View Poll Results: Would you legalize Marijuana in the United States?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hell yeah!

    27 67.50%
  • Hell no!

    13 32.50%
Page 13 of 29 FirstFirst ... 39101112131415161723 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 285

Thread: Drugs are bad, mkay?

  1. #121
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_Dragon View Post
    I want to preface my response, by saying I'm not trying to be or sound rude. If I come off as such, I apologize.
    It's cool, man. =P I don't mind. Sometimes a bit of colorful language can spice up a debate.

    Yeah, the government does implement a lot of laws in an attempt to help sway improper driving, but this doesn't mean they actually enforce it...
    I hope you know that it's impossible to enforce every law, all the time. I mean, the government can try, but part of being a government lies in understanding the difference between being cautious and being invasive. I'm sure the government, had they wanted to, could send riot troops into every home and set up roadblocks on every road, checkpoints and speed readers and cameras on every interstate. But that would be a little overbearing, wouldn't it? Not only that, but imagine the resources that would cost. That's why America maintains a comfortable level of law enforcement. Maybe not enough, but it gets the job done. Hell, our jails are overflowing as it is.

    Anyway, when law enforcement gets too tight, people like to bitch about how "the man is putting them down". How many stoners whine about stoners going to jail, despite the fact that it's expressly illegal? Every time laws get enforced, the government is apparently on a "powertrip", amirite.

    Do you see how many cops break the laws they are supposed to enforce?
    Yes, and it's disappointing. But, like I said, we can't always account for that. It's impossible to always have an eye on every cop.

    Or how many tickets are actually given out for tailgating.
    TBH, given how bad people are at driving these days, I wouldn't be able to tell between a tailgater and your average driver. /shrug Sorry.

    Also, no. You can't blame anything bad that comes on the stupidity of people. Most cases, probably, but there are circumstances that are out of people's hands.
    I admit that this was an exaggeration on my part. But still, //MOST//. Either way, bad luck is bad luck. Nothing can control that.

    That's why congress wants to propose limiting the definition of forced rape.
    Please cite this.

    That's also why many states won't give two consenting adults the right to marry, even if it's harming NO ONE.
    Whoa, whoa, whoa. At this point, it almost sounds like you're insinuating that the government is a standalone organization. Don't forget that America is a representative democracy. The reason gay marriage isn't legalized in many states is not because the homophobic hivemind that is the government doesn't want it. It's because there are an equally large number of average citizens, like you and me, who don't approve of gays getting married. They are the ones tipping the scales, turning ballots, signing anti-gay petitions and downplaying the issue. Don't say it as if the government is just 4 or 5 guys sitting around a table cursing gays. What we're challenging with the whole gay marriage issue is not the government: it's Americans and their conservative values. Personally, I love the idea of gay marriage. /shrug

    That's why many in the government want to de-regulate and take funds away from the EPA (which is already not getting enough money.)
    Yes, to push funds towards other things like, I don't know, resuscitating our dying economy. I hope you understand that the act of "cleaning up the environment" would take up huge amounts of resources, commitment and time. Hell, letting the Earth cleanse itself is projected, scientifically, to take hundreds of years. But, in the state that America's economy is going, we won't make it another //four// years before we're all on welfare.

    If a person really cares about the people's health they'd stop wasting time debating the legality of marijuana (which is not even in the same league as something like heroine, meth, X, LSD, or cocaine)...
    Which is why those have already been deemed illegal.../nod

    ...and start really regulating and lowering the amount of emissions from our cars, pollutants from factories, and chemicals sprayed on the food we eat...
    Compared to the number of drug-related crimes and consequent deaths a year, I don't think the number of deaths caused by angry trees and bad air stack up. Sarcasm aside, the government needs to prioritize. It can only have so much money in circulation at once (printing any more would inflate the dollar further) and it has to decide what to do with that money. Besides, I grew up in this generation of bad air and bad food and I maintain beyond average health, simply because I have the responsibility to take care of my personal being. But TBH, I believe the government should have no say over what we eat--harmful or not. That would be extremely invasive. Besides, it takes a lifetime of eating harmful food to kill you (over which time, if you hadn't learned your lesson, then you had it coming). It only takes one instance of holding Marijuana to end up in jail, and 10oz of alcohol to get you into a DUI-induced accident, or one cigarette to hook you for life. /shrug The difference in circumstance is evident. And it's not like the government doesn't try to help us eat healthy, what with FDA testing, required-by-law Nutritional Content labels and lists of active ingredients, mandatory disclaimers, etc, etc.

    But I hope you realize that reducing emissions is easier said than done--by far. Reinventing the catalytic converter, turning people (and companies) over to green energy and getting people to buy hybrids is an extremely lofty and //expensive// ideal. Americans nor their government have that kind of money or resources right now. Esp. in this economic recession, nobody is going to shell out 10k for a new hybrid. It's not even like they make those things affordable.

    And government has been trying to limit pollutants for ages now, ever since the first FDR administration. They've been taxing the hell out of corporations, putting them through intense inspection regiments and consequently fining them for every time they exceed their waste quota. They can only do so much. Besides, American economy works on a supply-and-demand basis. Factories will produce products (and the resulting waste) for as long as Americans want them. Whatchugonnado.

    On the topic of food: chemicals and fertilizers are added to our foods in order to make them cheaper to produce and, consequently, cheaper to buy. I appreciate that, personally. And, like I said, you can still maintain a healthy lifestyle regardless. Have you ever tried to buy organic food? The reason there is hardly a market for it is because it's simply //not affordable//. I'm not paying 3 dollars for a potato just because it has real dirt on it. I'm sure if said chemicals had noticeable long-term effects, the FDA would put a disclaimer on them. But I don't walk down the aisle in a supermarket and see signs stating "These eggs are dangerous - love, the FDA".

    If anything, what you really have to worry about is how said food is //prepared//.



    ----

    ALSO, Pajamajam: I'm gonna quote you something I just wrote to B_D in response to your anecdote. I hope it answers your question.

    "...TBH, I believe the government should have no say over what we eat--harmful or not. That would be extremely invasive. Besides, it takes a lifetime of eating harmful food to kill you (over which time, if you hadn't learned your lesson, then you had it coming). It only takes one instance of holding Marijuana to end up in jail, and 10oz of alcohol to get you into a DUI-induced accident, or one cigarette to hook you for life. /shrug The difference in circumstance is evident. And it's not like the government doesn't try to help us eat healthy, what with FDA testing, required-by-law Nutritional Content labels and lists of active ingredients, mandatory disclaimers, etc, etc..."
    Last edited by CypressDahlia; 02-08-2011 at 07:38 PM.

  2. #122
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Part 2...lawl.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blue_dragon
    Are you still talking about pot? Cause...doesn't happen very often, if at all.
    No, I wasn't talking about pot, just drugs in general. There haven't actually been any known cases of people ODing on pot.

    Yes with alcohol and nicotine, there are harmful side effects, but hey: I don't drink and drive, why should it be taken away from me? I'm responsible.
    "Cause people do illegal crap all the time, even when it's regulated. They can do illegal crap their whole life, and get away with it." That's why.

    You should go with a better argument, cause this is actually something that happens in nature that's good for the forest...
    I think you missed the point. Unless you can find me an example of an instance where firefighters let a wildfire burn out without any attempt to intervene...

    Your logic is basically: if you don't need it, it shouldn't be legal.
    Whoa, I said that? When did I say that? We're talking about legalizing something that 1.) is deemed a psychoactive drug, 2.) is already deemed illegal, 3.) is a major source of crime, 4.) negatively impacts society, and 5.) has already been known to impair peoples' ability to function. And we're all willing to ignore all this just so a couple college kids can get high at their own leisure? The only //redeeming// thing about weed are its medicinal purposes. So is "candy" really an appropriate comparison? C'mon, man. Despite having no redeeming properties, there sure as hell aren't any gang wars over candy.

    You're treading a fine line...
    No offense, dude, but that whole paragraph was entirely nonsense. Marijuana is a very specific example of the "why not" issue. I'm simply not willing to ignore all of the societal impacts of Marijuana just because people think they're entitled to get high. Just because you think you deserve to do it isn't reason enough to legalize it, especially at the potential expense of everyone else. I think I'm responsible enough to carry around lethal weapons without a license, but would I legalize that? Hell--fucking--no.

    But you're leaving an important thing out: the government is constructed of people. More often than not selfish people. Powerful selfish people.
    Powerful, selfish people that we elected. Whatchugonnado.

    It's like, the way you're stating it (maybe not meaning it) is the government is infallible and needs to tell everyone what to do because they don't know what to do or how to do it.
    Not quite. The government is far from infallible, but they exist to orchestrate the system--to make sure it works. That involves some degree of regulation. "Telling people what to do" is an integral part of the government.

    My point is, just because the government regulates something and makes a law of it, doesn't mean it's right and just.
    All the examples you gave were unfounded, bigoted and archaic artifacts of puritan America. They had no backing to them, therefore I agree that they were unjust. But the Marijuana debate actually has some data backing it, so it's not really a fair comparison.

    Please tell me you're a little more into personal freedom than that.
    Lol, what the hell. I don't want to give my personal freedom away. I just don't have such an over-inflated sense of self-entitlement that I think I //deserve// to get high, at the potential risk of sending the rest of the country down a spiraling path of self-destructive substance abuse. Because. We're. Clearly. On. One. Already.

    Surely, marijuana itself doesn't harm anyone on a //chemical// level. But will it harm our society and infrastructure? Yes.

  3. #123
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    In a capitalist country, the state have no control or power to gave safety to the population (look USA).
    In a not-capitalist country, the state have to gave safety to the population.

    I agree with cyp in the matter that the state have to be the responsable of the safety of the people, but never to forbid people do something they want that can't and don't harm others.

    With this said, for my in the debate of legalization of weed. It should be legal, but the state has to have the control over it and the consumers, to prevent the harm of others and to know "what's going on".

  4. #124
    Princess of Default Victories pajamajam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NE KS
    Posts
    1,093
    You can't be serious, Cyp. Yes, an adult with diabetes, whether they contracted it through poor nutritional choices or not, knows the consequences of poor nutrition. Just like someone who smokes marijuana or skateboards or drinks or smokes or drives a car knows the potential consequences of their actions. So someone who is doing considerable harm to their body is fine so long as it's not with an illegal substance, but legalizing a substance that would do little to no harm to a person physically would be wrong?

  5. #125
    Wow, thats a whole lotta text there, Cyp. You will have to forgive me for not addressing every point, but I'll just quote a few things you said regarding marijuana.

    We're talking about legalizing something that 1.) is deemed a psychoactive drug, 2.) is already deemed illegal, 3.) is a major source of crime, 4.) negatively impacts society, and 5.) has already been known to impair peoples' ability to function.
    1) The reaserch into the long term effects of marijuana use are dubious at best. The only thing that can be agreed on is that it effects your short term memory and may cause you paranoia
    2) That is the whole point in question. If something is undeservedly illegal, the fact that it is currently illegal is no argument against it. Also, the reason why marijuana is illegal in the US and UK (as well as other places I'm sure) has nothing at all to do with public safety.
    3) Due to it being illegal, see point 2.
    4) Due to it being illegal, see point 3.
    5) Repeat point 1.

    "Telling people what to do" is an integral part of the government.
    That is so wrong, but I'll address that when I talk about smokes and drink. Remind me I said that, incase I forget.

    I just don't have such an over-inflated sense of self-entitlement that I think I //deserve// to get high,
    No one is saying you deserve to get high, they say you should have the choice to get high if you feel so. At no point have you addressed why this is a negative thing.

    Surely, marijuana itself doesn't harm anyone on a //chemical// level. But will it harm our society and infrastructure? Yes.
    Oh, yes. Slippery slope fallacies give me the horn! You have no basis whatsoever to make this statement other than 'The whole country will be full of dopeheads!' The only evidence we can look too to establish weather legalising marijuana in any society would harm it or its infastructure, would be to examine a current society that has legalised marijuana. Otherwise we're just assuming without evidence, right? So, c'mon kids, world geography quiz time: What is the only country on Earth that has legalised marijuana? Whats its infastructure like? Whats it's soceity like? How many 'fuck-ups' are wrecking the joint?

    If something has been shown to be harmless on every level, other than a few dubious reports of causing paranoia, then it should not be up to you, the government or even Santa Clause to say they can or can't do it.

    But I see your main gripe is with booze and cigarettes, but I'll address those points later.

  6. #126
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by pajamajam View Post
    You can't be serious, Cyp. Yes, an adult with diabetes, whether they contracted it through poor nutritional choices or not, knows the consequences of poor nutrition. Just like someone who smokes marijuana or skateboards or drinks or smokes or drives a car knows the potential consequences of their actions.
    Yes, we've established that. The question is whether or not a higher power should allow the consequences to carry out. I'm sorry, but I'm just not down for letting people die, unless they deserve it (criminals, thieves, rapists). The government already goes as far as they can in terms of educating people about eating healthy, without being invasive.

    So someone who is doing considerable harm to their body is fine so long as it's not with an illegal substance, but legalizing a substance that would do little to no harm to a person physically would be wrong?
    Actually, I was talking about cigarettes and alcohol, which are already legal under moderation. I already acknowledged that marijuana doesn't harm the body, for the most part, so that's not my reason for it to remain illegal. My reason is the harm it can do to society abroad. And, as I said, food is something you ingest for a lifetime before it has a considerable negative effect on your body--ya know, enough time to LEARN to eat better, either through guidance or counseling. Marijuana, cigarettes and alcohol are three things that can fuck you over in the blink of an eye. Aside from that, food is not inherently bad, nor does it have a negative societal effect (unlike Marijuana, which is the basis for a lot of crime). It's just the individual's fault for not managing their diet properly, or counterbalancing overeating with extra exercise or whatever. And honestly, unless you want to claim that food has the same effects as either nicotine or alcohol, then let's just drop this argument.

    But seriously, you're comparing //food// to //marijuana//? Last I remember, food is an essential part of living, marijuana isn't. Last I remembered, food has no principle dependency other than the need for sustenance, marijuana does (according to Delphinus). Last I remember, no societal problems (unless you consider "fat mentality" a social issue) arose from food, unlike marijuana. Oh, when's the last time someone got arrested for possession of food? Or got a DUI for driving under the influence of food?

    This comparison is a huge stretch.

  7. #127
    Fenn
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    Lol, that was a joke, right. Because the fact that hundreds of thousands of people die a year due to the abuse of drugs is NOT already a great measure of how ir/responsible Americans are with drugs? Funny.
    Thanks for the blanket generalization. You just grouped those hundreds of thousands together with millions and millions who have either chosen not to smoke/drink or have done so responsibly without killing themselves or hurting others. What makes that hundred thousand a better indicator of American responsibility?

    And that stat had better be suicides only. Like I said, I am perfectly fine with laws protecting people from the decisions of others.

    Not to mention, if those people don't have the capacity to prevent their own death by drugs, what makes you think they have self-control at all? You think that by taking away their weed and beer they will all suddenly have an overwhelming sense of guilt and become saints? They could just as easily submit to more dangerous activities such as theft which affect not only themselves but others. They've already proved themselves incapable of controlling their urges; taking away one temptation will not prevent them from pursuing others.

    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    I said that? I said I would give up my privilege to smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol if it would save 140,000 Americans a year. And I didn't realize saving peoples' lives was less important than my GOD GIVEN RIGHT to get smashed. Sorry for my lack of priorities and values. /lol
    See above. Those 140,000 Americans have not gained any sense of self-control by loss of access to tobacco and alcoholic substances.

    Quote Originally Posted by CypressDahlia View Post
    So if I gave you an option to give up your right to drink and smoke, knowing that it would save thousands of people a year, you wouldn't do it? Your hyper-inflated sense of self-entitlement terrifies me. Brrrrr~ Besides, I'm sure smokers and drinkers also know what's best for them, which is to //not smoke// and //not drink//. That's not even an ethical issue; it's hard chemistry. There's really no point in debating that. Unless you have a grudge against your liver and brain or something.
    First, if I thought illegalizing those things would guarantee all those lives were saved, I would. But as I explained twice about, it is those people's choice, and their free will, to take their own life. I doubt this law of yours would save even a fraction of that. I do fully support efficient and effective measures such as ad campaigns which discourage abuse of alcohol as well as groups designed to help those already addicted that want to break free.

    I think alchohol is useless and stupid. But no one has the right to control my decisions about what I put in my body, that is affecting me and only me, nor do they have the right to control anyone elses.

    I'm going to create an extreme hypothetical. what if the majority of Americans truly are foolish, incapable idiots who would kill themselves with alcohol or drugs rather than abstain? Who, then, are you "saving" by banning these substances. You are saving a bunch of beings with no control over their primitive urges. If you offer them every chance to quit, bring them to clinics and everything, and still they choose drugs, what is the point of forcing them against their will?

    That is a "what if." I am confident that Americans as a whole are responsible enough not to let drugs and alcohol take over--and then take out--their lives. Legalize these drugs, let people make their own choices, and if everyone ignores the warnings and ruins themselves, we will know we were only delaying the inevitable. I am very confident that this will not happen, and I will continue to avoid all drugs and alcohol while allowing others the freedom to choose for themselves, hoping people realize there are far safer and more fulfilling ways to enjoy life.

  8. #128
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    Marijuana only provoke psychological addiction, the same kind that food does.

    I think there are minimal chances that a stoned guy might drive (because he is stoned and can't), and is hard for him to harm others (different than alcohol and tabacco that are legal), also with the legalization laws are going to come.

    There are minimal damage provoked by weed (even less than jonk food).

    Fenn@ You have one life, nothing more, and you are not going to live all the experiense of that life? specially if that experiense doesn't harm you or others?

  9. #129
    Super Senior Member CypressDahlia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Harvester_Of_Sorrow View Post
    1) The reaserch into the long term effects of marijuana use are dubious at best. The only thing that can be agreed on is that it effects your short term memory and may cause you paranoia
    This is true. I never said anything about the long-term effects of weed. I just stated how it works in the body. Also to make the point that psychoactives are some of the most highly prioritized in terms of legislative prohibition.

    2) That is the whole point in question. If something is undeservedly illegal, the fact that it is currently illegal is no argument against it. Also, the reason why marijuana is illegal in the US and UK (as well as other places I'm sure) has nothing at all to do with public safety.
    5) Repeat point 1.
    I think you missed the point of this list. I was comparing marijuana to candy, in response to B_D's post. Lol. And actually, marijuana has a lot to do with public safety. A lot of jobs screen for THC frequently, to make sure you're in a fine condition to perform at work. Likewise, THC also constitutes a DUI if you're driving. I honestly don't think they'd do that unless it impaired your ability to function. Why waste the resources?

    3) Due to it being illegal, see point 2.
    You do realize that drug cartels are illegal--period, right? Even if weed was legalized, it would have to be licensed and FDA approved (considering it is a drug, by definition), therefore private sellers/growers would still get tossed in the slammer. Not to mention kids are smoking weed as early as middle school, so chances are underage smokers will still be tossed in juvie. Beyond that, what's going to stop the gangs? A lot of people sell weed for the easy money, not because they want to smoke it themselves. What's gonna stop them? You seem to think it's as simple as "making weed legal". It's not an on-and-off switch.

    4) Due to it being illegal, see point 3.
    No, due to the corruption of values. Breaking the law to grow, sell and buy weed, distributing it to young kids. Not to mention that weed is the staple of drug cartels, fueling gang violence on the West Coast. I'm sorry, but you can't blame that on weed being illegal. You blame it on our lack of values as a society.

    No one is saying you deserve to get high, they say you should have the choice to get high if you feel so. At no point have you addressed why this is a negative thing.
    They are saying they deserve the right to get high, if they want. And it's a bad thing because there is large amounts of evidence suggesting that America is irresponsible with drugs. Yet, we want to legalize another one just because we feel like we should be able to get high, despite "feeling good" being a less-than-substantial reason for legalizing anything. Unless, of course, you want to give me a //real// reason why weed should be legalized, aside from its medicinal purposes (which I've already acknowledged). The best argument I've heard is "why not? It don't hurt no one" for the most part.

    Oh, yes. Slippery slope fallacies give me the horn!
    It's not really a fallacy considering America has a great history of abusing drugs. =) We even had to make COUGH MEDICATION prescription-only in D.C. because kids used it to get high.

    You have no basis whatsoever to make this statement other than 'The whole country will be full of dopeheads!'
    Oh, yeah, let's just ignore the past 60 or so years of increasingly bad drug abuse among Americans.

    So, c'mon kids, world geography quiz time: What is the only country on Earth that has legalised marijuana?
    The Netherlands has an extremely tight grip on weed distribution. You can only get it at licensed coffee shops, at age 18. No advertisements are allowed. The best you're gonna get is 5 grams, and smoking it in public is still deemed illegal. The coffee shops themselves can't even purchase, only grow and sell. Weed there is BARELY legal, dude. But America is already in a worst state than the Netherlands ever was, in terms of crime rates and drug abuse. Hell, even in the Netherlands, only 5.4% of the population smokes their //legal// weed on a regular basis. Over here, double that percentage of people (10.3%) smoke //ILLEGALLY//.

  10. #130
    Palindrome Member ClockHand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,789
    There would be less crime if the distribution and consume of marijuana were controled by the state (as netherland does) and not some dealers.

    The amount of people who smoke weed is not equal to the amount of crime. But the a mayor no-control of drugs does equal more crimes.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •