people contract debt for a whole lot more pleasurable stuff like traveling, material goods, video games, even sport, all things that can cause psychological addiction, and I hear collectors from perfectly legal payday loan businesses are pretty damn mean. The ability to contract debt has no bearing on the inherent morality of an action, and actions shouldn't be made illegal om that basis, else our entire consumer-based economy would be illegal.

As for stealing from others to buy weed, I obviously don't condone it, but then again, people steal stuff from other people all the time and for a variety of different reasons, so I suppose everything that might cause a person to want to steal from another to obtain it should be banned.

You are saying that a correlation implies causation, so you believe that because pot (the cause) might cause somebody to do x (the effect) it should be banned, simply because there might be a correlation between stealing and pot use (well, according to your acquired stereotypes), which in your eyes, automatically means pot must be the cause. Following your reasoning, anything that causes somebody to do x should be illegal. Truth of the matter is, that's fallacious reasoning, as I've pointed out above. In the end, we are all responsible for our own actions, and a reprehensible action should be dealt with by punishing the person that did it, which is not the vast majority of potheads, not outlawing the reason that particular person did it, which the vast majority of other thieves do not share.

You tell me public schools are better than private schools? Why on god's earth would you even talk to them?

One can't really argue that public schools are better than private schools, as that's mostly wrong. There are exceptions in my country, but I didn't attend one of them. I went to a below-average public school because my mom couldn't afford private school, and I like to think I'm not dumb. That being said, if what you learned about legal philosophy, weed and the class system comes from a private school education, you are horrendously misinformed and should perhaps transfer to a better private school. I actually kind of envy you for having the chance to go at all, since I have wanted to and I did have the potential, just not the $$$. I would have been more challenged in a private high school than I did in the public system to be sure, and maybe that could have had some positive effect on my personality.

Why would one talk to stoners? Well, why, maybe because they are people, and most of them are sensible, wonderful, amazingly creative, introspective and quite intelligent. Do you know what I do when I get high with friends? We debate law for hours on end, and I assure you we're not just spewing drivel, although there might be a few more "far out!" and "whoa!" and "you just blew my mind!" types of sentences than usual. A lot of the basis from a collective rights theory paper I wrote this semester actually came from stoned conversation, including a very interesting theory about why Native rights protected under s. 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot be considered collective rights although a fair bit of legal theoreticians think so.

I mention this not to toot my own horn, but to show you that potheads are a far cry away from depraved individuals that live their lives solely in the hopes of getting their next fix. The objective effects of marijuana on a person's psyche actually include a deeper capacity for creative, non-linear thinking and philosophical thought. We're not crack addicts, man, we're people who like to smoke a certain plant that happens to have certain psychoactive properties that some people enjoy. We're people, just like you or any of your posh friends or any of the other people who don't smoke, we are each singular individuals and it is impossible for you or anyone else to paint us with so large a brush that you are willing to dismiss us completely because we hit the bong once in a while. What you've said actually made me lose quite a bit of respect for you, and I'd be curious as to your reaction if you learned that one of your friends tokes on the down low. Would that be a friendship breaker?

I hope your time wasn't wasted debating with an unintelligent, unmotivated, lazy pot smoker.

PS : I think you will appreciate the fact that because of my field, which is traditionally the domain of upperclassmen, I do know a lot of upper class people. I also know a lot of them smoke weed. One of my good buddies is such a one and also a regular toking partner. He is also an active militant for the legalisation of marijuana, which I am not (I'm just a conscientious objector), so of all people I think he could be considered to have pride in his stoner status.

[DerBear]

Personally I'm against the legalization of marijuana because I wouldn't feel safe. It sounds silly I know but I wouldn't feel safe with it legalized.

[The3rdArmy]

To your question, I ask this: Should cigarette smoking be illegal?

If you think about, marijuana is actually better than smoking!

Marijuana - psychotic effects, heals some illnesses, weird smell, no secondhand smoke

Cigarettes - lung cancer, consume tar inside it, very bad smell, secondhand smoke

[BuryYourFlame]

You sound like the working class wannabe gangster with the 'go after real crimes' it is illegal. That makes it a real crime and justifies the enforcement.

Look at the people that smoke it.
Elitist, strawman, bullshit. What the hell does class have to do with it? As others have demonstrated people from every class smoke it.
You have not yet in the thread posed any reason against it being legal that is not a straw man or just plain incorrect.

Unintelligent
Working class
Living off of the state (unemployed)
No contribute to the economy
Disrespect for the law
Lacks social skills (violent and rude)

Health problems and can be a stepping stone onto more harmful substances.

The police should be tough because people are disrespecting the law, they do not fear enforcement or the consequences and often seems easy for children from a rough background to get hold of it and involved in crime.
And even if this was the case for every single bloody stoner you have no right to say what they, as an adult, are and are not allowed to do with their body that does not harm other people (which marijuana use does not).
There are zero 'health problems' associated with marijuana smoking. The only thing that can sometimes happen is for it to trigger already present genetic information for schizophrenia etc.
More elitist idiocy and stereotypes. It's easy for children from any background to get hold of it. As Jean Poutine also said, if the law has no justification why should they follow it? I assure you, marijuana being illegal has no justification at all.

Cigarettes yes alcohol no. However currently cigarettes would be politically bad.

Firstly because gays was illegal is not a reason for everything you want to be legal, to be legal. Sorry about that.
Why should alcohol be legal? It does actual physical harm to the person. Oh, it will create a large underground trade like in the prohibition? It will be ruled by gangsters and thugs making money because it's illegal? What do you think is happening with marijuana?
He wasn't saying it should be, he was giving an example of a law that was later repealed because you stated that because something is law that means police should stamp it out, irrelevant of whether it is justified or not.

It could be possible with weed but to be honest? Is it worth the political energy so people cab get high?

Over 18s yes.

I disagree, the media make it look like everybody gets drunk but the truth is people drink everyday at restaurants and wine bars without problems.

I do not think we should disregard public health in favor of money.
Yes, it is. People want to do it, there is already vast momentum in the idea. In addition it would save a load of money from getting rid of useless police activity, safer product (lot laced with crushed glass) so less hospitalisation and death and the tax income as well.
Well apparently you don't know what bodily autonomy means.
Yes, people drink every day at restaurants and have wine at bars without problem and people smoke pot every day without incident too. If the fact that some people do it without problem is the reason for it being legal, there we go, pot should be legal.
There is no disregard for public health, there is only an implementation of the true meaning of bodily autonomy through the repealing of an unjustified law.

True... bleach then? Or syndite? You get the point I'm trying to make.
You do not understand bodily autonomy. Bodily autonomy says people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies while it doesn't harm other people. If you hypothetically would support a law that stops people from drinking bleach then you cannot also say that you support bodily autonomy.

It's disgusting! Where has British class gone from the working class? There is nothing to be proud of doing drugs.
I cannot believe you, oh my god. Lets go back to the good old days of british class when the blacks knew their place and women were actually in the kitchen. Your idea of 'british class' is a romanticised piece of whitewashed shit and never actually existed.
He never said he was proud of doing drugs.

"Potheads" Maybe awesome I would not know. No I am not going on personal experience thanks! Potheads are not cool when they steal to fuel their addiction and are beaten up by dealers because they can not pay off their debt.
Then what the hell are you going off then? Conservapedia? Bill O'Reilly?
Addiction...right...you might have me there...fuck their bodily autonomy, mommy government knows what's best, they don't have the right to do what they want with their bodies. Except well...
You cannot get addicted to pot, it is physically impossible. You can get psychologically addicted to pot like you can to chocolate and video games, this does not form a reason for it to be illegal.
Still no actual reason for it to be illegal in all this talking that you've done.

You tell me public schools are better than private schools? Why on god's earth would you even talk to them?
Why not? Most of the time you can't even tell who does and who doesn't. Where did private and public schools come in to it?

[Jean Poutine]

To your question, I ask this: Should cigarette smoking be illegal?

If you think about, marijuana is actually better than smoking!

Marijuana - psychotic effects, heals some illnesses, weird smell, no secondhand smoke

Cigarettes - lung cancer, consume tar inside it, very bad smell, secondhand smoke

Just to clarify a few things :

-most ways of using cannabis actually get tar and other undesirables into your lungs. Vaping and edibles are exceptions.
-you mean psychoactive effects. Psychosis is when you lose contact with reality and go crazy.
-there is secondhand smoke from smoking cannabis.

[Harry Smith]

You tell me public schools are better than private schools? Why on god's earth would you even talk to them?

I assume here you're trying to make out that no-one who goes to a Public school in britain (private as they're called in the US) smokes pot and that it's only refined to the scummy poor state ran schools. I mean it's clear that there's no correlation between smoking cannabis and the background someones born into.

I mean look at these high profile figures

Tony Blair-Attended Fettes, most prestigious school in Scotland-smoked weed.
David Cameron-Attended Eton, also smoked pot.
Stephen Fry-Attended Uppington school, also smoked pot.

You've came here and claimed that pot is only smoked by those who are working class and stupid,you've quite clearly done no research on the issue and it's clear that the stereotype you dreamed up about weed smokers is simply wrong

[Vlerchan]

I assume here you're trying to make out that no-one who goes to a Public school in britain (private as they're called in the US) smokes pot and that it's only refined to the scummy poor state ran schools.
Anecdotelly again, I actually know a guy out of a private school who not only smokes but also deals. So, there goes the whole 'dealers can't go to schools like mine!' line, too.

Personally I'm against the legalization of marijuana because I wouldn't feel safe. It sounds silly I know but I wouldn't feel safe with it legalized.
Whilst I realise it is only my opinion, stoned people are probably some of the least most scary people going. Unlike drunk people, who can get quite scary.

If any drug should be banned its alcohol: whilst weed induces passivity, alcohol induces aggression. And aggression is dangerous.

[Etcetera]

I think it should be legal, simply because it can be used for medical purposes. I do think that they should put restrictions on it, just like they would any other medicine. I don't think it's something that needs to be legalized for people to just grow and have.

[Sir Suomi]

I feel it should be treated along the same lines of alcohol, where users over the age of 21 should be able to purchase a certain amount of marijuana in a given time. By no means am I encouraging it, but if people want to put that in their body, that's up to them. However, before legalization, I'd like a comprehensive study done about the effects of marijuana, and have this released before legalization.

[Elvalight]

Illegal.

[Vlerchan]

Illegal.
On what grounds?

[Sarah1996]

Should be decriminalized. I smoke weed
But legalizing just leads to growers getting permission from the government to add chemicals. Just like cigarettes.

[Gamma Male]

Illegal.
Why?
Should be decriminalized. I smoke weed
But legalizing just leads to growers getting permission from the government to add chemicals. Just like cigarettes.
This makes no sense. Why would legalizing weed make dealers lace it with other drugs?


It should be legalized, with little to no restrictions. It has astounding medical capabilities and unlike alcohol, causes no aggression or violent behavior. It's less addictive than caffeine, andI know plenty of smart, successful, intelligent people who smoke weed. Carl Sagan is the first person to come to mind, and he was a cosmologist.

[Vlerchan]

It should be legalized, with little to no restrictions.
Define 'little to no restrictions': what restrictions might you deem acceptable?

[Gamma Male]

Define 'little to no restrictions': what restrictions might you deem acceptable?

Hhhmmm... I guess just some FDA restrictions on the manufacture and sell so it doesn't get laced with anything, tax it, driving restrictions, and if you want to use it before 18 you have to have a valid medical reason and prescription. I've never really seen the point of limiting the purchase amount to one ounce.

[AlexanderTheGreat]

I think there should be regulation so we know it's safe weed. My friend has had some bad experiences with weed that wasn't weed. Also by regulating weed it will create a higher income for the government which could benefit us (society) in many ways.

[Elvalight]

Why?

This makes no sense. Why would legalizing weed make dealers lace it with other drugs?


It should be legalized, with little to no restrictions. It has astounding medical capabilities and unlike alcohol, causes no aggression or violent behavior. It's less addictive than caffeine, andI know plenty of smart, successful, intelligent people who smoke weed. Carl Sagan is the first person to come to mind, and he was a cosmologist.

You should look up some of the damage it causes, specifically to the brain.

[Vlerchan]

Hhhmmm... I guess just some FDA restrictions on the manufacture and sell so it doesn't get laced with anything, tax it, driving restrictions, and if you want to use it before 18 you have to have a valid medical reason and prescription.

I agree with all those restrictions, and can't think to add anything myself.

[AlexanderTheGreat]

I feel it should be treated along the same lines of alcohol, where users over the age of 21 should be able to purchase a certain amount of marijuana in a given time. By no means am I encouraging it, but if people want to put that in their body, that's up to them. However, before legalization, I'd like a comprehensive study done about the effects of marijuana, and have this released before legalization.

There have been many studies and they all have different results.
Some say it's deadly
Some say it's healthy
Some say it's better than cigarettes
Some say it causes schizophrenia
Some say it's cures cancer
AND SO ON!! There are millions of studies on weed - you just don't know at the moment.

[Elvalight]

On what grounds?

It can cause damage to memory, irritation to lungs and it is addictive.

There have been many studies and they all have different results.
Some say it's deadly
Some say it's healthy
Some say it's better than cigarettes
Some say it causes schizophrenia
Some say it's cures cancer
AND SO ON!! There are millions of studies on weed - you just don't know at the moment.

good point. I'm just gonna stay safe on this and go with harmful.

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Gamma Male]

You should look up some of the damage it causes, specifically to the brain.

At the moment the medical community is very divided on the issue. Some doctors say it's an amazing miracle drug with astounding medical capabilities and the potential to cure cancer and save lives, others say it's a horrible mind melting narcotic that causes schizophrenia and makes people eat their babies. :lol:

I prefer to instead simply look at the people who smoke weed.
Carl Sagan
Bill Hicks
Like 70% of all the good musicians since the 50's
Several of the founding fathers.
Countless other scientists and inventors throughoyt history.



Besides, even if marijuana did cause brain damage, you would still have no right to stop people from using it. It's their body.

1It can cause damage to memory,2 irritation to lungs and3 it is addictive.

1This is largely disputed.

2Actually, some studies show that a joint every now and then may be good for you because THC has cancer fighting properties.

3No, it isn't.

-please do not double post. -Emerald Dream

[Elvalight]

1This is largely disputed.

2Actually, some studies show that a joint every now and then may be good for you because THC has cancer fighting properties.

3No, it isn't.

well, until it is known for sure that there are no dangers of using it, I'd still say it should stay illegal.

[Capto]

well, until it is known for sure that there are no dangers of using it, I'd still say it should stay illegal.

Its purported dangers are hardly a matter of concern given the proven effects of tobacco.

[Vlerchan]

well, until it is known for sure that there are no dangers of using it, I'd still say it should stay illegal.

By this reasoning every substance on the planet should be illegal for both possession and consumption. I'm not being hyperbolic.

Though I must ask: what business of yours is it if someone wants to damage their own bodies through reckless consumption?

[Lovelife090994]

By this reasoning every substance on the planet should be illegal for both possession and consumption. I'm not being hyperbolic.

Though I must ask: what business of yours is it if someone wants to damage their own bodies through reckless consumption?

Why would any sane person wish to be reckless to himself or herself? When someone does something that is killing them then either an addiction or mental issue may be present. Also marijuana is not something you'd want a child smoking. It has risks it should be regulated at least on age.

[Capto]

Why would any sane person wish to be reckless to himself or herself?

Because, in the short term, it's enjoyable.

[PinkFloyd]

I think it should be the same type of restriction that Alcohol has in the US.

[AlexanderTheGreat]

Also did you know that within the first two months of legal marijuana sales in Colorado, property crimes decreased by 14%, and homicide rates were down by 67%.

[Gamma Male]

Why would any sane person wish to be reckless to himself or herself? When someone does something that is killing them then either an addiction or mental issue may be present. Also marijuana is not something you'd want a child smoking. It has risks it should be regulated at least on age.

Should a minor be able to smoke marijuana for recreational purposes? Of course not. But medical marijuana should be made able available to minors with a prescription.

Also did you know that within the first two months of legal marijuana sales in Colorado, property crimes decreased by 14%, and homicide rates were down by 67%.

This seems difficult to believe. Do you have some sort of statistic to back it up?

-please do not double post. Use the "Edit" or "Multi-quote" button instead. -Emerald Dream

[tovaris]

I think it should be the same type of restriction that Alcohol has.

alcohol is way underestricted...

[PinkFloyd]

alcohol is way underestricted...

I should have included the same restrictions as the US. You know, 21+, no driving with it, no driving while on it..

[tovaris]

I should have included the same restrictions as the US. You know, 21+, no driving with it, no driving while on it..

yes drive 0.0 alc, same goes for tobaco and pot
but 21+is an idiotic limit

[phuckphace]

yes drive 0.0 alc, same goes for tobaco and pot
but 21+is an idiotic limit

not in the US it isn't. American teenagers/young "adults" of our generation are the most irresponsible bunch on the planet, with an uncanny inability to properly assess risk. we were a far different society in the 70s, 60s and before, so a drinking age of 18 could work then. it wouldn't now.

[proshots]

It should be legal but should have the same regulations as smoking fags

[Lovelife090994]

Thanks for your opinions.

[Camazotz]

not in the US it isn't. American teenagers/young "adults" of our generation are the most irresponsible bunch on the planet, with an uncanny inability to properly assess risk. we were a far different society in the 70s, 60s and before, so a drinking age of 18 could work then. it wouldn't now.

I agree that the drinking age should remain at 21, but that stereotype is not statistically true. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-complaints-about-modern-teens-that-are-statistically-bs/) It's funny that you mention the 60's and 70's as though teenagers were "better" then, even though they were considered the worst bunch in history with all of their recreational drug use.

Still, the temptation to drink and drive far outweighs any argument for an 18 year-old drinking limit. Once we get self-driving cars though, I'd consider bumping down the drinking age.

[Lovelife090994]

I agree that the drinking age should remain at 21, but that stereotype is not statistically true. (http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-complaints-about-modern-teens-that-are-statistically-bs/) It's funny that you mention the 60's and 70's as though teenagers were "better" then, even though they were considered the worst bunch in history with all of their recreational drug use.

Still, the temptation to drink and drive far outweighs any argument for an 18 year-old drinking limit. Once we get self-driving cars though, I'd consider bumping down the drinking age.

Very good point. Teens then and now have and will drink, and teens then and now have and will drive.

[Faolan]

I live in a state where pot is legal in private, but I still see people smoking joints almost every day. I'm fine with adults doing it, but there should be more regulations on it in order to keep it out of the hands of kids and teenagers. Their brains are still developing, and it's really not good for them.

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

Some regulation.
-All users of marijuana must be over 21 unless it is prescribed by a doctor.
-It shall be illegal to drive and smoke marijuana.
-Marijuana may not be obtained or possessed in ridiculous amounts.
-Users of marijuana should not smoke in public, unless one is at an event where such activity is allowed.
-Marijuana MAY NOT be sold "on the streets", unless given a permit by the city.

[Gamma Male]

Some regulation.
-All users of marijuana must be over 21 unless it is prescribed by a doctor.
-It shall be illegal to drive and smoke marijuana.
-Marijuana may not be obtained or possessed in ridiculous amounts.
-Users of marijuana should not smoke in public, unless one is at an event where such activity is allowed.
-Marijuana MAY NOT be sold "on the streets", unless given a permit by the city.

-18 seems a more reasonable age.
-lol, what are the "don't smoke and drive" billboards gonna say? SPEED UP!
-Why?
-It is virtually impossible to get high off of secondhand smoke
-Why should permits be required?

[TheN3rdyOutcast]

-18 seems a more reasonable age.
-lol, what are the "don't smoke and drive" billboards gonna say? SPEED UP!
-Why?
-It is virtually impossible to get high off of secondhand smoke
-Why should permits be required?

-I figured that if you can get drunk at 21, you can get high at 21.
-Driving slow on the highways and streets can be a real nuisance and can cause road rage.
-Just to make sure that people aren't selling it, one of the benefits of legalizing marijuana is that the government can tax it and lower the national debt. In addition, does anyone really need a trunk full of pot?
-Yes, but being high in public can cause uncivilized behaviour.
-Refer to number three. In addition, selling pot off the streets makes it easier to get into the hands of children and adolescents. (there were 3rd graders smoking pot, in my county).

It's not perfect, please don't yell at me.

[Gamma Male]

-I figured that if you can get drunk at 21, you can get high at 21.
-Driving slow on the highways and streets can be a real nuisance and can cause road rage.
-Just to make sure that people aren't selling it, one of the benefits of legalizing marijuana is that the government can tax it and lower the national debt. In addition, does anyone really need a trunk full of pot?
-Yes, but being high in public can cause uncivilized behaviour.
-Refer to number three. In addition, selling pot off the streets makes it easier to get into the hands of children and adolescents. (there were 3rd graders smoking pot, in my county).

It's not perfect, please don't yell at me.

Those all actually sound like very good reasons. Well done.

[phuckphace]

21 and over is a good limit. I like it.

[Gamma Male]

21 and over is a good limit. I like it.

What do you propose should happen to people who use it before 21?

[phuckphace]

What do you propose should happen to people who use it before 21?

confiscate the dank and fine them

[Gamma Male]

confiscate the dank and fine them

Why not 18?

[AbigailBM98]

should be 100% illegal and laws enforced against users. it is a harmful drug and is illegal for a reson

[Harry Smith]

should be 100% illegal and laws enforced against users. it is a harmful drug and is illegal for a reson

Why is Alcohol not illegal then?

[phuckphace]

Why not 18?

few extra years make a big difference re: brain development. waiting until you're well into adulthood before using cannabis is best.

[Miserabilia]

should be 100% illegal and laws enforced against users. it is a harmful drug and is illegal for a reson

And alchohol??

[Gamma Male]

should be 100% illegal and laws enforced against users. it is a harmful drug and is illegal for a reson

My body, my decision. You have no right to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to smoke pot when I turn 18 when there are people using dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco all the time.

[tovaris]

should be 100% illegal and laws enforced against users. it is a harmful drug and is illegal for a reson

how about alcohol it is clasified as a hard drug and it is legal, while pot isnt a hard drug...
How about tobaco... Cofein...

few extra years make a big difference re: brain development. waiting until you're well into adulthood before using cannabis is best.

so than why not raise all drugs to 21?
Or 25 that is when your prefrontalcortex stops developing conpletly...

[Lovelife090994]

should be 100% illegal and laws enforced against users. it is a harmful drug and is illegal for a reson

Why is Alcohol not illegal then?

few extra years make a big difference re: brain development. waiting until you're well into adulthood before using cannabis is best.

And alchohol??

My body, my decision. You have no right to tell me I shouldn't be allowed to smoke pot when I turn 18 when there are people using dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco all the time.

how about alcohol it is clasified as a hard drug and it is legal, while pot isnt a hard drug...
How about tobaco... Cofein...



so than why not raise all drugs to 21?
Or 25 that is when your prefrontalcortex stops developing conpletly...

Okay, which one of you actually smokes and which one of you live around it or have asthma? And which one of you have heard of Prohibition? Making alcohol illegal didn't work at all. Some people get violent with and without alcohol. Let's be honest, you don't give drugs to kids. For a reason, that it is dangerous and kills you. Marijuana can be dangerous and I don't care how high your head is, you need to know that all drugs have consequences. There is a reason why the drinking age is high in America, and in some cases the age to buy alcohol even higher. In America we are not exposed to alcohol like other countries and there has to be a reason.

[Gamma Male]

Okay, which one of you actually smokes and which one of you live around it or have asthma? And which one of you have heard of Prohibition? Making alcohol illegal didn't work at all. Some people get violent with and without alcohol. Let's be honest, you don't give drugs to kids. For a reason, that it is dangerous and kills you. Marijuana can be dangerous and I don't care how high your head is, you need to know that all drugs have consequences. There is a reason why the drinking age is high in America, and in some cases the age to buy alcohol even higher. In America we are not exposed to alcohol like other countries and there has to be a reason.

You're right. Making alcohol illegal didn't work at all. It encouraged crime and cost tax payers millions.


But the exact same thing is true for the war on drugs.

[Vlerchan]

Marijuana can be dangerous.
It can be dangerous in conjunction with other things - i.e., driving - but the dangers of using cannabis in a safe setting - eg: ones own home - are non-existent.

[phuckphace]

so than why not raise all drugs to 21?
Or 25 that is when your prefrontalcortex stops developing conpletly...

I'm in favor of legalizing a very few lower-risk recreational substances (namely: cannabis, LSD, psilocybin and mescaline) all based on a minimum age of 21 along with alcohol.

so yes, I'd raise all recreational drugs to 21.

[Apassionato]

Well, I'm utilitarian, though I don't align myself with every idea found in traditional Utilitarianism, so I support the legalization of drugs under the condition that you have to use them in a safe environment in which you do no harm to others. I believe every act resulting from drug use that harms others should be heavily persecuted(drunk driving, smoking around children etc.), but the drugs themselves I believe should be legal. Let's face it, people are going to find the drugs they want - better deliver them in a safe, controlled environment than have them take potentially harmful drugs they got through shady means. There's a lot of money to be made for governments and I believe drugs should be the most heavily taxed consumer good around.

For some drugs, like weed, we don't even have much research suggesting heavy risks - the opposite, rather. We know for a fact that both Alcohol and Cigarettes are far, far more harmful, yet we sell them openly. It would be hypocritical to allow one but not the other. And even if weed was more dangerous, I believe it should be one's own decision rather than the government's decision. If somebody wants to do permanent harm to their own body for a short-term high - let them. If an adult is fully aware of the consequences of his actions, he should be free to act so long as he doesn't infringe on others.

If somebody wants to take drugs - let them. But also let them be fully responsible for both the short-term and long-term consequences. You get cancer from smoking? You don't deserve sympathy or health care money. You killed somebody in a drunk driving accident? Your irresponsible actions cost somebody else's life and you have to stand for it. The same should be true for the drugs that are currently illegal. Legalize them, but heavily tax them and control the consequences.

[tovaris]

I'm in favor of legalizing a very few lower-risk recreational substances (namely: cannabis, LSD, psilocybin and mescaline) all based on a minimum age of 21 along with alcohol.

so yes, I'd raise all recreational drugs to 21.

but people can vote at 18... and LSD realy isnt lower-risk, nor is alcohol, both are hard drugs

[Microcosm]

I'm thinking...

-Age Limits
-Moderately regulated

We should control it a bit, but leave it as a decision to be made by the person rather than the government(as long as they meet the moderate requirements).

[Luisss]

I use to smoke marijuana... I quit because if I continued it was going to kill me. It took me 9 months to get off my problem but it's worth it. It's highly addictive and toxic so I guess it should be illegal or heavily regulated.

[Vlerchan]

It's highly addictive.
It is simply not.

I'm willing to bet it was the tobacco smoked alongside of the cannibas you were addicted to, and not the cannibas itself.

[bobbi]

I believe it should be legal but only be used as a medical drug to help patients.

[xXoblivionXx]

I think eventually it's going to be like cigarets and tabacco, I'm against smoking because of the bad impacts on one's health

[Gamma Male]

Legal, at least its drunks killin ppl with cars and not us stoners. We pay attention so much we think every car on the road is a cop.

Yeah, but unless you wanna put up anti smoking and driving billboards that say
SPEED UP

smoking while high should still be illegal.:lol: I don't wanna get stuck in no traffic.

[dirtyboxer55]

it should be sold legally to people 18 and above but there should be a marijuana tax

[Kurgg]

People should not IMO get fucked. However, people want to get themselves fucked so it is important that the do as safely as possible. That's why I support legalization of cannabis, but only if cannabis is taxed heaviy and sold by government, like we do here with alcohol. Then, I would ban the import of cannabis and alcohol from the other countries and ban the production of these substances by private persons.

but people can vote at 18... and LSD realy isnt lower-risk, nor is alcohol, both are hard drugs

Voting and using drugs are two completely different thing. Besides, LSD is relatively safe drug compared to alcohol. Biggest risk in the use of LSD is the trip. One could jump out of window while thinking he can fly. However, the trip can be very dangerous of weak-minded people.



But you just said that people should not get themselves fucked?!


Yes, I did. However, the psychedels are exception. IMO they must be legalized for spiritual use only. I mean, our ancestors ate fly agarics in order to get a spiritual experience or was it Samis? I don't remember. However, hallusinogenics must be used in supervision of a shaman or similar.

[Magg]

it's legal here, and i'm ok with that.

[Giando]

I speak for Italy.
I am not a smoker, but I think (at least in Italy) Marijuana must be heavily regulated
We can talking about a profit of several millions, moreover, the Mob would suffer a lot economically speaking

[darkangel91]

Marijuana is not addictive for most people, however some people are especially susceptible. Also it has been proven to be toxic for people under twenty-five or so, harming the brain, but it has little effect on adults. I would legalize it for anybody about twenty-four or older, with no other restrictions.

[Human]

It should be legal, arguably tobacco and alcohol is more harmful yet easier to access, why would be need to heavily regulate marijuana when it's so much safer? It doesn't make sense to me.

[Danny Phantom]

It should be legal, arguably tobacco and alcohol is more harmful yet easier to access, why would be need to heavily regulate marijuana when it's so much safer? It doesn't make sense to me.

I agree. Tobacco and alcohol are easier to access because they are produced and made by corporations, who have heavy influence in government. Marijuana is more independently grown, so no corporation benefits from it. That's my hypothesis.

[lumiadots]

i think it should be legal and moderately regulated. i mean, when you think about it, alcohol and tobacco are so much more fucking harmful and yet both of them are legal? i don't understand why there is such a push to illegalize marijuana when it's so much safer. just slap down some age limits and precautions aimed towards driving.

I agree. Tobacco and alcohol are easier to access because they are produced and made by corporations, who have heavy influence in government. Marijuana is more independently grown, so no corporation benefits from it. That's my hypothesis.

also this.^ so true.