View Poll Results: Should Marijuana be legalized in the U.S.?

Voters
34. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    23 67.65%
  • No

    11 32.35%

Should it be legalized?

This is a discussion on Should it be legalized? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by Mario F. I honestly don't see what's the problem in an increase of consumption. How exactly is ...

  1. #31
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I honestly don't see what's the problem in an increase of consumption. How exactly is that a bad thing if it was to be legalized in the first place?

    In other words, how can an increase or decrease in consumption can be an argument pro or in favor, Sly? You seem to be looking at this from the whole wrong POV. If there is an opinion that consumption will increase and this is seen as bad then you can agree that a priori you are against legalization. Because you wouldn't ever agree to legalize something you consider bad.
    What? Who said an increase in consumption was a problem? I was countering brewbuck's statement (or really a leading question) which implied that it was wrong to assume that the legalization of a vice would increase the consumption of that vice. I was simply providing evidence of the opposite. Legalization, ceteris paribus, increases consumption. I think my examples, if properly reasearched by those who are interested, will support this. However, I don't know where you got the idea that I was saying this is a good or bad thing. Really, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, as I haven't found all of the pro-legalization arguments to be very strong, thus far. No offense.
    Last edited by SlyMaelstrom; 06-02-2008 at 01:22 PM.
    Sent from my iPad®

  2. #32
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,436
    Probably my bad. I got that impression. However allow me to comment on this....

    Quote Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
    Legalization, ceteris paribus, increases consumption.
    I've read your examples and I'm still not convinced. If anything I'll go by Thantos comments on this in that it may, as a result of the novelty, but will decline to the usual levels once it wears off.

    There are many other factors at stake that would also have a saying. Legalization will force the government to take a more active role with prevention and awareness campaigns plus real investment in treatment clinics (something that I believe, much like in here, over there in US is mostly privately controlled). On the other hand, opening the society to the "dangers" of legal drugs will spur the debate and the awareness level further and will help a more conscious unbiased debate that can only benefit those who aren't there yet or are currently entry level consumers.

    I could go on... maybe the above reads like a wish list. But I'm not sure so sure as you seem to be Sly. If anything your point didn't get an expression over here.

    Anyways, off to buy a computer. Keep debating.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  3. #33
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,537
    Isn't it the idea of forbidding something to decrease its use or consumption? They know they cannot entirely stop it, but it give a message to everyone that they'll not allow it.
    So of course consumption increases if it were to become legal. Drug lords can even operate legally and sell to a much broader group of people.
    And it's not so much about the single individual, but the needs of many. If the consumption increases, then so does the accidents or effects they have on other people.
    We know there are people who drive while drunk. Sometimes they may be drinking somewhere and hope they can get home before they're caught in the act by driving.
    But what if we banned alcohol in the first place? Then they couldn't go somewhere and drink before driving home, thus less accidents. Drunk people jeopardize other peoples' safety and not just their own.

    This is what's so dangerous is legalizing drugs.
    Some are responsible and will never hurt others. Some are stupid and jeopardize other's lives. Some do it on purpose.

    So there must be a line between freedom and what we may not do. And someone or some people just have to draw the line. My opinion is that we can live without drugs.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  4. #34
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    If certain drugs were legalized I think we'd see a decrease in crime associated with the production and distribution of those drugs.

    But what if we banned alcohol in the first place? Then they couldn't go somewhere and drink before driving home, thus less accidents.
    Unfortunate for you, history doesn't support that statement.


    Elysia, by your logic we had better ban cell phones because people can use them to do all sort of bad things. Just using a cell phone while driving can increase the chance of an accident.

  5. #35
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Thantos View Post
    Elysia, by your logic we had better ban cell phones because people can use them to do all sort of bad things. Just using a cell phone while driving can increase the chance of an accident.
    No, as I did mention, there's a fine line between accepted and not accepted.
    I fit cell phones into the category where it should be legal.
    Everything has ups and downs and therefore must be considered.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #36
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    So of course consumption increases if it were to become legal. Drug lords can even operate legally and sell to a much broader group of people.
    And it's not so much about the single individual, but the needs of many. If the consumption increases, then so does the accidents or effects they have on other people.
    You really are clueless arent you. The reason "drug lords" exist, along with drug related crime is because drugs are illegal and from that theres a huge amount of money to be made. If it were legalized and taxed these are the people that would be losing out.

    As for accidents and this huge amount of mess you think is going to arise, again, its completely misguided. Theres plenty of messy incidents involving alcohol (as you may have witnessed if you are allowed out at night). But thats alcohol. Stoned people don't go around throwing up, starting fights, acting obscene and throwing tantrums for no reason at all. Out of all drugs alcohol has definitely got one of the worst effects on behavior.

  7. #37
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,537
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
    You really are clueless arent you. The reason "drug lords" exist, along with drug related crime is because drugs are illegal and from that theres a huge amount of money to be made. If it were legalized and taxed these are the people that would be losing out.
    Really? What if they can sell more, and for less risk?
    There's another side of the argument.
    There's no telling which side it will take.

    As for accidents and this huge amount of mess you think is going to arise, again, its completely misguided. Theres plenty of messy incidents involving alcohol (as you may have witnessed if you are allowed out at night). But thats alcohol. Stoned people don't go around throwing up, starting fights, acting obscene and throwing tantrums for no reason at all. Out of all drugs alcohol has definitely got one of the worst effects on behavior.
    This kind of amplifies my argument against drugs. A similar effect may build up on drugs, you know. But then again, maybe not. We cannot predict what will happen, but it might happen. And that's what politicians will argue, because they look at both sides of the coin.
    I am also worried that the a similar effect to alcohol will arise, and that's why I vote against it.
    (Btw, I am old enough to be allowed out at night, HOWEVER, I do not drink, I do not go to pubs, and I absolutely detest alcohol.)
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  8. #38
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    No, as I did mention, there's a fine line between accepted and not accepted.
    I fit cell phones into the category where it should be legal.
    Everything has ups and downs and therefore must be considered.
    So causing an accident because you are talking on a cell phone is ok but causing an accident because you are in altered state of mind isn't? Cell phones are ok even though one could use them to do some very bad things (annoying others on the train and/or being used as a trigger to blow the train up) but getting high is evil?

  9. #39
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    Really? What if they can sell more, and for less risk?
    There's another side of the argument.
    There's no telling which side it will take.
    Then it will be a legal business with competition that pays tax. Would you call someone that owns a pub a drug lord?

    This kind of amplifies my argument against drugs. A similar effect may build up on drugs, you know. But then again, maybe not. We cannot predict what will happen, but it might happen. And that's what politicians will argue, because they look at both sides of the coin.
    I am also worried that the a similar effect to alcohol will arise, and that's why I vote against it.
    (Btw, I am old enough to be allowed out at night, HOWEVER, I do not drink, I do not go to pubs, and I absolutely detest alcohol.)
    The problem is that you dont understand anything about the drug you are talking about. You think people inject it o_O

    Caffeine is a drug, should that be banned?

  10. #40
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Why would you want to tax marijuana? If it was legalized, why shouldn't they be able to buy/sell it unencumbered?

  11. #41
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,537
    Quote Originally Posted by Thantos View Post
    So causing an accident because you are talking on a cell phone is ok but causing an accident because you are in altered state of mind isn't? Cell phones are ok even though one could use them to do some very bad things (annoying others on the train and/or being used as a trigger to blow the train up) but getting high is evil?
    From the standpoint as I see it, that seems to be the case.
    Others may not agree, but it's how I formulate my view and opinion on the matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
    The problem is that you dont understand anything about the drug you are talking about. You think people inject it o_O
    Well, whatever they do with it. It was banned for a reason.

    Caffeine is a drug, should that be banned?
    I don't think it has such severe effects as other things, so it may be on the other side of the argument - allowed, because of freedom.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  12. #42
    Devil's Advocate SlyMaelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Out of scope
    Posts
    4,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I've read your examples and I'm still not convinced. If anything I'll go by Thantos comments on this in that it may, as a result of the novelty, but will decline to the usual levels once it wears off.
    That's because I didn't really back my comments up with statistics and never planned to... I'm simply leaving that for the interested reader to do on their own. I have nothing to gain by winning this debate, so I can't really be bothered to pull the statistics that I know I've seen in the past that support my examples. I wouldn't even want to bother those that are not so interested by posting the long post required to back up those examples.

    I agreed with Thantos, as well, if you recall. His point was very similar to what I was making. It would cause an immediate spike from law-abiding people that are curious about the drug and then the spike would eventually drop back down... however to say that it would go back down to where it was (there for, not increasing the number of users) would imply that either all people who are curious but have yet to try the drug will not stick with it... or that there will be other circumstances (perhaps a really, really good anti-drug campaign *snicker*) that will pull the numbers of regular smokers down enough that it will offset the new consumers. Not impossible, and I'm sure the declining number of smokers in Portugal support that, however, I'm sure there is plenty of statistics that support the likely case being that there is be some sort of increase in users.

    Another thing that should be considered would be the incorporation of the newly legalized drug in other products. Imagine your regular cigarette companies now releasing a new line of spilffs (tobacco cigarettes with a small amount of marijuana). Certainly you would find some kind of niche in the cigarette smoking community that would rather smoke a spliff than just a regular cigarette on occasions. Oh, oh... what about Kellogg's Marijuan-Os Brand Cereal? Surely you can see the market-ability of such items.
    Sent from my iPad®

  13. #43
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Well, whatever they do with it. It was banned for a reason.
    What was that reason? Do you know, or are you just tooting someone else's horn?

  14. #44
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,239
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Well, whatever they do with it. It was banned for a reason.
    Frightening sort of logic... "If it's illegal, it must be wrong." "If he was arrested, he must be guilty."

    At any rate, if you actually employ some effort and look into the historical reasons why cannabis was made illegal (and if you are unwilling to, you don't deserve to participate in these discussions) you should learn a few interesting things.

  15. #45
    and the hat of wrongness Salem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    The edge of the known universe
    Posts
    32,484
    > But what if we banned alcohol in the first place?
    Did prohibition teach you anything?
    Banning it just attracts criminals and sky-high prices to offset the consequences of getting caught.

    One immediate effect of legalisation would be addicts could get help without being persecuted (or prosecuted). A stable price would mean they wouldn't have to resort to mugging and burglary (which accounts for a hell of a lot of low-level crime) to gain the funds to feed their habit.
    The production cost of say cocaine is about the same as sugar, but the street price has absolutely no comparison. Where's all that extra money coming from (theft, muggings), and where is it going (pockets of criminals and terrorists). What part of that chain has any benefit to the wider society?


    Proper establishments (like bars serving alcohol) where you could take your drug using safe and clean equipment would be available, where you could just strap yourself in for the duration of the trip. No risk of disease from infected needles, and no danger of accidental overdose because you change supplier and the hit is now 100x purer than you're used to.

    Yes, that's right folks. As part of the bargain for legalisation, the govt. can also describe the legal ways in which you can use it. So some drugs would reqire proper licenced and regulated premises. I don't want to see crack-heads roaming the streets anymore than anyone else does, but if they want to go to a properly licenced premises for a few hours, then good luck to them.


    > Drug lords can even operate legally and sell to a much broader group of people.
    Yes, they're called "companies". They employ people and pay taxes. They also ensure that the product is delivered in regulated amounts for a consistent price.

    > Who said an increase in consumption was a problem?
    I just see an opportunity for governments to raise more taxes through the vices of other people so I can pay less. Fixing the damage smoking does (in health care) costs less than the tax revenues generated by smokers' over their lifetime. Sure most of them end up in hospital, but by and large it's a short stay (one way or another).
    Now if the UK govt. had the stones to allow the police to directly invoice the drinks industry for all the extra man-power deployed on a Saturday night, then that too would be a big bonus.

    The only way to control the level of consumption is through education (not legislation). Using drug receipts to fund such education is one way of managing the demand side of the problem. Tobacco use in the west has been falling for a good while now by keeping up the message about it's effects.

    > If certain drugs were legalized I think we'd see a decrease in crime associated with the production and distribution of those drugs.
    Yeah, all the way down to zero in fact. Are there any gun-toting drinks barons left in the US?
    If the product is legal, then it follows production and supply is legal as well.
    If you dance barefoot on the broken glass of undefined behaviour, you've got to expect the occasional cut.
    If at first you don't succeed, try writing your phone number on the exam paper.
    I support http://www.ukip.org/ as the first necessary step to a free Europe.

Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Should it be legalized - Part Deux
    By medievalelks in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 06-11-2008, 06:17 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21