4 ms·

One reason is that people (like me) don't want to further legitimize something they want society to discourage. I am strongly against drug use, and believe it s

One reason is that people (like me) don't want to further legitimize something they want society to discourage. I am strongly against drug use, and believe it sends the wrong message to impressionable kids to make it (more) legal.

limedaring 16y ago
No reason to downvote things you disagree with, folks. Thanks for sharing your contrary opinion, davidmurphy. :) Can you explain why you're against drug use, specifically marijuana (not the harder drugs)? And are you against alcohol as well? EDIT: lol, I write the post and he goes from -1 to 4. Ah well. :)
philk 16y ago
I'm not a fan of drugs either[1]. I've never smoked or taken an illegal drug, and I drink comparatively rarely. The thing is, prohibiting things just makes them seem cooler. For example, 80% of new smokers start before the age of eighteen. Few people would sign up to an expensive habit that smells foul and gives you cancer if not for the lure of the forbidden. [1] Although to be fair, I'm even less of a fan of governments telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.
nostromo 16y ago
Isn't that what parents are for? I also don't want kids to smoke cigarettes, but that doesn't mean I want anyone caught with tobacco thrown in jail. Extending the metaphor, tobacco smoking rates have fallen to new record lows in the US. Not via prohibition, but through taxation and education.
rottencupcakes 16y ago
Having Government enforce what people can or cannot do in their private lives is a slippery slope, David. If I don't want homosexuality legitimized, let's keep sodomy illegal, okay?
- brownleej 16y ago
  Slippery slope arguments are also a slippery slope.
miles 16y ago
"I am strongly against drug use" Why are you strongly opposed to letting individuals decide what to put into their body? Are you also strongly opposed to alcohol and tobacco? I just don't understand why many people opposed to marijuana are OK with alcohol; drunks are more likely to speed, brawl, and generally behave poorly, while stoners are more likely to drive 15MPH, munch on snacks, and generally chill out.
kenjackson 16y ago
What else do you want to make illegal? I'd prefer to not legitimize horrorcore rap, but I don't want it to be illegal. The same with biker shorts. It just seems like laws should be for things that we think breaking will undo the moral fabric of society more than denying people freedom will. IMO, this drug doesn't meet the bar.
gcheong 16y ago
It's fine to be against something but I think this comes down to basic adult human rights. I have a theory that if it is regulated, kids would actually have less opportunity to use it because in order to get it they would have to find someone to buy it for them or give it to them and that person would be taking a risk for little benefit much as with the purchase of or giving alcohol to a minor. As it is now, the dealers all run the same risk and so they are willing to sell to anybody and are highly motivated to find new customers.
linuxhansl 16y ago
I see your point. Where does it end though? If the government can regulate what I do with my own body when it comes to drugs, why stop there? What about dangerous sports? Dangerous eating habits? Should the governments prescribe a set of "safe" sports? Or approve a range of "safe" foods to consume? How about unsafe sexual practices? If you answer "no", then how are drugs different? In fact the big problems stem precisely from the attempt to control drugs, creating artificial scarcity and consequently high prices that lead of organized crime serving the market.
phr 16y ago
I'm also strongly against drug use, and think society should discourage it through education. On the other hand, the war on drugs is destroying Mexico, and is not stopping drug use here in the States. I just don't think we can afford the drug war's costs (social, foreign policy, and monetary) any more. If you can't teach your kids to stay off drugs, I'm sorry, but they're on their own, as far as I'm concerned. Edit: I don't live in California, and haven't looked at Prop 19 in detail.
dkarl 16y ago
Identifying law and morality inevitably means defining morality as peaceful coexistence with authority, which is a deeply unamerican and deeply illiberal concept, even when the authority is democratic. Respect for the law helps maintain a functional democratic society, but it says nothing about the morality of acts that are allowed or prohibited by the law. Besides, in practice, your idea of right and wrong does not match the law anyway. Romantic relationships, for instance, are largely unpoliced. if you think marijuana use is wrong, then smoking marijuana just takes its place alongside sleeping with your friend's girlfriend, pretending to be in love with a sensitive, conservative girl so you can fuck her, and lying to your girlfriend about seeing other women as something that is deeply wrong but best left legal. Not to mention all the behaviors that are self-destructive but legal: excessive alcohol consumption, drinking sugary beverages, watching infomercials, etc. The mismatch between law and morality, and the enormous overlap between legal and self-destructive behaviors, can never be eliminated, nor even reduced much. It's obvious to every child by the time they're teenagers, if only because basic civic education teaches skepticism of the law. Of the three dramatic internal struggles than define American history, the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement, almost every American sides in two out of three cases with people who refused to comply with unjust, oppressive laws. (It's irrelevant that which two is still sadly controversial.) We're also taught never to be afraid to be in the moral minority. Even when a matter is not weighty enough to justify rebellion, even if it is best for the sake of civil unity to appear to comply and to bow to the law when caught, it is always imperative to make our moral judgments independent of the law. We can be morally taught or advised by others, but we never put our moral judgment up for a vote. I'm sure you agree with this, and I'm sure you will or do teach your kids this if you have them. So what's the big deal about marijuana? It's just one of a thousand legal things you will have to teach your kids not to do. It's still legal to undermine a girl's self-esteem so she'll do things for you sexually that she really doesn't want to do. Hey, it's legal, it's popular, why not? (Well, you won't teach your kids explicitly not to do that, but it will follow from the basics.) Sometimes it's pragmatic to bring law and morality into line, and sometimes it's a huge distraction and waste of money to try. If you're nevertheless determined to cultivate respect for the law as a moral institution, you should still be in favor of marijuana legalization. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and making alcohol illegal is not an option. Therefore, the illegal status of marijuana will always be a glaring advertisement for the arbitrariness of the law and will continue to turn almost every college kid -- even me, who was never much of a fan of marijuana -- into a willing drug criminal. Thanks to pot, I now feel pretty comfortable with the fact that some of my friends have dealers, and that if I want some kind of illegal drug, I'm just a phone call or two away from being introduced to a drug dealer and making a purchase. It doesn't seem weird to me, and it doesn't even seem very dangerous. Aside from speeding and failing to come to a complete stop before a right on red, smoking pot socially is the only way I'm comfortable breaking the law. Every time I'm offered pot at a party and say, "Sure, why not," I'm reminded that laws are often silly and arbitrary, and I become more comfortable being a criminal. Many Americans approve of that attitude, but it sounds like you do not, so why do you support a law that undermines respect for the law?
jacoblyles 16y ago
While I don't share your opinions on marijuana, I do have negative feelings about some more harmful drugs. However I still don't want to lock people in a cage for decades should they choose to ingest them. Nor do I think the good done through "sending a message" by doing so would outweigh the injustice and cost of the law itself. But keep in mind I'm a libertarian, and I generally support locking people in cages in fewer circumstances than the average member of the population.
okaramian 16y ago
The problem is that keeping pot illegal at this juncture, is a joke. Maybe 25% of the population has smoked weed, and yet these people for the most part aren't facing any penalties. If you are going to have laws, you need a force that is able to enforce those laws, otherwise those laws are a joke and the government is a joke. Legalizing marijuana is just the state coming to grips with reality. All criminalization has done is cause most generations to thumb their noses and defy a majority of laws that are on the books.
- sukuriant 16y ago
  42% for 12th graders Source: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html 42.4 for older people Source: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
  - axod 16y ago
    http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_can_use-lifestyle-cannabis-use http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_can_use-lifestyle-cann... Suggests it's 12.3% in the US which I find more believable. The study you cited seems to ask "...EVER used". Which could just mean took one puff once when very drunk.
    - sukuriant 16y ago
      Forgive me, but the link you're citing marks 81% by age 45 have tried cannabis at one point. Where are you getting your 12.3?
  - Alex3917 16y ago
    It's actually roughly 85% of Americans have used weed by age 55.[1] The reason the numbers don't normally reflect that is because the age of first use varies widely, so asking what percentage of people currently alive have smoked weed yields a very different answer than asking what percentage of normal people smoke weed during some point of their lives. http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_article1.shtml http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...
halfasleep 16y ago
I find the view that kids are incapable of making decisions a little strange. Yes, at a young age people are more inclined to get talked into something they don't really want to do, but this is often an important lesson in itself. Youth is also a time when the majority of experiences are new, and the age when children are first exposed to drugs (nicotine and alcohol included) is also around the age when they begin to make their own decisions. Personally, I know that lots of the things I did at 16-18 turned out to be a bad idea. That is kinda the point. If at 16 you skip work/school to socialize you might get fired and lose your beer money, do that at 30 you might get fired and lose your house. I'd say the same applies to kids and their exposure to drugs, learning while there are fewer consequences is the point of youth.
barrkel 16y ago
How many mother's sons getting raped are you prepared to sacrifice to that end? Don't be under any illusions. What you advocate justifies the continued perpetration of horrors on people who were once children.

limedaring 16y ago

No reason to downvote things you disagree with, folks. Thanks for sharing your contrary opinion, davidmurphy. :) Can you explain why you're against drug use, specifically marijuana (not the harder drugs)? And are you against alcohol as well? EDIT: lol, I write the post and he goes from -1 to 4. Ah well. :)

philk 16y ago

I'm not a fan of drugs either[1]. I've never smoked or taken an illegal drug, and I drink comparatively rarely. The thing is, prohibiting things just makes them seem cooler. For example, 80% of new smokers start before the age of eighteen. Few people would sign up to an expensive habit that smells foul and gives you cancer if not for the lure of the forbidden. [1] Although to be fair, I'm even less of a fan of governments telling people what they can and can't do in the privacy of their own homes.

nostromo 16y ago

Isn't that what parents are for? I also don't want kids to smoke cigarettes, but that doesn't mean I want anyone caught with tobacco thrown in jail. Extending the metaphor, tobacco smoking rates have fallen to new record lows in the US. Not via prohibition, but through taxation and education.

rottencupcakes 16y ago

Having Government enforce what people can or cannot do in their private lives is a slippery slope, David. If I don't want homosexuality legitimized, let's keep sodomy illegal, okay?

brownleej 16y ago
Slippery slope arguments are also a slippery slope.

miles 16y ago

"I am strongly against drug use" Why are you strongly opposed to letting individuals decide what to put into their body? Are you also strongly opposed to alcohol and tobacco? I just don't understand why many people opposed to marijuana are OK with alcohol; drunks are more likely to speed, brawl, and generally behave poorly, while stoners are more likely to drive 15MPH, munch on snacks, and generally chill out.

kenjackson 16y ago

What else do you want to make illegal? I'd prefer to not legitimize horrorcore rap, but I don't want it to be illegal. The same with biker shorts. It just seems like laws should be for things that we think breaking will undo the moral fabric of society more than denying people freedom will. IMO, this drug doesn't meet the bar.

gcheong 16y ago

It's fine to be against something but I think this comes down to basic adult human rights. I have a theory that if it is regulated, kids would actually have less opportunity to use it because in order to get it they would have to find someone to buy it for them or give it to them and that person would be taking a risk for little benefit much as with the purchase of or giving alcohol to a minor. As it is now, the dealers all run the same risk and so they are willing to sell to anybody and are highly motivated to find new customers.

linuxhansl 16y ago

I see your point. Where does it end though? If the government can regulate what I do with my own body when it comes to drugs, why stop there? What about dangerous sports? Dangerous eating habits? Should the governments prescribe a set of "safe" sports? Or approve a range of "safe" foods to consume? How about unsafe sexual practices? If you answer "no", then how are drugs different? In fact the big problems stem precisely from the attempt to control drugs, creating artificial scarcity and consequently high prices that lead of organized crime serving the market.

phr 16y ago

I'm also strongly against drug use, and think society should discourage it through education. On the other hand, the war on drugs is destroying Mexico, and is not stopping drug use here in the States. I just don't think we can afford the drug war's costs (social, foreign policy, and monetary) any more. If you can't teach your kids to stay off drugs, I'm sorry, but they're on their own, as far as I'm concerned. Edit: I don't live in California, and haven't looked at Prop 19 in detail.

dkarl 16y ago

Identifying law and morality inevitably means defining morality as peaceful coexistence with authority, which is a deeply unamerican and deeply illiberal concept, even when the authority is democratic. Respect for the law helps maintain a functional democratic society, but it says nothing about the morality of acts that are allowed or prohibited by the law. Besides, in practice, your idea of right and wrong does not match the law anyway. Romantic relationships, for instance, are largely unpoliced. if you think marijuana use is wrong, then smoking marijuana just takes its place alongside sleeping with your friend's girlfriend, pretending to be in love with a sensitive, conservative girl so you can fuck her, and lying to your girlfriend about seeing other women as something that is deeply wrong but best left legal. Not to mention all the behaviors that are self-destructive but legal: excessive alcohol consumption, drinking sugary beverages, watching infomercials, etc. The mismatch between law and morality, and the enormous overlap between legal and self-destructive behaviors, can never be eliminated, nor even reduced much. It's obvious to every child by the time they're teenagers, if only because basic civic education teaches skepticism of the law. Of the three dramatic internal struggles than define American history, the American Revolution, the Civil War, and the Civil Rights movement, almost every American sides in two out of three cases with people who refused to comply with unjust, oppressive laws. (It's irrelevant that which two is still sadly controversial.) We're also taught never to be afraid to be in the moral minority. Even when a matter is not weighty enough to justify rebellion, even if it is best for the sake of civil unity to appear to comply and to bow to the law when caught, it is always imperative to make our moral judgments independent of the law. We can be morally taught or advised by others, but we never put our moral judgment up for a vote. I'm sure you agree with this, and I'm sure you will or do teach your kids this if you have them. So what's the big deal about marijuana? It's just one of a thousand legal things you will have to teach your kids not to do. It's still legal to undermine a girl's self-esteem so she'll do things for you sexually that she really doesn't want to do. Hey, it's legal, it's popular, why not? (Well, you won't teach your kids explicitly not to do that, but it will follow from the basics.) Sometimes it's pragmatic to bring law and morality into line, and sometimes it's a huge distraction and waste of money to try. If you're nevertheless determined to cultivate respect for the law as a moral institution, you should still be in favor of marijuana legalization. Marijuana is less harmful than alcohol, and making alcohol illegal is not an option. Therefore, the illegal status of marijuana will always be a glaring advertisement for the arbitrariness of the law and will continue to turn almost every college kid -- even me, who was never much of a fan of marijuana -- into a willing drug criminal. Thanks to pot, I now feel pretty comfortable with the fact that some of my friends have dealers, and that if I want some kind of illegal drug, I'm just a phone call or two away from being introduced to a drug dealer and making a purchase. It doesn't seem weird to me, and it doesn't even seem very dangerous. Aside from speeding and failing to come to a complete stop before a right on red, smoking pot socially is the only way I'm comfortable breaking the law. Every time I'm offered pot at a party and say, "Sure, why not," I'm reminded that laws are often silly and arbitrary, and I become more comfortable being a criminal. Many Americans approve of that attitude, but it sounds like you do not, so why do you support a law that undermines respect for the law?

jacoblyles 16y ago

While I don't share your opinions on marijuana, I do have negative feelings about some more harmful drugs. However I still don't want to lock people in a cage for decades should they choose to ingest them. Nor do I think the good done through "sending a message" by doing so would outweigh the injustice and cost of the law itself. But keep in mind I'm a libertarian, and I generally support locking people in cages in fewer circumstances than the average member of the population.

okaramian 16y ago

The problem is that keeping pot illegal at this juncture, is a joke. Maybe 25% of the population has smoked weed, and yet these people for the most part aren't facing any penalties. If you are going to have laws, you need a force that is able to enforce those laws, otherwise those laws are a joke and the government is a joke. Legalizing marijuana is just the state coming to grips with reality. All criminalization has done is cause most generations to thumb their noses and defy a majority of laws that are on the books.

sukuriant 16y ago
42% for 12th graders Source: http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html http://drugabuse.gov/infofacts/marijuana.html 42.4 for older people Source: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050141 http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal...
- axod 16y ago
  http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_can_use-lifestyle-cannabis-use http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/lif_can_use-lifestyle-cann... Suggests it's 12.3% in the US which I find more believable. The study you cited seems to ask "...EVER used". Which could just mean took one puff once when very drunk.
  - sukuriant 16y ago
    Forgive me, but the link you're citing marks 81% by age 45 have tried cannabis at one point. Where are you getting your 12.3?
- Alex3917 16y ago
  It's actually roughly 85% of Americans have used weed by age 55.[1] The reason the numbers don't normally reflect that is because the age of first use varies widely, so asking what percentage of people currently alive have smoked weed yields a very different answer than asking what percentage of normal people smoke weed during some point of their lives. http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_article1.shtml http://www.erowid.org/psychoactives/statistics/statistics_ar...

halfasleep 16y ago

I find the view that kids are incapable of making decisions a little strange. Yes, at a young age people are more inclined to get talked into something they don't really want to do, but this is often an important lesson in itself. Youth is also a time when the majority of experiences are new, and the age when children are first exposed to drugs (nicotine and alcohol included) is also around the age when they begin to make their own decisions. Personally, I know that lots of the things I did at 16-18 turned out to be a bad idea. That is kinda the point. If at 16 you skip work/school to socialize you might get fired and lose your beer money, do that at 30 you might get fired and lose your house. I'd say the same applies to kids and their exposure to drugs, learning while there are fewer consequences is the point of youth.

barrkel 16y ago

How many mother's sons getting raped are you prepared to sacrifice to that end? Don't be under any illusions. What you advocate justifies the continued perpetration of horrors on people who were once children.