@jeeprs,
jeeprs;163668 wrote:Just because you have a different viewpoint to the one you quoted (without attribution - there is a video on attributing quotes properly which you might watch) does not mean the viewpoint with which you differ is 'insane'. It might simply be different. And I stand by it - not that any of this will make the slightest difference to what the authorities do.
Point taken. But when you make a claim, you can expect it to be judged on it's practicality and rationality. So we'll reexamine your original post (quoted correctly this time), and I'll explain why it's neither practical nor rational.
jeeprs;159465 wrote:I support legalization with the caveat that nobody should be alllowed to make any money out of it. If it becomes a legal product that is traded and advertized, it will just be another problem in the same category as tobacco and alchohol (although I think it is less evil than alchohol in many ways.) So logically, I think people should be able to grow it for themselves but that severe (although perhaps not criminal) penalties should remain on selling it for profit - more like a fine for profiteering.
Nobody should EVER be sent to jail for marijuana consumption or trivial supply offences.
Your claim isn't practical because without commercial production (that is to say, production for profit) many people without the ability to grow marijuana (that's most people) would be out of luck.
Your claim isn't rational because the premise that it will become a problem like alcohol and tobacco if it becomes a commodity isn't justified. What do you mean by problem? Why is that problem a necessary result of commercialization?
If you were just stating your opinion and don't feel a justification is necessary, that's fine, but my objections to your claim stand. However, I do agree that jail time for marijuana consumption is laughable. I guess the politicians just thought our jails were getting empty and real criminals were getting lonely.
