should marijuana be legal?

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You would think that a country in which the citizens are allowed to own guns that there would be no pot laws or no living police so there's something wrong with the promise of the second amendment or something wrong with the people's notion of freedom. I think there will be pot laws as long as people either don't believe or hypocritically, don't practice what they preach.

It's not hypocritical. It's a well established fact the 2nd amendment was specifically included because of the need to defend our persons and homes from pot smokers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KB

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And after MJ, what next?

Crystal Meth of course!!!


MJ is about the only drug that doesn't create a chemical dependence anymore so than alcohol.
Thats why only MJ should be legalized. Its like smoking and alcohol combined. If those two are legal with restrictions, why can't MJ? No I do not smoke. I just want the tax revenue from the sale of MJ so they stop raising other taxes.

Uh... actually alcohol creates a significantly greater chemical dependency that cannabis.

 

[FoBoT]

http://www.pics.bbzzdd.com/bet...onWoode/apple_weed.jpg

 

[mikelish]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=lvzX8aNwxgM

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: loki8481
yes, with the same restrictions as alcohol.

Really? You think blue laws a good thing? Why shouldn't I be able to buy beer on a Sunday to take home, but can go to a bar to drink? Are we trying to encourage drunk driving?

blue laws vary from location to location.

I was thinking more along the lines of 21+, illegal to drive while high, illegal to smoke up in the middle of the street, etc.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Everyone voting no hasn't smoked it.

QFT.

I'll bet everyone voting no would be really disappointed if they ever smoked it. They'd be amazed when they actually got up to go to work the next day with no lingering effects.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Everyone voting no hasn't smoked it.

QFT.

I'll bet everyone voting no would be really disappointed if they ever smoked it. They'd be amazed when they actually got up to go to work the next day with no lingering effects.

I've never smoked it or anything else in my life but I still voted yes. Must be my New England elitist liberal opinions showing up. No, wait....it's my hippie, free-love Austin attitude that the rest of Texas abhors.

Personally I just think that it is my conservative fiscal beliefs that make me realize:

Legalized MJ = (new tax source) - (money spent on enforcement, prosecution, detainment) - (my tax burden since I don't toke)

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And after MJ, what next?

Men marrying their cars, of course.

Oh, sorry, wrong right-wing slippery slope.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And after MJ, what next?

Men marrying their cars, of course.

Oh, sorry, wrong right-wing slippery slope.

Way wrong. You can't smoke your car.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You would think that a country in which the citizens are allowed to own guns that there would be no pot laws or no living police so there's something wrong with the promise of the second amendment or something wrong with the people's notion of freedom. I think there will be pot laws as long as people either don't believe or hypocritically, don't practice what they preach.

It's not hypocritical. It's a well established fact the 2nd amendment was specifically included because of the need to defend our persons and homes from pot smokers.

I don't smoke pot and I can't see myself becoming a pot smoker if it were legal, but I have real questions as to the true constitutionality of laws that take away my right to pursue happiness in my own way as long as I harm nobody else's rights. If a man comes to lock me up for personal habits do I not have a right to stop him including taking his life if he is bent on ruining mine? Do the people not have a right to defend themselves against arrests over this issue? Would advocating such a position be advocating revolution? I am curious from the perspective that it's an interesting issue. Are we bound to obey unjust laws?

Isn't the war on drugs a war against the people? Isn't a declaration of war an imminent threat?

 

[audi111688]

i got this from about.com


An analysis of research studies with long-term, recreational users of marijuana has failed to reveal a substantial, systematic effect on the neurocognitive functioning of users. According to researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, the only deleterious side effect found was a minimal malfunction in the domains of learning and forgetting.

The studies included 704 long-term cannabis users and 484 non-users.

"Surprisingly, we saw very little evidence of deleterious effects. The only exception was a very small effect in learning new information,"

Grant added that the minimal side effects seen "raised the question of practical significance. If we barely find this tiny effect in long-term heavy users of cannabis, then we are unlikely to see deleterious side effects in individuals who receive cannabis for a short time in a medical setting."


and this from NORML.org


Enforcing marijuana prohibition costs taxpayers an estimated $10 billion annually and results in the arrest of more than 829,000 individuals per year -- far more than the total number of arrestees for all violent crimes combined, including murder, rape, robbery and aggravated assault.

Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent, 738,915 Americans were charged with possession only. The remaining 90,710 individuals were charged with "sale/manufacture," a category that includes all cultivation offenses, even those where the marijuana was being grown for personal or medical use. In past years, roughly 30 percent of those arrested were age 19 or younger.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And after MJ, what next?

Men marrying their cars, of course.

Oh, sorry, wrong right-wing slippery slope.

Way wrong. You can't smoke your car.

But you can 'smoke a tailpipe'. Just don't expect to get married if you do.

Oh, and while you can't smoke your car, your can can smoke you, and it can be a smoking car, in multiple ways.

And you can marry your car if you give it a girl's name, and you're a guy, or vice-versa.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Capitalizt
Everyone voting no hasn't smoked it.

I guess then not many people here don't smoke it...

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You would think that a country in which the citizens are allowed to own guns that there would be no pot laws or no living police so there's something wrong with the promise of the second amendment or something wrong with the people's notion of freedom. I think there will be pot laws as long as people either don't believe or hypocritically, don't practice what they preach.

It's not hypocritical. It's a well established fact the 2nd amendment was specifically included because of the need to defend our persons and homes from pot smokers.

I don't smoke pot and I can't see myself becoming a pot smoker if it were legal, but I have real questions as to the true constitutionality of laws that take away my right to pursue happiness in my own way as long as I harm nobody else's rights. If a man comes to lock me up for personal habits do I not have a right to stop him including taking his life if he is bent on ruining mine? Do the people not have a right to defend themselves against arrests over this issue? Would advocating such a position be advocating revolution? I am curious from the perspective that it's an interesting issue. Are we bound to obey unjust laws?

Isn't the war on drugs a war against the people? Isn't a declaration of war an imminent threat?

Come on. Everyone knows that if they make pot legal that most people will start smoking crack and injecting heroin.

And doctors are going to be smoking pot right before they operate on you (the ones that aren't yet crackheads because pot is legal of course)

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Darwin333

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You would think that a country in which the citizens are allowed to own guns that there would be no pot laws or no living police so there's something wrong with the promise of the second amendment or something wrong with the people's notion of freedom. I think there will be pot laws as long as people either don't believe or hypocritically, don't practice what they preach.

It's not hypocritical. It's a well established fact the 2nd amendment was specifically included because of the need to defend our persons and homes from pot smokers.

I don't smoke pot and I can't see myself becoming a pot smoker if it were legal, but I have real questions as to the true constitutionality of laws that take away my right to pursue happiness in my own way as long as I harm nobody else's rights. If a man comes to lock me up for personal habits do I not have a right to stop him including taking his life if he is bent on ruining mine? Do the people not have a right to defend themselves against arrests over this issue? Would advocating such a position be advocating revolution? I am curious from the perspective that it's an interesting issue. Are we bound to obey unjust laws?

Isn't the war on drugs a war against the people? Isn't a declaration of war an imminent threat?

Come on. Everyone knows that if they make pot legal that most people will start smoking crack and injecting heroin.

And doctors are going to be smoking pot right before they operate on you (the ones that aren't yet crackheads because pot is legal of course)

Cool, cut down on the doctors who operate drunk.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: mikelish
http://youtube.com/watch?v=lvzX8aNwxgM

Looks like he's all coked up.

Edit: 11 oz's every 25 days? Wow. :Q

 

[Modelworks]

Yes
But then I'm for the legalization of all drugs.
I don't think its governments place to tell people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes, provided what they are doing isn't intruding on someone elses rights.

To me, the current method of drug control is like the government telling its people "You don't know whats best for you, so we are going to decide for you."


That said, I do not personally use any illegal drugs.

I forget the guys name, but the person that was in charge in the early 1900's of banning the drugs that are illegal made the comment before his death in the 60's that it was the worst decision he ever made and that he wished he could take it back, becuase of all the problems it caused, rather than solved.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

I forget the guys name, but the person that was in charge in the early 1900's of banning the drugs that are illegal made the comment before his death in the 60's that it was the worst decision he ever made and that he wished he could take it back, becuase of all the problems it caused, rather than solved.

Yeah, but only b/c he was high at the time

 

[Nitemare]

alcohol is legal... so...

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Nitemare
alcohol is legal... so...

Indeed, but just to be a dick; Alcohol is technically a poison.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And after MJ, what next?

Typical.

It didn't take long for the typical slippery slope idiocy to find a home in this thread. The same reason why there shouldn't be legal unions between two men, right? :roll:

 

[glugglug]

I think there should be a 2nd question:

Should tobacco be criminalized?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
And after MJ, what next?

Typical.

It didn't take long for the typical slippery slope idiocy to find a home in this thread. The same reason why there shouldn't be legal unions between two men, right? :roll:

Oh totally! We don't want a bunch of un-traditional people marrying 4 year olds or goat cheese, do we? /sarcasm

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
You would think that a country in which the citizens are allowed to own guns that there would be no pot laws or no living police so there's something wrong with the promise of the second amendment or something wrong with the people's notion of freedom. I think there will be pot laws as long as people either don't believe or hypocritically, don't practice what they preach.

It's not hypocritical. It's a well established fact the 2nd amendment was specifically included because of the need to defend our persons and homes from pot smokers.

I don't smoke pot and I can't see myself becoming a pot smoker if it were legal, but I have real questions as to the true constitutionality of laws that take away my right to pursue happiness in my own way as long as I harm nobody else's rights. If a man comes to lock me up for personal habits do I not have a right to stop him including taking his life if he is bent on ruining mine? Do the people not have a right to defend themselves against arrests over this issue? Would advocating such a position be advocating revolution? I am curious from the perspective that it's an interesting issue. Are we bound to obey unjust laws?

Isn't the war on drugs a war against the people? Isn't a declaration of war an imminent threat?

Careful Moonie, sometimes you sound almost libertarian.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
Yes
But then I'm for the legalization of all drugs.
I don't think its governments place to tell people what they can and cannot do in the privacy of their own homes, provided what they are doing isn't intruding on someone elses rights.

To me, the current method of drug control is like the government telling its people "You don't know whats best for you, so we are going to decide for you."


That said, I do not personally use any illegal drugs.

I forget the guys name, but the person that was in charge in the early 1900's of banning the drugs that are illegal made the comment before his death in the 60's that it was the worst decision he ever made and that he wished he could take it back, becuase of all the problems it caused, rather than solved.

I agree with you 100%. No drugs should be prohibited to adults.