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; Yeah, I don't think you get it. Who are you to tell me how I can spend my money and ...

  1. #61
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    Yeah, I don't think you get it. Who are you to tell me how I can spend my money and what I do for entertainment? What's wrong with getting stoned all day if that's what I want to do?
    Well there are things that will have to be paid for, such as regulating the industry. After all you probably wouldent want be be buying green thats been treated with ammonia - even if it did make it a bit more potent. Also, overall, theres going to be health costs as smoking it will damage your lungs, and a small minority of people that smoke it all the time develop schizophrenia. These are all costs that will have to be paid somehow.

    I don't know maybe you would prefer it to be unregulated, be responsible for paying for your own healthcare, and pay less in tax. I guess we just have different opinions on the issue.

  2. #62
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,435
    I'm not comfortable around being in this taxation frame of mind. It is so not like me. I'm increasing the risk of quoting Benjamin Franklin by the end of this thread which will forever kill the little anarchist on me.

    But on this matter, I really don't see any why not's and I see a lot of why to's. The problem however is that usually these taxation money is badly applied. And that's the real risk. For instance... the infamous tobacco awareness ads...

    Ignoring for now for the unquestionable lack of good manners behind them, are they really effective? Hell, no! Among those I know that smoke, they have exactly the opposite result. They increase the resilience. One could argue they are targeted at non smokers who can become smokers... well, at the expense of smokers humanity? And are they effective? Hell, no again! In Portugal numbers reveal the introduction of new smokers has been generally the same for the past years. The reduction of smokers has always been attributed to the cost of tobacoo and it has it highs exactly when tobacco increases in prices (I'm ready to accept however those stupid ads helped too. But not to an extent that make them effective).

    What if instead, the government with that tax money subsided medication aimed at helping quitt smoking? How about promoting public debates in government controlled TV stations? How about workshops for medical doctors favoring discussion and sharing of experiences on the best methods and practices concerning the support of their patients during the quiting process?

    In Portugal, I seem to remember, 37&#37; of cost of a pack of 20 cigarettes (we don't have here 30 and 40 packs) is tax money. Around 35% of a 10 million population smokes. And yet...
    Last edited by Mario F.; 06-02-2008 at 06:00 PM.
    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. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    mike_g, you have some good points.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    For instance tobacco awareness campaigns that pollute my TV set (thankfully there was a decline recently for an interesting reason I will share if you feel an interest) are payed solely from either tobacco related taxes when government sponsored, or privately owned money when done by other organizations.
    Sounds like an interesting story.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Very well then. You agree then they may have an impact in consumption?
    I was arguing based on intent, not actual reality.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    I'm not comfortable around being in this taxation frame of mind. It is so not like me. I'm increasing the risk of quoting Benjamin Franklin by the end of this thread which will forever kill the little anarchist on me.
    ROFL!

    I don't like awareness campaigns because they pretend to be impartial when they obviously aren't.
    Last edited by robwhit; 06-02-2008 at 06:56 PM.

  4. #64
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    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.
    The Mensa Research Journal has shown that moderate marijuana use over prolonged periods increases the score recieved on a standardized IQ test. Moderate is defined as fewer than 5 times per week. The rate of increase per decade is approximately twice the rate of increase in the general population.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  5. #65
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,435
    Quote Originally Posted by robwhit View Post
    Sounds like an interesting story.
    And it's also not a long one.

    Over here awareness campaigns have been rather intensive for the past years. Mostly government sponsored. They stoped however some... ermm... 4 months ago, when a law was passed that - finally! I may add - prohibits smoking in public enclosed spaces (which includes work areas). No more ads ever since...

    Now, one more... drugs awareness ads used to be quite common until some 20 or 15 years ago or so. Then the government decriminalized drug usage. The campaign ads stopped. For the past 15 or 20 years I never again saw a drugs awareness campaign anywhere.

    I'm hope you are following me by now; the risk in this incomplete measures is that they serve governments quiet well. They wash they hands of the issue and cease to take any responsibility in the matter. At that point the only interest they may have in the issue is if it serves their political agenda at the time with little to no real effect in the end (having flashbacks here over this Bush, the father). Half-baked measures do not serve anyone but any government that wishes to take a burden of their shoulders.

    If instead we defend legalization, yes, but also taxation, we are in my view guaranteeing continued government responsibility. All in all I am not sure how good this may be. I'm in no way a government-depending sort of person. I however worry about a new trend I have been witnessing over the past years a little around the world in which governments (you know, elected by the people for the people and all that stuff) are getting increasingly more corporate and less social.
    Last edited by Mario F.; 06-02-2008 at 07:27 PM.
    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.

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Are you suggesting that the lack of ads was detrimental?

  7. #67
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    This was inspired by the smoking poll. Whether or not you personally use or agree with use, do you think marijuana should be legalized in the U.S.

    If you don't live in the US then I suppose this doesnt apply to you.
    Like Elysia said, drugs should never be legal.
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarin View Post
    I can't say this with absolute certainly, but just from what I've seen, an alcoholic is more likely to endanger other people than cannabis addict is.
    So yes. Either that or excessive uses of alcohol should become illegal, and you know it never will.
    "It already is bad. Why not make it worse?"
    Quote Originally Posted by Neo1 View Post
    I don't need the law to tell me what is dangerous and what isn't, if i want to run a risk, i should be free to do so. Forbidding something just because it is risky, is just plain old totalitarianism.
    It's to protect people who's IQ is under the room temperature from messing up their lives. And also I don't think government wants to pay extra billions for new mental hospitals.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Meanwhile the consumption of heavy drugs is not illegal on most western countries (if not all). What is illegal is distribution.
    So if the border control finds 30 kilograms of heroin in the back of the car they can't do anything since they haven't proved that guy was distributing it?

    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    I'm not seeing the logical connections in this argument. It's illegal because it hurts people, and it hurts people because... it's illegal? Can you please relate an anecdote or other bit of experience that makes you believe that cannabis is harmful? "It's illegal so it's bad" is not an argument.
    It is harmful because it causes psychotic episodes which take years to recover from, makes people awfully lethargic and causes addiction.
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    Because the best world is a world that's locked down, where people's decisions are made for them, and Elysia's opinion is the only valid one?
    Governments protect people from harming themselves. It wouldn't be illegal in the first place if it didn't cause any problems, would it?
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    But I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since you've expressed similar opinions in the past, like banning people from living in areas where natural disasters occur (in other words, the entire planet)
    Actually, I agree that living in areas where there is a strong earthquake once every 2 years is not a good idea.
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_g View Post
    IMO it should be fully legalized and taxed. Not only would it save a fortune on policing, court costs and keeping people in jail, but the government would be able to make money from it in the same way they do with tobbacco and alcohol. It does have its drawbacks as in it makes people lazy and can cause paranoia for people that overdo it, but in general its far less harmful smoking and drinking. Its also less addictive, which tends to be the main factor used in the classification of drugs. I think criminalizing it is unfair as people that smoke green generally arent arent causing problems for other people, so it should be a matter of personal choice.
    Maybe we should tax suicides?
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    This makes no sense. What does the legal status of something have to do with the number of people who desire it? Do you think there is a horde of people waiting in the wings for the moment cannabis is legalized, at which point they're suddenly going to start smoking it? People who've never used it before?
    I believe there are many people who would start trying it when it would become legal. And I think noone of them would realize the situation they're putting themselves in.
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    Looking out for the general well-being of society is a noble cause. One of the most important things in society, I think, is personal freedom and responsibility. Eliminating our ability to make our own decisions doesn't improve society, it turns it into a bunch of robots who can't make ethical or moral decisions without guidance from the government.
    Unfortunately, most people tend to be too dumb to understand what they're doing.
    Quote Originally Posted by brewbuck View Post
    If the only thing stopping you from getting wasted and getting behind the wheel is a law, then you have failed to develop a sense of personal ethics.
    If it would be legal, people won't think about what it is and will just start using it and get addicted. But it if is illegal, people will consider it more if they want to start using it and if they choose not to, they won't think about it again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mario F. View Post
    Eventually drugs will be legalized across the world. A huge step was already taken in decriminalizing usage. Production and distribution will also eventually be legalized as the economical argument becomes increasingly more powerful. Currently a huge government untaped economy worth billions of dollars is being ran by drug lords. Crime pays, much like it did during the Prohibition. And much like in those days, crime came to stay and no manner of law enforcement will change that.
    No it won't. At least where I live.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thantos View Post
    If certain drugs were legalized I think we'd see a decrease in crime associated with the production and distribution of those drugs.
    You don't get it. Crime is a little concern compared to the health of the people.
    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?
    Cellphones have their ups and downs. Marijuana only has downs. Awful downs.
    Last edited by maxorator; 06-03-2008 at 12:12 AM.
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  8. #68
    and the Hat of Clumsiness GanglyLamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    between photons and phonons
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    Cellphones have their ups and downs. Marijuana only has downs. Awful downs.
    Be carefull by saying that, marijuana is considered a medicin for people who have chronic diseases like MS... it lightens the pain because instead of using marjiuana they would be taking tons of "legal drugs" to lighten the pain but those tend to cause liverdamage etc in the long run (the run isnt that long actually...).

    Im talking about Multiple Sclerosis not the MS that pops up first in an IT-er's mind.
    Last edited by GanglyLamb; 06-03-2008 at 12:24 AM.

  9. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    Like Elysia said, drugs should never be legal.
    What about Tylenol?

  10. #70
    Reverse Engineer maxorator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Estonia
    Posts
    2,318
    Quote Originally Posted by robwhit View Post
    What about Tylenol?
    Stop freaking nitpicking and say something meaningful.
    "The Internet treats censorship as damage and routes around it." - John Gilmore

  11. #71
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,536
    Quote Originally Posted by abachler View Post
    The Mensa Research Journal has shown that moderate marijuana use over prolonged periods increases the score recieved on a standardized IQ test. Moderate is defined as fewer than 5 times per week. The rate of increase per decade is approximately twice the rate of increase in the general population.
    Interesting, but what's the downside?
    There must be a reason why we all don't consume the drug and get better scores on all tests, yes?

    Quote Originally Posted by GanglyLamb View Post
    Be carefull by saying that, marijuana is considered a medicin for people who have chronic diseases like MS... it lightens the pain because instead of using marjiuana they would be taking tons of "legal drugs" to lighten the pain but those tend to cause liverdamage etc in the long run (the run isnt that long actually...).
    Naturally, banned drugs and things can be made legal for medical purposes, since doctors know what they're doing and can diagnose and give precise instructions on how to use it and when, and in that sense it's perfectly valid, since as maxorator says, legalizing it will make dumb people use them and that leads down a chain of bad events.
    If it should be legal, then it must be controlled. And public consumption isn't controlled.
    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. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    2,129
    Quote Originally Posted by maxorator View Post
    Stop freaking nitpicking and say something meaningful.
    Where do you draw the line?

  13. #73
    Dr Dipshi++ mike_g's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    On me hyperplane
    Posts
    1,218
    Maybe we should tax suicides?
    Maybe we should tax your ability for rational thinking. Please, take a hour or two to re-evaluate your comparison

  14. #74
    and the Hat of Clumsiness GanglyLamb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    between photons and phonons
    Posts
    1,109
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Naturally, banned drugs and things can be made legal for medical purposes, since doctors know what they're doing and can diagnose and give precise instructions on how to use it and when, and in that sense it's perfectly valid, since as maxorator says, legalizing it will make dumb people use them and that leads down a chain of bad events.
    If it should be legal, then it must be controlled. And public consumption isn't controlled.
    So weed out the dumb people and everything would be legal...
    I find it very offensive that you and maxorator approach a whole part of society from this angle... they are dumb so that must make them irresponsible.

    So should guns, knives, piano wire, guitar strings and the like be banned, just because a minority of the society could use it for the wrong purpose?
    No matter how many things you ban, I could still have a serious impact on society with for instance only rocks (everyone has seen the images of people throwing rocks at police). Hell even my own body can be used to affect the society in a negative way, that is if I would be on a crash course and just start to strangle random people I see walking down the street...

    My point is that you cannot ban everything that might pose a possible risk to the entire society because a marginal part of it could use these things to do so. Along with the fact that you are alive comes a series of risks. One of those risks is that you could be hurt by one of these folks from the minority of the society.

    And banning it itself can also expose you to risks, like said, if its banned, the price is not controlled at least not by the government but by some crooks who get very rich. The price is high, so the "dumb" people as you label them, go and find other ways to come up with the money, including car theft, mugging, burglary,etc...
    Bottomline, you still affect society in a negative way... so take the middle road and decriminalise it let people use it in a safe environment, controlled substances etc...Response to abuse of the drug or excessive use can be tracked down much more quicker then.

  15. #75
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,536
    Quote Originally Posted by GanglyLamb View Post
    So weed out the dumb people and everything would be legal...
    I find it very offensive that you and maxorator approach a whole part of society from this angle... they are dumb so that must make them irresponsible.
    This is unfortunate truth. A lot of people are dumb in this way. A lot of people do it wrong or abuse it. That's life. That's society. We must learn to live with it.

    So should guns, knives, piano wire, guitar strings and the like be banned, just because a minority of the society could use it for the wrong purpose?
    No matter how many things you ban, I could still have a serious impact on society with for instance only rocks (everyone has seen the images of people throwing rocks at police). Hell even my own body can be used to affect the society in a negative way, that is if I would be on a crash course and just start to strangle random people I see walking down the street...
    I repeat: there is a fine line that must be drawn somewhere between what should be accepted and what should be banned. Just because it can do serious damage doesn't mean it should be banned. You must weight the pros and cons and make a decision based upon that.

    My point is that you cannot ban everything that might pose a possible risk to the entire society because a marginal part of it could use these things to do so. Along with the fact that you are alive comes a series of risks. One of those risks is that you could be hurt by one of these folks from the minority of the society.
    No, you can't do that. You're right. And we shouldn't either because we are free - we have rights to do things. However, when it comes to a society with many people, laws become necessary and it becomes necessary to outlaw things.
    If something obviously has a negative effect on the whole, it may have to be banned.

    And banning it itself can also expose you to risks, like said, if its banned, the price is not controlled at least not by the government but by some crooks who get very rich. The price is high, so the "dumb" people as you label them, go and find other ways to come up with the money, including car theft, mugging, burglary,etc...
    Yes, banning things may also have a negative effect, but I would rather think that for the case of drugs, it reduces the negativity. Refer to maxorator's post above. I think it explains very well what outlawing something does.
    And if it doesn't... then we must ask ourselves: WHY do we ban things in the first place? Isn't it to discourage its use or abuse?
    That's just it - by banning it, they reduce the effects of it.

    See it this way - maybe you can drive a car at 140 km/h without problems. But that doesn't mean others can. So. They have to think of everyone on the road and thus reduce the maximum speed limit on behalf of the society to reduce death tolls.
    The need of many before the need of one. That's how a society works.

    Bottomline, you still affect society in a negative way... so take the middle road and decriminalise it let people use it in a safe environment, controlled substances etc...Response to abuse of the drug or excessive use can be tracked down much more quicker then.
    If it's just in safe environments and not for public, then I agree. If they know what they're doing - they can use it.
    But I disagree for decriminalizing it for the public.
    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.

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