should marijuana be legalized??

Nietzsche wrote:

I have a sneaking suspicion that even if pot were legal, employers would still test for it (i.e., and not allow its use).

I agree with that one...just like they don't want people drunk at work

0 Replies

In Denmark it is perfectly normal to drink a few beers during your lunchbreak. Even when you're a school teacher.

0 Replies

Wow where I live teachers can't even have a cigarette on school property!

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

In Denmark it is perfectly normal to drink a few beers during your lunchbreak. Even when you're a school teacher.

0 Replies

Legalize it to the level that Alcohol and Nicotine are legal. Legalize everything to this level. Give people back the right to make mistakes and take risks and to make their own choices in life. If you treat adults like babies, they'll act like babies.

0 Replies

I'm firmly on the side that you advocate rosborne, but I feel compelled to ask where we would draw the line and just how you go about formulating a definition which is a clear line of demarcation between marijuana and meth or barbiturates, for example.

What about mushrooms (psilocybe cyanescens)?

Peyote?

Opium?

I suppose there is no way to remove subjective relativism in exchange for a catch-all rules set that bans crank but allows pot. Even harder is to design a rules set that bans crank but allows tobacco.

0 Replies

Waldo

Yes
yes
yes

0 Replies

Pot, yes. The other things (crack, heroin, etc) no.

Daughter had drivers ed last week and came home talking about a movie they showed where two kids were high on pot and had a wreck. The one that survived woke up screaming in the hospital! Shocked

Must have been some gooood sh!t!

Do they still show "Reefer Madness" in schools???

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Legalize it to the level that Alcohol and Nicotine are legal. Legalize everything to this level.

Why not just prohibit alcohol and tobacco instead?

0 Replies

Joe,

Surely you jest! But what a great way to expand on the topic! Smile

0 Replies

Waldo_ wrote:

I'm firmly on the side that you advocate rosborne, but I feel compelled to ask where we would draw the line and just how you go about formulating a definition which is a clear line of demarcation between marijuana and meth or barbiturates, for example.

What about mushrooms (psilocybe cyanescens)?

Peyote?

Opium?

I suppose there is no way to remove subjective relativism in exchange for a catch-all rules set that bans crank but allows pot. Even harder is to design a rules set that bans crank but allows tobacco.

I tend to want to legalize everything. What you do in your own home should be your own business, as long as you're not hurting anyone else.

And I know it makes people cringe to think of people going home and shooting up heroin, but that's already happening, so I'm not sure the usage would change all that much. But at least the government would have control of the flow and price of narcotics, which would absolutely crush all the drug lords on street corners and columbian jungles. I suspect that whole economies, not mention criminal cyndicates would be affected by legalization.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
Legalize it to the level that Alcohol and Nicotine are legal. Legalize everything to this level.

Why not just prohibit alcohol and tobacco instead?

We already tried that. It didn't work. And current drug policies are having more of a negative impact on our society than a positive impact (in my opinion).

But beyond all that, I have a hard time believing that we have the right to limit personal freedom to do drugs, or not.

0 Replies

Prohibition has spawned so much crime connected with dope. I mean it has no intrinsic value (makes good rope though), grows like weed where I live (hence it's nickname I suppose) but because it's illegal the production and distribution - a risky business because of its status as a crime - is handled by organised crime which has made just in my country alone, billions of dollars from it. And you can grow it in a windowbox if you want to. Makes no sense to me at all. It's almost as if the legislators want to keep it illegal....nah I should leave conspiracy theories alone.

Legalise it but regulate it like liquor and tobacco and other legal substances and educate people about responsible use.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

We already tried that. It didn't work. And current drug policies are having more of a negative impact on our society than a positive impact (in my opinion).

Then why regulate drugs on the same level as alcohol and tobacco? What is it about alcohol and tobacco that they are the benchmarks for acceptable drug regulation?

rosborne979 wrote:

But beyond all that, I have a hard time believing that we have the right to limit personal freedom to do drugs, or not.

Then why regulate drugs at all?

Let me try to help you out, rosborne: you "have a hard time believing that we [I assume you mean the state here] have the right to limit personal freedom to do drugs." If regulation is permissible (as you suggest), then it is clear that the state does have the right to limit personal freedom to do drugs, at least in part. Presumably, unless there are limits to this regulation, the state could regulate drugs to the point of prohibiting them altogether (as it does now with certain other activities, such as blackmail and child pornography). On the other hand, if you believe that there is a limit, beyond which the state may not regulate drugs, then you need to explain where that limit is and what is the basis for it.

0 Replies

There is a natural regulation on marijuana that works just fine as it is. When you've had enough you fall asleep. Smile

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
We already tried that. It didn't work. And current drug policies are having more of a negative impact on our society than a positive impact (in my opinion).

Then why regulate drugs on the same level as alcohol and tobacco? What is it about alcohol and tobacco that they are the benchmarks for acceptable drug regulation?

Because there is a point at which personal drug use begins to impact other people's rights. In particular this happens in public, and driving vehicles, and at work.

The dividing line you are requesting is the point at which personal freedoms begin to infringe on other people's personal freedoms. And I agree that the line can get a bit fishy in places, which is why I suggest using the "standards" which are currently in place for Alcohol (I actually prefer using Alcohol rather than Tobacco because it covers things like driving).

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Because there is a point at which personal drug use begins to impact other people's rights. In particular this happens in public, and driving vehicles, and at work.

The dividing line you are requesting is the point at which personal freedoms begin to infringe on other people's personal freedoms. And I agree that the line can get a bit fishy in places, which is why I suggest using the "standards" which are currently in place for Alcohol (I actually prefer using Alcohol rather than Tobacco because it covers things like driving).

Well, that's fine, as long as what you're attempting to regulate is similar to what is already being regulated. If, in other words, drugs are pretty much like alcohol in terms of their effects on others (since that is your standard for determining whether regulation is justified), then the same limits in place for alcohol could be used for drugs that are currently prohibited, correct?

Presumably, then, you'd have no objection to selling heroin in six-packs at the local grocery store. Or having crack cocaine on tap at the corner tavern. Or setting up a crystal meth lab in an abandoned brewery. Right?

0 Replies

I'd put it this way:

Personal drug use- when you use drugs on your own time, by your own free will, and at your own expense. This should be legal.

"Official" drug use- when the use of drugs exceds the explanation in "personal drug use". It may be that you use drugs at work, or show up under the influence, when you're acting as a part of the public in addition to as an individual.

It may also be that your are unable to support your habits, and so become a liability to society.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Presumably, then, you'd have no objection to selling heroin in six-packs at the local grocery store. Or having crack cocaine on tap at the corner tavern. Or setting up a crystal meth lab in an abandoned brewery. Right?

Correct. I can't have it both ways. I have to be wiling to accept the things you described if I am to have the level of personal freedom I think people should have.

Note: A person leaving a bar is not supposed to be falling down drunk. So a person leaving a crack bar or a heroin parlor must likewise be able to walk the public streets in a respectible fashion. As it happens, Alcohol has a reasonably well understood level of inebriation which is considered acceptable in public. If heroin or crack intoxication were to be determined unacceptible in public, then it would seem reasonable to require home use only.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Correct. I can't have it both ways. I have to be wiling to accept the things you described if I am to have the level of personal freedom I think people should have.

No doubt. But I'm still wondering why, if you are such an advocate for personal freedom, you're willing to accept any amount of regulation.

rosborne979 wrote:

Note: A person leaving a bar is not supposed to be falling down drunk. So a person leaving a crack bar or a heroin parlor must likewise be able to walk the public streets in a respectible fashion.

Says who? The state? Logic? Ethics? Good manners?

rosborne979 wrote:

As it happens, Alcohol has a reasonably well understood level of inebriation which is considered acceptable in public. If heroin or crack intoxication were to be determined unacceptible in public, then it would seem reasonable to require home use only.

If society deems a certain level of drug intoxication unacceptable, why should that affect anyone's right to use that drug? Isn't your position something akin to the heckler's veto?

0 Replies

should marijuana be legalized??

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know