Legalization of Cannabis

[Dracolosse]

I am in high school and I know many people who smoke quite a lot of cannabis, and the one thing i notice is that, despite being illegal here in France like in most other western countries, cannabis is about as easy to get as corn flakes. The war governments are waging against it, it seems to have extremely limited success. Not only this, but, at least at our age (16-25) the fact that is illegal seems to draw many people towards it simply because it is so good to do something forbidden, and that holds true for all ages. I know that for sure, because i am totally like that ^^ as i occasionnally smoke cannabis (but I never smoke cigarettes, nothing in them appeals to me, which is probably largely due to the fact that they are legal) and I know many people whom I'm sure wouldn't smoke it nearly as much if it was legal. Therefore my personal observations have led me to believe that the war against cannabis, far from stopping its consumption, is actually boosting it.... ---> TONS of wasted money, even thaugh wasting money seems to be a tradition for French governments.
In addition, cannabis is dangerous of course, but as many people have already pointed out, if we start wanting to avoid EVERY SINGLE danger, we're all going to end up spending all day shut away at home... Once again from personal experience I know that cannabis isn't addictive because I smoke it at parties and with friends, and I have never felt a need to smoke it. I just do it because it's cool and it feels good.
Overall, I really feel that legaizing cannabis would really turn it from a source of spendings to a source of benefits, and avoid the violence that is generated from the very fact that is illegal (some dealers really take themselves for gangsters) as well as decrease its appeal to many people...Something that should already have been done a while ago.

 

[Quantumpencil]

I have to agree with you about the corn flakes; it's the same way both here, in my southern rural American hometown, and in Cambridge, MA, where I attend school. Seems like, literally, two-thirds of the people I associate with use marijuana, and you don't have to look very long to find a way to get it. The "war" against it, is simply not effective.

 

[The Requiem]

The State is there for you. We must all work for the State too accomplish ourselves. By working for the State I mean turning yourself too your society and too your sisters and brothers.

I can actually agree with this. The reason our government is as jacked up as it is now is because most people are apathetic about actively doing something about it when the majority is displeased.

Did I say it was accomplishing anything? Did I mention in any way our government was good? I think not. ''Our'' government has not only a bad leader, but a bad organization. By that I do not imply the previous leaders were better. Secondly, I do not trust anything the government says, I analyze the information. By doing that, I came too the conclusion that drugs should be regulated by the State too prevent abuse from being done. That is my opinion, I respect yours.

You mist my point. I wasn't trying to shove words in your mouth at all, or trying to disrespect your opinion. My point was that the state of mind that the government needs to regulate more of our decisionmaking is EXACTLY what they want you to think. Makes for easier sheep to herd. On top of that, you say you don't trust anything the government says, that it has a bad leader, a bad organization, yet you want them to regulate drug use? That seems a bit hypocritical to me.

I agree with you about the alcohol prohibition. How can I not, this is history. However. you seem to misunderstand my solution. My solution is not too ban the drugs and render them ''illegal''. My solution is too give to the State the power to regulate it. This way we can prevent not only the crimes that some people did too get that product, but also the abuse that other people did of the drugs.

Again, you mist my point. My point was that no matter what the rules say, people still do what they want. The government currently regulates the consumption of tobacco and alcohol. Who can buy it and when is clearly regulated. Yet most of the people who are addicted to cigarettes start much younger than 18. Underage drinking isn't a nonexistent "problem".

In the age of enlightenment, one philosopher said this: one persons freedom ends where another persons freedom begins. I think that this applies to yourself as well; when you start committing abuse or doing bad acts toward yourself, you are attacking your own liberty. For example, suicide destroys your own freedom, therefore you cannot possibly do this in the name of your God-given liberty. It's the same for abusing drugs.

How is self destruction an attack on your liberty? If anything the fact that you have the freedom to make the decision to self destruct means that self destruction is DEMONSTRATING liberty. Suicide is NOT the destruction of your freedom, its the destruction of your life. Giving someone in charge more and more control over the decisions you can and cannot make for yourself is the destruction of your liberty. I'm not even going to get started on calling liberty "god-given".

Who would actually buy drugs when the State simply gives them to you or sell them for a very low price? Powerful? Not really. Because they would need to interact with the government more than before, therefore increase there chances of getting caught. This would actually reduce their power; less people will actually get their drugs illegally via criminal association and more would get them via the State. For this reason it would be beneficial for everybody. Everyone above a certain age could access drugs without being in illegality and the criminals would get less and less power.

This is just not true. The state will currently give you or sell you painkillers if you need them, and if I wanted to badly enough I can leave my house right now and come home with enough PKs to put me in a coma. All obtained completely illegally. I don't need to go to the state, or wait to hurt my back, to get my hands on some oxycotton. Less regulation gives criminals less power. Any regulation gives people a means to do something illegally.

It's an impressive testament to the power of zealous anti-drug organizations, that people still continue to believe that Marijuana is anywhere near dangerous enough to be illegal. The drug is legal in other parts of the world, and none of the horrid arguments concerning the consequences of said legalization have come to pass; rather, as common sense would indicate, relinquishing the ban on marijuana seems to have only positive consequences.Law enforcement doesn't need to be distracted by enforcing such a garbage infringement on individual freedom, which itself is the source of an immense amount of the money used by street gangs, which further strains the under-funded policing force. Money doesn't need to be wasted locking away decent people for using a relatively harmless substance, and the drug is a legitimate business opportunity and source of revenue for both the private and public sectors, while being less dangerous than either alchohol or nicotine. Marijuana not being legal is one of the most egregious examples of just plain bad legislating which isn't entirely routed in some kind of natural prejudice based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.

It's legal in other parts of the world, but that's but a few countries. In most places it's illegal, and in some countries the punishment can be far worse than what you get here. The legalization of cannabis could do much more than free up prison space, look at the many uses of hemp. Also the early propoganda that lead the way to making it illegal had race and religion all over it. Check out Reefer Madness if you ever get the chance. Its absolutely hilarious.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

I can actually agree with this. The reason our government is as jacked up as it is now is because most people are apathetic about actively doing something about it when the majority is displeased.



You mist my point. I wasn't trying to shove words in your mouth at all, or trying to disrespect your opinion. My point was that the state of mind that the government needs to regulate more of our decisionmaking is EXACTLY what they want you to think. Makes for easier sheep to herd. On top of that, you say you don't trust anything the government says, that it has a bad leader, a bad organization, yet you want them to regulate drug use? That seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Went I say the State should regulate the drugs, I speak of a Utopian State, not the State we have right now.

Again, you mist my point. My point was that no matter what the rules say, people still do what they want. The government currently regulates the consumption of tobacco and alcohol. Who can buy it and when is clearly regulated. Yet most of the people who are addicted to cigarettes start much younger than 18. Underage drinking isn't a nonexistent "problem".

I agree, but I think that you will also agree that underage smoking addiction isn't good? I think we should find solutions to these problems rather than giving up and saying that because we cannot stop this, might as well let it go. Of course, solutions like using violence are no good, yet solutions using non-violence aren't good either. Therefore there should be a compromise between those two.

How is self destruction an attack on your liberty? If anything the fact that you have the freedom to make the decision to self destruct means that self destruction is DEMONSTRATING liberty. Suicide is NOT the destruction of your freedom, its the destruction of your life. Giving someone in charge more and more control over the decisions you can and cannot make for yourself is the destruction of your liberty. I'm not even going to get started on calling liberty "god-given".

First, of all when I wrote God-given, I believe it was in italic to show that it was sarcastic. Second, I am an atheist. Suicide, yes is the ultimate proof that you can in fact reduce your own ''liberty'' (not that if you commited suicide you had libery. In my opinion, you access liberty when you are in a state of happiness, but that's way beside the point). Let me explain. When you commit suicide, yes you end your life, but you also destroy your liberty because the less closer you are to being happy, the less freedom you have (and when you commit suicide, I doubt your happy).

This is just not true. The state will currently give you or sell you painkillers if you need them, and if I wanted to badly enough I can leave my house right now and come home with enough PKs to put me in a coma. All obtained completely illegally. I don't need to go to the state, or wait to hurt my back, to get my hands on some oxycotton. Less regulation gives criminals less power. Any regulation gives people a means to do something illegally.

Yet there is more alcohol sold legally then illegally.

It's legal in other parts of the world, but that's but a few countries. In most places it's illegal, and in some countries the punishment can be far worse than what you get here. The legalization of cannabis could do much more than free up prison space, look at the many uses of hemp. Also the early propoganda that lead the way to making it illegal had race and religion all over it. Check out Reefer Madness if you ever get the chance. Its absolutely hilarious.

 

[vespa]

Hells bells some of you people are misinformed/ blindly faithful to what the government feeds you. I haven't posted here in a while but i couldn't stay silent while reading some of the nonsense posted

I've been smoking marijuana nearly every single day for the past year at a rate of roughly 4 grams a month and my life has been improving just as it would had i not chosen to include the plant in my life.

first off, someone said that marijuana is bad for your health. so is breathing this smog laden soup we call air in LA, so is sitting on your couch eating cheetos and watching TV 6 hours a day, so is driving a car on the freeway..do i really have to continue? I am in better shape than most people i know and take 18 credits a quarter in school AND work 2 jobs. You people need to stop blaming your own god damn laziness on a plant that makes you happy. its my decision to get up and attack every day, smoking cannabis has no effect on that whatsoever.

to date marijuana has not killed a single person. it is an older study but the data is true

The non-fatal consumption of 3000 mg/kg A THC by the dog and monkey would be comparable to a 154-pound human eating approximately 46 pounds (21 kilograms) of 1%-marihuana or 10 pounds of 5% hashish at one time. In addition, 92 mg/kg THC intravenously produced no fatalities in monkeys. These doses would be comparable to a 154-pound human smoking at one time almost three pounds (1.28 kg) of 1%-marihuana or 250,000 times the usual smoked dose and over a million times the minimal effective dose assuming 50% destruction of the THC by smoking.

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/library/mj_overdose.htm

you can not kill yourself by smoking marijuana.

i think the plant should be legalized and taxed just like alcohol and cigarettes, that there should be a minimum age requirement of 18 just like cigarettes, and that we as a country need to stop allowing our government to waste billions of dollars a year while we make mexican cartels insanely rich. which in turn increases violence, illegal immigration and weakens the Mexican Government.

 

[QuickDraw]

i forgot i had my name changed so i created a new account....derpa durr

 

[Precognition]

I started smoking marijuana a month ago, engaging in it with my friends at least 3 times a week.

Surprisingly, my performance in school increased.

I am now more relaxed and comfortable around my peers, I fall asleep earlier because that's the kind of effect it has on me and my self-esteem is increased as a boost.

 

[The Guns of Navarone]

Personally, I don't do weed because it's not worth it for me. I'd rather be spending my money on something more constructive, and less perishable, such as music.

As for legalization, everyone knows that the war on drugs is as futile as the War on Terror. The 'enemy' isn't as tangible as a country, group, or religion. Weed smokers represent all walks of life, admittedly, from my point of view, mostly deadbeat stoners. However, weed hasn't killed anyone via overdose and the such. While I doubt Vespa's beliefs on Weed being harmless for your health, I think that the socio-economical benefits will outdo the "evils of weed" in hindsight.

 

[QuickDraw]

i never said it was harmless, i just said its no more dangerous than many of the things we consider normal parts of daily life and that people treat it like a scapegoat to blame their problems on

 

[The Guns of Navarone]

i never said it was harmless, i just said its no more dangerous than many of the things we consider normal parts of daily life and that people treat it like a scapegoat to blame their problems on

Sorry for the misread. I do agree with you and how weed is significantly "better" than other alternatives such as smoking and driving like a dick.

 

[Kuroi27]

My two great loves: weed and Pokemon. I can see the discussion in this thread is already well under way, so instead of trying to insert myself, I'll just point out that even though the war on drugs (mainly weed) is a silly waste of time and money that will eventually run itself out of steam whether we fight it or not, but that would be redundant. So I'll just point out that in the United States, at least, the Constitution prohibits federal prohibition of substances without a constitutional amendment. The states can, but they're usually more reasonable about things and have fewer resources to squander. So federal drug laws are inherently illegal, and the pigs can blow me. Fuck the police, you know how we do. But even at the state level it's just ridiculous trying to prosecute marijuana users. It's a waste of time and money. I'm fine if they want to tax it, God knows it'll still be cheaper.

The ultimate irony is that California is going to have to legalize marijuana so they can tax users and avoid the bankruptcy they've been staring down since they started locking up non-violent drug offenders for 25+ years.

 

[The Requiem]

Went I say the State should regulate the drugs, I speak of a Utopian State, not the State we have right now.

As much as I'd love to live in a Utopian state, I'd say that human nature makes living that dream difficult, if not impossible. If we are to move toward something that's more like a Utopian state, we have to clean up the brainwash. We'd have to not be so violent as a people. As long as we go in the opposite direction, I can't see this happening.

I agree, but I think that you will also agree that underage smoking addiction isn't good? I think we should find solutions to these problems rather than giving up and saying that because we cannot stop this, might as well let it go. Of course, solutions like using violence are no good, yet solutions using non-violence aren't good either. Therefore there should be a compromise between those two.

I can agree with that.

First, of all when I wrote God-given, I believe it was in italic to show that it was sarcastic. Second, I am an atheist. Suicide, yes is the ultimate proof that you can in fact reduce your own ''liberty'' (not that if you commited suicide you had libery. In my opinion, you access liberty when you are in a state of happiness, but that's way beside the point). Let me explain. When you commit suicide, yes you end your life, but you also destroy your liberty because the less closer you are to being happy, the less freedom you have (and when you commit suicide, I doubt your happy).

Sarcasm in text is ineffective. Also, your entire retorts have been in bold and italic. While I do respect your ideology, your opinion does not change the fact that the definition of liberty is the freedom of choice. You do not need to be happy to have the freedom to make a decision.

Yet there is more alcohol sold legally then illegally.

People under 21 are far more likely to get someone of age to buy their booze before they try a fake ID. Alcohol is also much easier to get.

Weed smokers represent all walks of life, admittedly, from my point of view, mostly deadbeat stoners.

Funny. Most of the stoners I know are NOT deadbeats. In fact, any deadbeat stoner I've ever met would've been a deadbeat without the bud. That's like saying the drinkers of the world are mostly alcoholics. Not trying to pick at you, I just don't like generalizations.

 

[TheAmazingFlygon]

As much as I'd love to live in a Utopian state, I'd say that human nature makes living that dream difficult, if not impossible. If we are to move toward something that's more like a Utopian state, we have to clean up the brainwash. We'd have to not be so violent as a people. As long as we go in the opposite direction, I can't see this happening.



I can agree with that.



Sarcasm in text is ineffective. Also, your entire retorts have been in bold and italic. While I do respect your ideology, your opinion does not change the fact that the definition of liberty is the freedom of choice. You do not need to be happy to have the freedom to make a decision.

Yes, making a decision requires liberty, true liberty? I think not. I think you acquire the real liberty when you are free of your own philosophical needs, the main one being happy. However, that is was beside the point of drugs and it is a totally different subject.

People under 21 are far more likely to get someone of age to buy their booze before they try a fake ID. Alcohol is also much easier to get.



Funny. Most of the stoners I know are NOT deadbeats. In fact, any deadbeat stoner I've ever met would've been a deadbeat without the bud. That's like saying the drinkers of the world are mostly alcoholics. Not trying to pick at you, I just don't like generalizations.