7 ms·

I'm not sure how I feel about legalizing it but part of me thinks we don't need yet another substance that will make people more likely to act like idiots or en

I'm not sure how I feel about legalizing it but part of me thinks we don't need yet another substance that will make people more likely to act like idiots or endanger others. I get the idea of having the freedom to do what you wish with your health and body but it just seems inevitable that there will be more people abusing it, using it as a gateway drug and causing negative affects on society. I can't really think of anything positive society as a whole would gain from this except maybe tax money? [Edit] Then again, a lot of this can be said about alcohol. I'm not sure which one is easier to abuse.

jspiral 14y ago
You might be right, but what's your alternative? The current state of affairs wastes a lot of money and ruins lives.
oinksoft 14y ago
Cannabis is a "gateway drug" because it is illegal ... we've known this for a while, and cannabis abuse has generally fallen in countries that legalize its consumption.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  Cannabis is the "gateway" drug, because once it's legalized, legalization and research efforts for many other substances will begin. The floodgates will have been broken. Already, we're seeing research into using meth against the flu [1] and ectacy used to fight PTSD. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KDIzE_dSRXwJ:http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/Could-illegal-drug-meth-hold-key-to-flu-cure.aspx%2Bmeth+used+to+treat+flu&sugexp=chrome,mod%3D1&hl=en&ct=clnk https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KDIzE_...
  - riffic 14y ago
    ecstasy
  - sliverstorm 14y ago
    Already, we're seeing research into meth stopping major diseases and ectacy used to fight PTSD Oh no! Research!?! Oh, the humanity!
    - drivebyacct2 14y ago
      I don't think he's saying it's a bad thing. Sheesh.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    we're seeing research into meth stopping major diseases Citation?
Tyrant505 14y ago
Really man? Alcohol by far!
stephengillie 14y ago
I'm not sure why you believe marijuana users are likely to endanger others. How many have you met? Police officers say marijuana users tend to be the easiest people to arrest -- they're less likely to fight or cause problems than drunk people or meth heads. The biggest effect this will have on our society is the dismantling of the Mexican drug cartels and the ending of the War on Drugs. This will obviate the need for hundreds of deaths and hundreds of thousands of arrests each year. A large percentage of the US population will no longer be criminals for recreationally using an intoxicant less harmful than any legal intoxicant, including alcohol.
- ams6110 14y ago
  why you believe marijuana users are likely to endanger others Driving stoned?
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    Driving drunk? Driving tired? Driving while talking on the phone? Driving stoned? Oh, you meant driving while impaired/distracted? Yes, that is always a bad idea. Which is why it is of course illegal.
  - Androsynth 14y ago
    Which is much, much safer than driving drunk. Even then, it will be illegal drive while under the influence of marijuana. This is basically a Wont someone think of the children! type argument.
    - InclinedPlane 14y ago
      No, it's more "OH GOD, WHAT ABOUT MURDER?! SHOULDN'T MURDER BE MADE ILLEGAL?! WHY ISN'T MURDER EVEN MORE ILLEGAL?!" type argument.
    - brc 14y ago
      If you think it's safe to drive while stoned, think again. Relative safety compared to driving drunk is not important, it's the absolute impairment level that is the key here. If anyone reading this is in the habit of driving around stoned, please stop before you kill or seriously injure yourself, someone important to you, or some random stranger. It's just not worth the risk.
il 14y ago
You have to look at it from a purely pragmatic perspective. Everyone who wants cannabis, even teenagers, can currently get it very easily. Growing up, everyone knew it was easier to get than alcohol(drug dealers don't check ID). In the states that are considering legalization, the vast majority of possession arrests end up with the charges dismissed or a civil fine anyway. So from a purely logical perspective, spending a ton of money on arrests that will only result in the charges getting dropped anyway makes no sense.
- tptacek 14y ago
  This is really far from true. There's a difference between the fact that anyone who really wants cannabis can get it, and the idea that it is very easy to get. Cigarettes are easy to get. Alcohol is easy to get. At most times of day, if I want a bottle of whisky or vodka, I can walk into a 7-11 and pick it up. I have only a vague idea of how I'd acquire an 8th. (It is easier in Chicago for teenagers to get alcohol than weed; you just pay people on the street to get it for you. No, you cannot walk up to a random street person in Chicago and buy weed.)
  - onedev 14y ago
    It's very very very easy to acquire marijuana. Just because you don't know how you'd acquire an 8th, doesn't mean that it isn't easy to acquire. If you're the type of person to smoke, then you'd know where to go to get it. Or you can just ask someone and they'd tell you.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      No, I disagree. The fact that I don't know how to an acquire an 8th does mean it isn't easy to acquire. You're discarding the context of the thread here. Everybody agrees that the "type of person to smoke" --- that is, people who are driven to smoke --- can readily acquire marijuana. But it does not follow from that that everybody can readily acquire marijuana. Marijuana is stigmatized. Its distribution is cliquish and sometimes confined to subcultures (we may be blinded to that because demographically we tend to adhere to some of those subcultures). It's also illegal. The point here is: marijuana would be much easier to get --- so much easier that it is likely that way more people would try it --- if it was legalized or completely decriminalized. (I oppose criminalization).
diggan 14y ago
Why would people act like idiots or endanger others just for smoking pot? There are many places where you can use cannabis without any punishment and people are still normal. Gateway drug to what? Just because one drug have been used before another doesn't mean that the first drug automatically will make you want the second drug.
- MaysonL 14y ago
  Actually, for me marijuana was a gateway drug: it led to a tobacco habit that lasted 40 years. :(
Symmetry 14y ago
Generally speaking, I expect that legal cannabis will tend to cut down on alcohol use, and I would tend to see this as a good thing. Cannabis tends to be less addictive than alcohol, it's pretty much impossible to kill yourself with an overdose, and people intoxicated with it tend to overestimate how impaired they are rather than underestimate it like with alcohol. I've seen a bunch of different studies using different methodologies to come up with various rankings of drugs by degree of harm [1][2][3], but every one of them rates cannabis as safer than alcohol. EDIT: I expect that the "gateway drug" effect is due to people finding out that pot is much less dangerous than they are led to believe. People have always heard that using illegal drugs would kill them, then find that their friends are using it safely and assume that all illegal drugs are similarly safe. [1]http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/drug-ranking.htm http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/drug-ranking.htm [2]http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full [3]http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004477 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc...
- tptacek 14y ago
  People intoxicated with cannabis may be overestimating their impairment because smoking cannabis is a crime, which is a factor that is cancelled out by legalization. I know from hanging out with smokers that concern about degree of impairment tends to come up only when contact with law enforcement is a possibility.
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    So people don't smoke and drive because they don't want to be caught doing something illegal. Seeing as DUI is still illegal in Washington, I don't see how this changes anything. Unless you're saying that because cannabis is legal I'm going to think that a cop is more likely to let me go, or be less likely to check me or what? The legality of cannabis use doesn't change the likelihood of me getting pulled over, no? Or am I misunderstanding where you're coming from?
    - tptacek 14y ago
ams6110 14y ago
I'm in general agreement. I think a study of the history of opium in China should be undertaken by anyone who thinks there is no possible bad outcome of this.
- unimpressive 14y ago
  This is actually a pretty interesting series of historical events period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Recreational_use_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Recreational_use_in_Chin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
baddox 14y ago
> it just seems inevitable that there will be more people abusing it, using it as a gateway drug and causing negative affects on society Do you have a shred of evidence to support this claim?
- stephengillie 14y ago
  Under current definitions, any use = abuse. He's just expecting usage to rise if it's legal.
  - baddox 14y ago
    I think both claims are spurious.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
Acting like someone using cannabis and alcohol is the same thing is just ignorant. I didn't and couldn't have written, eh, maybe half of my media center/library project while drunk. I think it's quite well written and it was all done during my... leisure time. The misinformed FUD is disappointing. DARE won't even try to demonize cannabis like that anymore. >it just seems inevitable that there will be more people abusing it Sigh, "it just seems inevitable" == "I am just repeating the same thing I've heard and believed forever without looking into it". See, Portugal. edit, If the anti-drug people who have no context want to judge and downvote based on inaccurate out-dated stereotypes, so be it. Surely downvoting me will make me realize just how much of a loser I am.
cgag 14y ago
The freedom to do what you wish with your body is a pretty gigantic positive. Also there's the pleasure of smoking weed for those who are into it. What's the positive affect french fries have on society?
brc 14y ago
It would be rare to find someone who wanted to smoke pot and couldn't find some to buy. But, it must be said that legalization would increase bith the number of users as well as the total amount. It legalization in some states is to be enacted, I would think that an accompanying set of regulations about where and how much can be used. The first problem is driving under influence, but then there is also the need for employers to be able to enforce drag-free workplaces ( current drug tests measure any usage, not just a current level of intoxication). then there's acceptable places of use - like cigarettes, most people won't want to eat a meal with someone taking up at the table next to them. Finally, on the issue of taxation and importation - if you want to get the economic benefits then you need to get all protective and prevent imports,a nd you need to have a framework of regulating the strength so that people can get a consistent dose, in the same way you know how much two beers is going to affect you. Ultimately prohibition isn't really working, but lurching to the other extreme quickly could have a lot of issues as well, which would be more likely to bring back the regulations? A gradual decriminlisation, accompanied with regulations on consumption and funding of education and health programs from the taxation revenue would be the best way to go.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  >But, it must be said that legalization would increase bith the number of users as well as the total amount. Again, that has not been the case when decriminalization of drugs has happened in other places. Also, at least in the case of Washington, all of these issues are already accounted for (due to medical use laws, or new legislation) or are going to be accounted for by the board setup to oversee cannabis sales. (For brevity, instead of me listing them, just check the Wikipedia page and the bill itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502#Provisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502#Provi... >you need to have a framework of regulating the strength so that people can get a consistent dose, in the same way you know how much two beers is going to affect you. Heh, I think the customers and providers will be wanting that as much as the government does. Ultimately though, I think it will vary because it's not like alcohol. Various types of alcohols have slightly different buzzes, but cannabis has a lot more components that vary more from type to type.
InclinedPlane 14y ago
Why do you think that you, or anyone, should have the ability to tell anyone else what they can and can't do with their body? Follow this principle through, why not try to tell everyone how to run their lives for the betterment of humanity? Listening to certain types of music, for example, is likely to be correlated to higher rates of crime and unwanted pregnancy, maybe we can ban those types of music. History has shown us repeatedly that attempting to "legislate morality", attempting to run people's lives "for their own good" leads to far worse outcomes than simply letting the original "undesired" behavior alone. We should only use the power of the state to control people's behavior in so far as, and precisely when, it harms others. And we should use social and cultural pressure (not guns, violence, and imprisonment) to try to improve our society in regards to negative or self-destructive behaviors.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Honestly, given American culture, diet would be a better example. Think of the immense, immense benefit to the American public health if we literally regulated what people ate?
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    Indeed. It's easy to think that, and it's easy to convince people of that. But once you get into the messy business of creating a police state to enforce what people eat then things take a turn for the worse. Good intentions don't always lead to good destinations, it's funny how well that is known and how often it is failed to be understood.
hpvic03 14y ago
Your opinion is very uninformed. You can't think of anything positive that would result? What about: - ending our massively expensive "war on drugs" - ending massive spending on incarceration - decreasing the U.S. incarceration rate, which is the highest in the world - stop penalizing citizens who are using a drug which is scientifically proven to be harmless (and is also much less dangerous than alcohol) - raise U.S. tax revenue from drug sales, instead of sending the money to Mexican drug lords - spend some of this new tax revenue on actually rehabilitating drug users, instead of sending them to prisons, where they often come out worse than they went in. I could go on. Drug legalization was tried in Portugal, which had a massive drug problem, and it solved most of their problems. See: http://www.economist.com/node/14309861 http://www.economist.com/node/14309861 .
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  "decreasing the U.S. incarceration rate, which is the highest in the world" I suppose that is one way to reduce incarceration rates: reduce the number of laws. I seriously doubt the majority of incarcerations involve a regular person just smoking a few joints. Most are hardcore drug users that committed other crimes or dealers (which will still be illegal). "raise U.S. tax revenue from drug sales, instead of sending the money to Mexican drug lords" If drug users really cared about the violence in Mexico, they would boycott any drugs grown in Mexico. I haven't even seen this as a suggestion. Why? "spend some of this new tax revenue on actually rehabilitating drug users, instead of sending them to prisons, where they often come out worse than they went in." I thought drugs were okay? Why do we need to spend the money we get from drug revenue to rehabilitate addicts? There are plenty of other things that could use that money..like paying down the national debt. "I could go on. Drug legalization was tried in Portugal, which had a massive drug problem, and it solved most of their problems." I would really like to see some pros and cons. The problem is that all of the pro-drug users only want to talk about the great things (and deny any of the bad ones). Until we can have an open and honest discussion, there won't be any progress.
  - hpvic03 14y ago
    "I suppose that is one way to reduce incarceration rates: reduce the number of laws." Yes, and legalizing drugs would be one way of doing that. "I thought drugs were okay?" Marijuana was found to be non-harmful by medical researchers. Certainly other drugs are not. "If drug users really cared about the violence in Mexico, they would boycott any drugs grown in Mexico. I haven't even seen this as a suggestion. Why?" The point I'm making is legalization would raise revenues here and have a positive side effect on Mexico. How would it be a bad thing to help Mexico return to normalcy? "Why do we need to spend the money we get from drug revenue to rehabilitate addicts? There are plenty of other things that could use that money..like paying down the national debt." Regardless of what we do with the funds, it's additional revenue. Whether or not we spend it on rehabilitating drug addicts or not is a different discussion. "I would really like to see some pros and cons. The problem is that all of the pro-drug users only want to talk about the great things (and deny any of the bad ones)." Pros: - increased revenue - less spending on enforcement - lower incarceration rate, less spending on prisons Cons: - greater access, though access isn't difficult right now. - may result in more drug users (Decriminalization in Portugal did not result in more drug users, but full legalization could have a different effect.) Criminalizing popular drugs like Marijuana is no different than alcohol prohibiton in the 20's, and we all know how that turned out. I am not an illegal drug user myself. Read some more on the topic and you will likely be swayed to the side of legalization, which I and many others believe to be the side of reason. I think many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of decriminalizing or legalizing drugs. It sounds bad on its face, but the actual results are the opposite of what you'd expect.
dredmorbius 14y ago
We've already got that substance. And a lot of people already use it. Among ex-users, at least two recent Presidents of the United States of America. As a consequence of using it, with enforcement and penalties varying very widely based on socioeconomic status, a great many people have their lives compromised by legal, not medical or addictive, properties of the substance. The United States tried prohibition with alcohol. As you may recall, it didn't work. My own view is that a legal regime in which the use of drugs is decriminalized, the negative consequences of use and/or sale are not (e.g.: if you as a dealer / corporate vendor are liable / responsible / deliberately causing harm, illness, or seeking to create addictions particularly among children or others unable to provide valid legal consent to use), and terms and condition of sale are legal but highly regulated, we'd be far better off than we are today. If there are abusers of marijuana or other drugs whose use is causing a problem, then that use should be treated as a medical problem, without legal sanction. If use/abuse of a drug leads to other criminal activity (theft/robbery, assault, sexual crimes, etc.), then those activities should receive legal sanction. Possibly (though I'm not fully convinced and inclined against) with an additional penalty for deliberate intoxication.

jspiral 14y ago

You might be right, but what's your alternative? The current state of affairs wastes a lot of money and ruins lives.

oinksoft 14y ago

Cannabis is a "gateway drug" because it is illegal ... we've known this for a while, and cannabis abuse has generally fallen in countries that legalize its consumption.

stephengillie 14y ago
Cannabis is the "gateway" drug, because once it's legalized, legalization and research efforts for many other substances will begin. The floodgates will have been broken. Already, we're seeing research into using meth against the flu [1] and ectacy used to fight PTSD. [1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KDIzE_dSRXwJ:http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/11November/Pages/Could-illegal-drug-meth-hold-key-to-flu-cure.aspx%2Bmeth+used+to+treat+flu&sugexp=chrome,mod%3D1&hl=en&ct=clnk https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:KDIzE_...
- riffic 14y ago
  ecstasy
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  Already, we're seeing research into meth stopping major diseases and ectacy used to fight PTSD Oh no! Research!?! Oh, the humanity!
  - drivebyacct2 14y ago
    I don't think he's saying it's a bad thing. Sheesh.
- tptacek 14y ago
  we're seeing research into meth stopping major diseases Citation?

Tyrant505 14y ago

Really man? Alcohol by far!

stephengillie 14y ago

I'm not sure why you believe marijuana users are likely to endanger others. How many have you met? Police officers say marijuana users tend to be the easiest people to arrest -- they're less likely to fight or cause problems than drunk people or meth heads. The biggest effect this will have on our society is the dismantling of the Mexican drug cartels and the ending of the War on Drugs. This will obviate the need for hundreds of deaths and hundreds of thousands of arrests each year. A large percentage of the US population will no longer be criminals for recreationally using an intoxicant less harmful than any legal intoxicant, including alcohol.

ams6110 14y ago
why you believe marijuana users are likely to endanger others Driving stoned?
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  Driving drunk? Driving tired? Driving while talking on the phone? Driving stoned? Oh, you meant driving while impaired/distracted? Yes, that is always a bad idea. Which is why it is of course illegal.
- Androsynth 14y ago
  Which is much, much safer than driving drunk. Even then, it will be illegal drive while under the influence of marijuana. This is basically a Wont someone think of the children! type argument.
  - InclinedPlane 14y ago
    No, it's more "OH GOD, WHAT ABOUT MURDER?! SHOULDN'T MURDER BE MADE ILLEGAL?! WHY ISN'T MURDER EVEN MORE ILLEGAL?!" type argument.
  - brc 14y ago
    If you think it's safe to drive while stoned, think again. Relative safety compared to driving drunk is not important, it's the absolute impairment level that is the key here. If anyone reading this is in the habit of driving around stoned, please stop before you kill or seriously injure yourself, someone important to you, or some random stranger. It's just not worth the risk.

il 14y ago

You have to look at it from a purely pragmatic perspective. Everyone who wants cannabis, even teenagers, can currently get it very easily. Growing up, everyone knew it was easier to get than alcohol(drug dealers don't check ID). In the states that are considering legalization, the vast majority of possession arrests end up with the charges dismissed or a civil fine anyway. So from a purely logical perspective, spending a ton of money on arrests that will only result in the charges getting dropped anyway makes no sense.

tptacek 14y ago
This is really far from true. There's a difference between the fact that anyone who really wants cannabis can get it, and the idea that it is very easy to get. Cigarettes are easy to get. Alcohol is easy to get. At most times of day, if I want a bottle of whisky or vodka, I can walk into a 7-11 and pick it up. I have only a vague idea of how I'd acquire an 8th. (It is easier in Chicago for teenagers to get alcohol than weed; you just pay people on the street to get it for you. No, you cannot walk up to a random street person in Chicago and buy weed.)
- onedev 14y ago
  It's very very very easy to acquire marijuana. Just because you don't know how you'd acquire an 8th, doesn't mean that it isn't easy to acquire. If you're the type of person to smoke, then you'd know where to go to get it. Or you can just ask someone and they'd tell you.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    No, I disagree. The fact that I don't know how to an acquire an 8th does mean it isn't easy to acquire. You're discarding the context of the thread here. Everybody agrees that the "type of person to smoke" --- that is, people who are driven to smoke --- can readily acquire marijuana. But it does not follow from that that everybody can readily acquire marijuana. Marijuana is stigmatized. Its distribution is cliquish and sometimes confined to subcultures (we may be blinded to that because demographically we tend to adhere to some of those subcultures). It's also illegal. The point here is: marijuana would be much easier to get --- so much easier that it is likely that way more people would try it --- if it was legalized or completely decriminalized. (I oppose criminalization).

diggan 14y ago

Why would people act like idiots or endanger others just for smoking pot? There are many places where you can use cannabis without any punishment and people are still normal. Gateway drug to what? Just because one drug have been used before another doesn't mean that the first drug automatically will make you want the second drug.

MaysonL 14y ago
Actually, for me marijuana was a gateway drug: it led to a tobacco habit that lasted 40 years. :(

Symmetry 14y ago

Generally speaking, I expect that legal cannabis will tend to cut down on alcohol use, and I would tend to see this as a good thing. Cannabis tends to be less addictive than alcohol, it's pretty much impossible to kill yourself with an overdose, and people intoxicated with it tend to overestimate how impaired they are rather than underestimate it like with alcohol. I've seen a bunch of different studies using different methodologies to come up with various rankings of drugs by degree of harm [1][2][3], but every one of them rates cannabis as safer than alcohol. EDIT: I expect that the "gateway drug" effect is due to people finding out that pot is much less dangerous than they are led to believe. People have always heard that using illegal drugs would kill them, then find that their friends are using it safely and assume that all illegal drugs are similarly safe. [1]http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/drug-ranking.htm http://tlc.howstuffworks.com/family/drug-ranking.htm [2]http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/4/e000774.full [3]http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004477 http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourc...

tptacek 14y ago
People intoxicated with cannabis may be overestimating their impairment because smoking cannabis is a crime, which is a factor that is cancelled out by legalization. I know from hanging out with smokers that concern about degree of impairment tends to come up only when contact with law enforcement is a possibility.
- drivebyacct2 14y ago
  So people don't smoke and drive because they don't want to be caught doing something illegal. Seeing as DUI is still illegal in Washington, I don't see how this changes anything. Unless you're saying that because cannabis is legal I'm going to think that a cop is more likely to let me go, or be less likely to check me or what? The legality of cannabis use doesn't change the likelihood of me getting pulled over, no? Or am I misunderstanding where you're coming from?
  - tptacek 14y ago

ams6110 14y ago

I'm in general agreement. I think a study of the history of opium in China should be undertaken by anyone who thinks there is no possible bad outcome of this.

unimpressive 14y ago
This is actually a pretty interesting series of historical events period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Recreational_use_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium#Recreational_use_in_Chin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars

baddox 14y ago

> it just seems inevitable that there will be more people abusing it, using it as a gateway drug and causing negative affects on society Do you have a shred of evidence to support this claim?

stephengillie 14y ago
Under current definitions, any use = abuse. He's just expecting usage to rise if it's legal.
- baddox 14y ago
  I think both claims are spurious.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

Acting like someone using cannabis and alcohol is the same thing is just ignorant. I didn't and couldn't have written, eh, maybe half of my media center/library project while drunk. I think it's quite well written and it was all done during my... leisure time. The misinformed FUD is disappointing. DARE won't even try to demonize cannabis like that anymore. >it just seems inevitable that there will be more people abusing it Sigh, "it just seems inevitable" == "I am just repeating the same thing I've heard and believed forever without looking into it". See, Portugal. edit, If the anti-drug people who have no context want to judge and downvote based on inaccurate out-dated stereotypes, so be it. Surely downvoting me will make me realize just how much of a loser I am.

cgag 14y ago

The freedom to do what you wish with your body is a pretty gigantic positive. Also there's the pleasure of smoking weed for those who are into it. What's the positive affect french fries have on society?

brc 14y ago

It would be rare to find someone who wanted to smoke pot and couldn't find some to buy. But, it must be said that legalization would increase bith the number of users as well as the total amount. It legalization in some states is to be enacted, I would think that an accompanying set of regulations about where and how much can be used. The first problem is driving under influence, but then there is also the need for employers to be able to enforce drag-free workplaces ( current drug tests measure any usage, not just a current level of intoxication). then there's acceptable places of use - like cigarettes, most people won't want to eat a meal with someone taking up at the table next to them. Finally, on the issue of taxation and importation - if you want to get the economic benefits then you need to get all protective and prevent imports,a nd you need to have a framework of regulating the strength so that people can get a consistent dose, in the same way you know how much two beers is going to affect you. Ultimately prohibition isn't really working, but lurching to the other extreme quickly could have a lot of issues as well, which would be more likely to bring back the regulations? A gradual decriminlisation, accompanied with regulations on consumption and funding of education and health programs from the taxation revenue would be the best way to go.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
>But, it must be said that legalization would increase bith the number of users as well as the total amount. Again, that has not been the case when decriminalization of drugs has happened in other places. Also, at least in the case of Washington, all of these issues are already accounted for (due to medical use laws, or new legislation) or are going to be accounted for by the board setup to oversee cannabis sales. (For brevity, instead of me listing them, just check the Wikipedia page and the bill itself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502#Provisions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Initiative_502#Provi... >you need to have a framework of regulating the strength so that people can get a consistent dose, in the same way you know how much two beers is going to affect you. Heh, I think the customers and providers will be wanting that as much as the government does. Ultimately though, I think it will vary because it's not like alcohol. Various types of alcohols have slightly different buzzes, but cannabis has a lot more components that vary more from type to type.

InclinedPlane 14y ago

Why do you think that you, or anyone, should have the ability to tell anyone else what they can and can't do with their body? Follow this principle through, why not try to tell everyone how to run their lives for the betterment of humanity? Listening to certain types of music, for example, is likely to be correlated to higher rates of crime and unwanted pregnancy, maybe we can ban those types of music. History has shown us repeatedly that attempting to "legislate morality", attempting to run people's lives "for their own good" leads to far worse outcomes than simply letting the original "undesired" behavior alone. We should only use the power of the state to control people's behavior in so far as, and precisely when, it harms others. And we should use social and cultural pressure (not guns, violence, and imprisonment) to try to improve our society in regards to negative or self-destructive behaviors.

drivebyacct2 14y ago
Honestly, given American culture, diet would be a better example. Think of the immense, immense benefit to the American public health if we literally regulated what people ate?
- InclinedPlane 14y ago
  Indeed. It's easy to think that, and it's easy to convince people of that. But once you get into the messy business of creating a police state to enforce what people eat then things take a turn for the worse. Good intentions don't always lead to good destinations, it's funny how well that is known and how often it is failed to be understood.

hpvic03 14y ago

Your opinion is very uninformed. You can't think of anything positive that would result? What about: - ending our massively expensive "war on drugs" - ending massive spending on incarceration - decreasing the U.S. incarceration rate, which is the highest in the world - stop penalizing citizens who are using a drug which is scientifically proven to be harmless (and is also much less dangerous than alcohol) - raise U.S. tax revenue from drug sales, instead of sending the money to Mexican drug lords - spend some of this new tax revenue on actually rehabilitating drug users, instead of sending them to prisons, where they often come out worse than they went in. I could go on. Drug legalization was tried in Portugal, which had a massive drug problem, and it solved most of their problems. See: http://www.economist.com/node/14309861 http://www.economist.com/node/14309861 .

paulhauggis 14y ago
"decreasing the U.S. incarceration rate, which is the highest in the world" I suppose that is one way to reduce incarceration rates: reduce the number of laws. I seriously doubt the majority of incarcerations involve a regular person just smoking a few joints. Most are hardcore drug users that committed other crimes or dealers (which will still be illegal). "raise U.S. tax revenue from drug sales, instead of sending the money to Mexican drug lords" If drug users really cared about the violence in Mexico, they would boycott any drugs grown in Mexico. I haven't even seen this as a suggestion. Why? "spend some of this new tax revenue on actually rehabilitating drug users, instead of sending them to prisons, where they often come out worse than they went in." I thought drugs were okay? Why do we need to spend the money we get from drug revenue to rehabilitate addicts? There are plenty of other things that could use that money..like paying down the national debt. "I could go on. Drug legalization was tried in Portugal, which had a massive drug problem, and it solved most of their problems." I would really like to see some pros and cons. The problem is that all of the pro-drug users only want to talk about the great things (and deny any of the bad ones). Until we can have an open and honest discussion, there won't be any progress.
- hpvic03 14y ago
  "I suppose that is one way to reduce incarceration rates: reduce the number of laws." Yes, and legalizing drugs would be one way of doing that. "I thought drugs were okay?" Marijuana was found to be non-harmful by medical researchers. Certainly other drugs are not. "If drug users really cared about the violence in Mexico, they would boycott any drugs grown in Mexico. I haven't even seen this as a suggestion. Why?" The point I'm making is legalization would raise revenues here and have a positive side effect on Mexico. How would it be a bad thing to help Mexico return to normalcy? "Why do we need to spend the money we get from drug revenue to rehabilitate addicts? There are plenty of other things that could use that money..like paying down the national debt." Regardless of what we do with the funds, it's additional revenue. Whether or not we spend it on rehabilitating drug addicts or not is a different discussion. "I would really like to see some pros and cons. The problem is that all of the pro-drug users only want to talk about the great things (and deny any of the bad ones)." Pros: - increased revenue - less spending on enforcement - lower incarceration rate, less spending on prisons Cons: - greater access, though access isn't difficult right now. - may result in more drug users (Decriminalization in Portugal did not result in more drug users, but full legalization could have a different effect.) Criminalizing popular drugs like Marijuana is no different than alcohol prohibiton in the 20's, and we all know how that turned out. I am not an illegal drug user myself. Read some more on the topic and you will likely be swayed to the side of legalization, which I and many others believe to be the side of reason. I think many people have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of decriminalizing or legalizing drugs. It sounds bad on its face, but the actual results are the opposite of what you'd expect.

dredmorbius 14y ago

We've already got that substance. And a lot of people already use it. Among ex-users, at least two recent Presidents of the United States of America. As a consequence of using it, with enforcement and penalties varying very widely based on socioeconomic status, a great many people have their lives compromised by legal, not medical or addictive, properties of the substance. The United States tried prohibition with alcohol. As you may recall, it didn't work. My own view is that a legal regime in which the use of drugs is decriminalized, the negative consequences of use and/or sale are not (e.g.: if you as a dealer / corporate vendor are liable / responsible / deliberately causing harm, illness, or seeking to create addictions particularly among children or others unable to provide valid legal consent to use), and terms and condition of sale are legal but highly regulated, we'd be far better off than we are today. If there are abusers of marijuana or other drugs whose use is causing a problem, then that use should be treated as a medical problem, without legal sanction. If use/abuse of a drug leads to other criminal activity (theft/robbery, assault, sexual crimes, etc.), then those activities should receive legal sanction. Possibly (though I'm not fully convinced and inclined against) with an additional penalty for deliberate intoxication.