A Move to Legalize Pot

[neighbor]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/30/ ... index.html

I'm not sure what to think of this one. I understand the arguments, but I have mixed thoughts.

There's always the argument that marijuana is a "medical" remedy for chronic pain, so it should be legal. Well, cocaine is an excellent pain killer. Do we legalize it? Where do we draw the line, and for what reasons.

Then there's the argument that marijuana is no more dangerous than alcohol. I'm not sure about that, but do agree that anyone driving under the influence of ether is dangerous and needs to be busted.

One thing mentioned in the article... "marijuana laws also unfairly target African-Americans"... is a ridiculous observation.

I guess one way to look at it, is go ahead and legalize it. Make it a legal product, put illegal producers and sellers out of business, create a new industry in the U.S., let corporations make a profit, , tax them, stimulate the stock market with those corporation's stocks. Heck, maybe even create a profitable export business to other countries! Win Win!

Oh, wait, it might be possible that all of this activity will increase the cost of the product enough so that 40 year losers that still live at home with Mom can't afford their doobies anymore. Oh, and then someone will complain that the high cost of pot is unfair to minority groups and illegal immigrants.

Hmmm... I say legalize it and let it die a quiet death...

[josh]

I sorta agree with the arguments for making it legal...but not really. I know that doesnt make sense. Everyone keeps telling me that it is just as harmful as alcohol. But it seems odd to me that people are trying to legalize something that they admit is bad for them...on the grounds that since something else is bad for you and it is legal, then this "bad" thing should be legal too. Doesnt that sound a little wierd to you?

Also - isnt this a real slippery slope? Why stop at mary jane? Why not include other "less harmful" drugs too?

What about the costs associated with making it legal - the social and medical costs? Why dont I ever see those factored in.

Ultimately, I say no to making it legal. But there is something to say about the inefectiveness of current anti drug laws.

[esemerson]

yes legalize it please. I would like to offer my house guests something other than a beverage.

[jlbates]

I say legalize it, put the same driving restrictions in place as we have for alcohol. I am not for legalizing chemically-produced drugs, however. Perhaps when I have more free time from work I shall elaborate.

PS: Yes, I'm from CA so maybe that's where my liberal view comes from.

[love Lantana]

the minute you legalize it that means they will screaming for rights, meaning at some point I am going to have to breathe it or walk through it.

[Pipeline]

the minute you legalize it that means they will screaming for rights, meaning at some point I am going to have to breathe it or walk through it.

I have the same objections with some perfumes. I have never had an issue with "ode' de marlboro"

[jlbates]

Pipeline, originally I thought your screen name was related to local drilling... this thread has made me wonder if perhaps the "pipe" is referring to something else.

[josh]

Pretty sure perfume has not been linked to cancer though. Just sayin.

[Lantana07]

I think the government has named life as a carcinogen.

[love Lantana]

the minute you legalize it that means they will screaming for rights, meaning at some point I am going to have to breathe it or walk through it.

I have never had an issue with "ode' de marlboro"

maybe YOU haven't

[Brian]

I think it should be legalized, duuuuude.

Clear out the prisons for people that really deserve it. Or at least make it a class c misdemeanor that just carries a fine.

Does anyone know what they said the tax revenue would be just from legalizing it?

Where is Al's thoughts in all this? Not that I already know his stance, I just really enjoy reading his over the top, ultra conservative opinions!

[Common Sense Al]

Where is Al's thoughts in all this? Not that I already know his stance, I just really enjoy reading his over the top, ultra conservative opinions!

Well, my "over-the-top, ultra conservative opinion" on this is that I haven't really done enough research to form an opinion. There are more important issues I think about.

[josh]

I stated my conservative opinion/non-opinion earlier. I just find it strange that people want to legalize something that they admit is bad for you. And their only (primary) argument is that since beer is legal...pot should be too. That sounds like something a 5 year old would say...."But dad...Johny gets to do it. Why cant I??"

I'm in favor of not making it a prison offense for say the first 3 convictions of small amounts. But instead put a massive fine on the conviction. I guess on the big scheme of things I dont really care unless I have to take a position...in which case I would be against it.

This is about as wishy washy of a stance as you are likely to ever hear from me.

[Freya]

Pretty sure perfume has not been linked to cancer though. Just sayin.

I think you're thinking of cigarettes. Cannabis smoke is not linked to causing cancer. It is a common misperception though.

And people who actually do the research and not just squawk about the harm it does will find out that not one death has been caused by smoking "reefer." While I agree that it is not advisable to drive under the "influence," THC simply not toxic enough to kill.

And why is alcohol and cigarettes even legal in the first place? It is because they are multi-billion dollar corporations that this government makes quite a pretty penny in taxing these items. I just find it humorous that we legalize drugs that make the government money and outlaw a blatantly much less dangerous "drug."

This is simply making criminals of people who are not. What do you care if little Johnny sits at home on his parents basement couch, tokes up, downs a bag of doritos, then goes to school the next day. That is extremely hypocritical of people to try to regulate peoples lives if they are not hurting anyone else, or violating any other laws. Some people are smart and some people are not. Let people make their own decisions, good or bad, and hope they learn from their experiences and become better people for it.

[josh]

Pretty sure perfume has not been linked to cancer though. Just sayin.

I think you're thinking of cigarettes. Cannabis smoke is not linked to causing cancer. It is a common misperception though.

And people who actually do the research and not just squawk about the harm it does will find out that not one death has been caused by smoking "reefer." While I agree that it is not advisable to drive under the "influence," THC simply not toxic enough to kill.

And why is alcohol and cigarettes even legal in the first place? It is because they are multi-billion dollar corporations that this government makes quite a pretty penny in taxing these items. I just find it humorous that we legalize drugs that make the government money and outlaw a blatantly much less dangerous "drug."

This is simply making criminals of people who are not. What do you care if little Johnny sits at home on his parents basement couch, tokes up, downs a bag of doritos, then goes to school the next day. That is extremely hypocritical of people to try to regulate peoples lives if they are not hurting anyone else, or violating any other laws. Some people are smart and some people are not. Let people make their own decisions, good or bad, and hope they learn from their experiences and become better people for it.

1." Not one death has been caused by smoking reefer" This report would say otherwise: http://www.drugwatch.org/CEDARS/MarDeaths2002e.pdf
And it only took a VERY brief Google search to find. But I think that misses the point I made and others made. If you look at the number of deaths caused by an overdose of alcohol you would say that it is meaningless…but if you look at the number of deaths resulting from being under the influence of alcohol you would say we have a problem. Hopefully you are not stating that marijuana does not affect a person’s reflexes or ability to operate a car (you aren’t saying that…right?). I think we all know…some better than others…that it does impair your senses. It takes no leap of faith to realize that legalizing marijuana would certainly lead to more traffic fatalities.

2. “Cannabis smoke is not linked to causing cancer”. Not so fast. Long term health issues take long term studies. And there just has not been the type of long term, focused study on cannabis smoke as there has been for cigarettes. There was a Johns Hopkins study that says there is not a link to cancer…BUT then states that it is likely due to that fact that marijuana smokers don’t smoke as much as cigarette smokers do…not that there aren’t significant cancer causing chemicals in the smoke. And the fact that marijuana smokers typically inhale deeper and longer causes tar to build up faster on the lungs. So lets just say the jury is still out and not hold it up as some harmless alternative.

3. Why is alcohol and cigarettes legal? Good question. But it brings no support to the question of why should marijuana be legal. If “A” is bad for you and is legal, then “B” which is bad for you should be legal? That’s not sound logic for supporting a position, no matter the topic.

4. And finally: if your only test of legality is whether or not some action is “hurting anyone else” then you must certainly be in favor of a whole host of socially irresponsible behaviors. Why should there be a law that kids have to go to school? Who do they hurt but themselves? What about any hard core drug use? Why stop at marijuana? Why don’t you just legalize everything? What should I care if someone is doing crack next door as long as they only kill themselves? What about prostitution? What do I care if someone wants to sell themselves for money? The answer is that society DOES care because we pay a societal price in both real dollars and lost opportunities.