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.
Printable View
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.
It matters not where you live. Drugs should never be legal.
They are a danger to the ones who inject it and a danger to everyone around, as well.
Inject marijuana?
There's actually a senator who proposes to legalize it in small uses, he claimed it to be, "Jail for serious criminals act". I don't use it personally so I don't care, just an interesting tidbit.
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.
> Either that or excessive uses of alcohol should become illegal, and you know it never will.
It is, well at least in Australia being drunk in public is against the law. And from what I've seen on Cops it also is in America?
I can't say I agree.
Alcohol is simply not forbidden because they can't do it (or it would be a very bad thing™).
Alcohol is deeply rooted in the society TODAY, so they can't just make it illegal. It would lots of bad effects.
However, dugs are illegal today and therefore it would only hurt society to make them legal. You know it will.
Alcohol, smoking and drugs should all be forbidden and we can only hope that it will be one day when people stop doing it.
Don't open the cage to the beast. Instead lock the beast inside and toss out the key.
I personally consider marijuana less dangerous than alcohol, and less annoying than normal cigarettes (because it's consumed in far smaller quantities), though I consume nothing of the kind.
That said, I know that excessive marijuana use can mess up a life pretty good. The person simply becomes too lethargic to do anything.
Of course, in America, in the early part of last century, they did try to forbid alcohol. I think you'll find that this only lead to criminals getting rich. Whether that is an argument for legalizing drugs, or the non-criminalization of alcohol, or something else, I'm not quite sure.
In Sweden, they had a system or rationing on alcohol (in fact only applied to distilled spirits) for a few decades (1917-1955). For those that can read (or find translation), there is a Swedish Wiki article here: http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motbok
There is no evidence that this led to less alcoholism in Sweden, but some say that people would "buy their ration whether they needed to or not" (just like "spending the budget just because you never know if you get it next year or not").
--
Mats
Wouldn't making its consumption legal encourage its consumption?Quote:
less annoying than normal cigarettes (because it's consumed in far smaller quantities)
Elysia, they did at one time outlaw alcohol, and it refined organized crime in the US. Drugs are already illegal and tied to organized crime as it is.
Excessive alcohol is not illegal unless a person is behind the wheel, though it can be detrimental to your health or even deadly.
Smoking tobacco can cause cancer and is filled with things humans don't want to breathe on a daily basis and it's legal.
The only reason is because smoking and alcohol have been advertised as the cool thing to do from movies to tv news (like in the 50s).
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.Quote:
They are a danger to the ones who inject it
I live in Belgium so to get acces to this kind of drugs is easy since you can just take your car, one hour later you are in the Netherlands and you can buy your goodies...
Anyhow the law in belgium concerning this kind of drugs can be found here http://www.belgium.be/nl/gezondheid/...ving/cannabis/
In short it states that selling it is prohibited but having it with you is allowed (maximum 3 grams) as long as you are over 18, dont cause trouble in public because of it and the use is not problematic... You can be prosecuted if you are under the influence and then drive for instance, or you are growing it at home or being a traficker of the substance.
So my opinion about this is that it can be legalised as long as its under control (as it is in belgium). I categorize this drug along with alcohol (dangerous if used in the wrong ways under the wrong circumstances).
But since im not a US citizen I didnt vote anything :).
Marijuana is already legal in certain countries. What you are not allowed is to cultivate it past a certain amount *shrug*. Other countries have it legalized for medical purposes only. It's quiet an acceptable drug in most circumstances and far less dangerous than cigarettes.
Meanwhile the consumption of heavy drugs is not illegal on most western countries (if not all). What is illegal is distribution. The rules go to such oddities as arresting someone from carrying weed and at the same time create inject houses, government sponsored, in order to give support to heroin and other hard drugs addicts. They don't supply drugs, but they create a place where someone can "safely" inject himself.
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.
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?Quote:
Alcohol, smoking and drugs should all be forbidden and we can only hope that it will be one day when people stop doing it.
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)
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.
I've never taken any illegal drugs so I can't give an informed insight into this, from the viewpoint of a consumer. However, I've been around those who have been smoking it (and a lot at that). And there's a clear and decisive difference (from my experiences), of someone who's very drunk and very high. The latter having more control over themselves and decisions than the former. I don't know what someone who has smoked more than they could handle would act like, but someone who has drunk more than they can handle is very messy.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017
Like banning anything ever solved anything.
Tried it before, it didn't work then and the so-called "war on drugs" is just as bone-headed.
At best, you have a very expensive stale-mate.
I agree with mike_g. There are "good" (aka taxed, with known quality standards) drugs such as alcohol and there are "bad" (aka, untaxed, provided by criminals, with no quality standards) drugs.
Alcohol by the way kills 18000 people a year, but no-one gives a hoot because it's always or two at a time.
Tobacco also kills in large numbers, again only one or two at a time.
The only thing which should be criminalised is your inability to use your drug of choice responsibly. If you kill someone whilst DUI, you're in the clink for a nice stretch, but no-one goes round suggesting banning cars or alcohol as the solution to the problem.
Plus, how you kill someone should have no bearing on the sentence. Unlike in the UK where killing someone whilst drunk can get you a remarkably light sentence.
If it wasn't illegal, more would use, which would mean more accidents and bad effects happening in the society.
Indeed?Quote:
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?
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)
I beg you to think. There are idiots born in the society. If they drink and drive cars are they only affected? Or are others? In effect: because they do things, they hurt OTHERS who are INNOCENT.
There will always be those kind of people, and in effect, making it illegal would most likely reduce this type of occurrence.
I'm basing the opinion on that it benefits the society more in general, fewer accidents and less resources to catch such people, than if it were legal.
This is how I see it. Feel free to disagree.
But then again, what expenses would it cause to clean up the mess some people do? To keep bigger and more checks, to hospitalize people hurt by those?
It has an effect on society too, even if it brings in more income. It can bring more misery and death, as well as accidents, too.
I do agree, but as a society, they must think of a middle line between which is acceptable and what isn't.Quote:
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.
If it hurts more to have it legalized, then unfortunately, they must think of the whole society first.
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?
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.
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.
Well, now that's just silly... to say that the legalization won't increase the number of users of the drug is just rediculous. You're going to tell me that every person curious about the drug is willing to break the law to try it? You're going to tell me that the increase in Canada of people polling that they use marajuana since its been legalized is in direct proportion of the number of people too ashamed to admit they commit a vice every now and then?
I personally am on the side of legalizing the drug, because as others said it can be a major tax gain for the government. They could even do the same thing they do with cigarettes by putting a hard cap on the minimum price that you could sell the drug for. It causes less harm to yourself than cigarettes or alcohol and it causes less harm to others than alcohol (and cigarettes depending on where you stand with the second-hand smoke facts). However, I think it would be silly to admit that, if legalized, then the volume of marajuana users in the country wouldn't increase... it's also silly to say that the users wouldn't be smoking it more often. If you were to find these to be truths, then I'd have to completely go against my initial point because I think it wouldn't be such a hot ticket for the government if the market for the drug didn't grow significantly.
If people are responsible enough to obey the law, even if they disagree with it, why do you think those people will suddenly become irresponsible if it were legalized? Clearly, these people value the law, and social order. Do you think a little bit of pot is going to change them into irresponsible sociopaths?
And if you actually thought that legalization would lead to increased social disorder, why do you claim to be pro-legalization?
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.
I have no opinion either way, I'm afraid. I never gave it much thought. Sometimes I too think it can be dangerous. But hearing brewbuck makes me feel a little better. On the other hand, decriminalizing drugs may be a huge step in guaranteeing more active and responsible government support in treatment. It will probably also help in the creation of a new brand of drug consumers that, because they are no longer pariahs, social outcasts, will feel less immersed in this world and less hard pressed to become irreversible addicts.
Yes it should be legalised. And in some cases, use of it should be compulsory...
Marijuana is legal over here and the number of consumers hasn't increased. In fact it keeps declining. The reason it does has nothing to do with legalization, mind you. But with educational values that have thankfully risen along with a more general conscious mind about the issues of soft drugs.
Marijuana is really not a problem. It never was. It's not even more dangerous than pain killers or anti-depressives that every day kill someone in the world. There are in my opinion, better reasons to look at the issue of legalization than looking at the possibility of usage increasing or decreasing, as marijuana legalization seems to have proved at least over here.
Well, SlyMaelstrom forgot the ceteris paribus.Quote:
Marijuana is legal over here and the number of consumers hasn't increased. In fact it keeps declining. The reason it does has nothing to do with legalization, mind you. But with educational values that have thankfully risen along with a more general conscious mind about the issues of soft drugs.
When did I say that smoking marajuana is irresponsible or a social disorder? Breaking the law is irresponsible... and you'd have to be mad to say that there aren't law-abiding citizens that have a personal interest in experimenting with marijuana but refuse because they are, in fact, law-abiding. You'd have to be mad to say that there aren't people that wouldn't consider trying the drug if they knew that it was, in fact, legal and safe. What about something else... let's say prostitution. There is one place in this country where prostitution is legalized: Las Vegas, Nevada. Now, while prostitution is prevelant all through-out the country... it would be grossly wrong to say there aren't people who have admittedly gone to Las Vegas simply to be with a prostitute knowing very well that they could get the same services illegally near their home. Hell, you can even tally up the number of people who take a trip up to Canada to smoke pot... there are 1000s of people yearly that make that trip for that very reason. Many of those people are not regular pot-smokers in the states, because most people who have smoked marijuana in the US know the limited risk in getting caught and would never bother with the extra expense.
I could really pull up a ton of other examples of this. Even with prohibition there was an immediate decrease in the consumption of alcohol simply because some people did not want to break the law.
I would suspect that if pot was legalized tomorrow we would see a jump in the number of users. There are a lot of people who won't try it because of the legal status that would like to try it. There would be some who would abuse it and some who wouldn't. I would also suspect that over time that spike would level off as the novality wore off.
I would favor a review of all drug classifications to see if there is a need to keep the bans.
Well, of course, you'd have to assume there are no obscure factors that would disinterest the consumer like a rediculous increase in price or significant decrease in quality... however, I don't see what logic anyone could consider that would say simply legalizing something would reduce the interest of the consumer and therefor decrease the volume of consumers or even leave it the same.
In response to Thantos, I agree... if legalized, there would certainly be an immediate spike in consumption as people satisfy their curiousity and attempt to follow the crowd. Eventually this spike would level off and the number of users would die down, however, I couldn't say it would get back down to where it is before it is illegal as some of the new consumers from that spike would surely wish to continue the habit. I think the real key in the matter would lay on the commercial and financial industry on how they react to hiring marijuana users. Surely, if the drug was legal but it was shown that many employers had problems with hiring marijuana users, then the number of users would decrease.
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. :)
Probably my bad. I got that impression. However allow me to comment on this....
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
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.
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.
If certain drugs were legalized I think we'd see a decrease in crime associated with the production and distribution of those drugs.
Unfortunate for you, history doesn't support that statement.Quote:
But what if we banned alcohol in the first place? Then they couldn't go somewhere and drink before driving home, thus less accidents.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.)
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?
Then it will be a legal business with competition that pays tax. Would you call someone that owns a pub a drug lord?Quote:
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.
The problem is that you dont understand anything about the drug you are talking about. You think people inject it o_OQuote:
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.)
Caffeine is a drug, should that be banned?
Why would you want to tax marijuana? If it was legalized, why shouldn't they be able to buy/sell it unencumbered?
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.
Well, whatever they do with it. It was banned for a reason.
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:
Caffeine is a drug, should that be banned?
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.
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.
> 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.
Why not? We tax beer and tobacco so why not pot? Hell we tax most goods.
And what if the reason for it being banned was because it was considered a drug only Mexican used and we wanted to oppress them? Would that be a valid reason for keeping it banned? (Note: No idea if the reason I just used is historically accurate or not)Quote:
Originally Posted by Elysia
I don't think we'd see the crimes disappear for a good while. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see a spike in violent crime immediately following a ban lift. Some people stand to lose quite a lot of money so I could see them fight to maintain control of it. Over time it would decrease as they moved onto other forms of controlled substances.
Interesting thought: I wonder how much drug suppliers (the illegal kind) pay out in bribes (aka "contributions") to politicians to maintain the bans on certain drugs?
Not as much as the drug suppliers (legal kind) pay out in bribes (aka "contributions") to politicians to keep the bans off certain drugs? Would you think they contribute more than Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis or any other similar company to the campaigns in this years election in the USA? These aren't all US companies I named.
I don't think they pay anything for that; its more like how much they pay to launder their money.Quote:
Interesting thought: I wonder how much drug suppliers (the illegal kind) pay out in bribes (aka "contributions") to politicians to maintain the bans on certain drugs?
Taxing drugs is a good way to discourage excessive use. It also adds an extra motivator for people that want to give up a habit.Quote:
Taxing something just for uniformity is a good way to turn things to pot (pun intended).
As other suggested, you should really at the very least inform yourself before participating in a debate with such sort of arguments (or lack of them).
These are the words of Harry J. Anslinger, then director of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics when just after the lifting of the Prohibition, he testified before Congress defending what was then called the Marijuana Prohibition and that later was put to motion with the The Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which is in effect to this day in the USA. Listen to this, my dear:
"Marijuana is the most violence causing drug in the history of mankind. Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz and swing, result from marijuana usage. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes."
And so Marijuana was banned. It is agreed in many circles that the causes behind Marijuana banning and - prior public defacing - have to do with the then emerging industries of plastics and synthetic fibers of which the USA historical hemp production was a real competitor. Naturally these claims cannot be proven. But it was exactly with the destruction of the hemp industry (edit: that can be traced to the founding of the nation) that these new industries finally were able to take over, some of them ran by industry barons with seats in the Congress and with special relations with the USA government.
Sales tax and cigarette tax are two different taxes. To say that it should be harder to do one legal thing than to do another legal thing just because of some nebulous political ethics, in my opinion, is not in the spirit of a free country.
From the point of view of the end consumer there's no difference between taxes. But I can understand your point. However, tobacco related taxes aren't your typical taxes. In Portugal for instance, they are applied in medical research and health care investments only. The government cannot just grab this money and change the furniture on the prime minister house, or build a new school.
Drug related taxes are just a natural thought in a modern (I agree, overly fixated in taxes, mind you) western country. More, the money could be used effectively to fight addiction and to prevent it. It would also no doubt have a potential to reduce consumption since this is proved worldwide on the case of tobacco. Although on the subject of Marijuana I sustain (having always smoked it) this drug is so pathetically ineffective at creating dependency or altering the state of mind that the only health issues resolting from it will be because of continuous abuse over the years...
I agree in principle -- but there is a clear, scientifically accepted chain of evidence linking tobacco smoke to lung cancer. This leads to social disadvantage via:
Smoking --> Health Risk --> Tobacco-related Illness --> Medical cost --> Social cost
The taxation, theoretically, should act to reduce the last element of that chain, social cost.
For other drugs, I think the chain is less clear:
Drug X --> Addiction --> ??? --> Social cost
Unless we can find a clear proof of what "???" is and conclusively link it to both addiction and social cost, then I reject the premise that addiction, in and of itself, is a social problem.
Of course some drugs are such that using the drug and then interacting with society can have an immediate cost:
Get drunk --> Drive --> Kill somebody --> Social cost
But "addiction" isn't part of that chain. Driving drunk, whether you are an alcoholic or not, has the same results.
</rambling>
Like making more of those smoking awareness campaigns you love ;)Quote:
More, the money could be used effectively to fight addiction and to prevent it.
Well maybe you could consider it as an entertainment value tax. At the end of the day the cheaper it is the more people are likely to spend their money getting stoned as opposed to other forms of entertainment. It also would do more to encourage lazy stoners to get a job.Quote:
Sales tax and cigarette tax are two different taxes. To say that it should be harder to do one legal thing than to do another legal thing just because of some nebulous political ethics, in my opinion, is not in the spirit of a free country.
Except perhaps for their intended economic impacts and their discerning and cumulative effects.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?
There are answers that fill that ???. They are however not so easily labeled as in the case of tobacco.
(note that I'm speaking here of drugs in general. Not just marijuana, but everything that we usually tag as less and more dangerous drugs)
- Social ineptitude in those cases where dependency already runs high and one lives only for the purpose of the next rush;
- Work related problems as it can affect our relations with colleagues and our productivity to a point when we eventually cannot operate anymore;
- Health related issues of every order. Increased blood pressure, decreased blood pressure, mental disorders, liver problems, hearth conditions, kidney failures, blood poisoning, weakening of the immunity system... All sorts of problems that have been diagnosed and found to be resulting of drugs consumption in the past. I think I focused on the most common ones.
As for the taxes themselves... it's clearly a problem of political orientation ;)
I'm more... left-winged if you may. I look at taxes not really as a way of reducing government costs, but as a direct income which the state is obliged to dispose.
Naturally this is usually done in cutting costs and providing new investments, but the different mindset here helps me better defend the idea that once the state legalizes and taxes a drug, it is also its (not only the state's of course, but you get it) obligation to provide the means to help fight the ???'s I listed above.
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.
Very well then. You agree then they may have an impact in consumption?
Note that I'm the first to argue this should not be the reason behind the decision to legalize or not for reasons I think I have explained before. But, on the subject of taxation we can generally agree it has at the very least the potential to reduce consumption.
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.Quote:
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?
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.
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% 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...
mike_g, you have some good points.Sounds like an interesting story.I was arguing based on intent, not actual reality.ROFL!
I don't like awareness campaigns because they pretend to be impartial when they obviously aren't.
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.
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.
Are you suggesting that the lack of ads was detrimental?
Like Elysia said, drugs should never be legal.
"It already is bad. Why not make it worse?"
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.
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?
It is harmful because it causes psychotic episodes which take years to recover from, makes people awfully lethargic and causes addiction.
Governments protect people from harming themselves. It wouldn't be illegal in the first place if it didn't cause any problems, would it?
Actually, I agree that living in areas where there is a strong earthquake once every 2 years is not a good idea.
Maybe we should tax suicides?
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.
Unfortunately, most people tend to be too dumb to understand what they're doing.
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.
No it won't. At least where I live.
You don't get it. Crime is a little concern compared to the health of the people.
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.
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?
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.
Maybe we should tax your ability for rational thinking. Please, take a hour or two to re-evaluate your comparison ;)Quote:
Maybe we should tax suicides?
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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...
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.Quote:
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.
If something obviously has a negative effect on the whole, it may have to be banned.
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.Quote:
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...
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.
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.Quote:
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.
But I disagree for decriminalizing it for the public.
I don't think traffic laws are a very good parallel for what we are really discussing. It's somewhat irrelevant, because high-speed cars are still made and sold so I doubt speed limits ban squat. You simply get caught by a patrol officer and ticketed, which probably adds points to your license. That's not the same as criminalizing smokers.Quote:
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.
And smokers are criminalized in this country because of the tax laws, but that's another topic ...
For what you propose we do, Elysia, America has tried. The war on drugs was Nixon's idea, and frankly with hindsight it has done little more than let 1% of the U.S. population join the prison population because of onerous drug law. We're simply putting voters in jail because they smoke pot on weekends, simply placing the burden of funding substance control on the shoulders of the tax payer. It's to the point now that a majority of the police don't care about the average citizen with a few grams on him. I can testify to that. If the police don't care about a law, forget about it.
Prison shouldn't be a revolving door for drug lords either but for America I think it's high time we step back and realise that cannabis (and perhaps some other drugs) has simply been pushed into an underground economy. It could be regulated as well as cigarettes are.
Well, the general point is that because the speed limit may be 90 km/h, you won't drive in 140 km/h, and neither will others. Or maybe they will, but not very often and not everywhere. Esentially, it is putting more of a lock on the whole.
It's a known thing - reduce speed limits and death tolls decrease. Because of a law that prohibits higher speeds.
Anyway, enough of that. It may not be relevant anyway, but the theory behind it is.
If what you are saying is true, then it's a sad thing. But I doubt they can make it more controlled if it were legal. Call me a pessimist, but I don't see it happening.Quote:
For what you propose we do, Elysia, America has tried. The war on drugs was Nixon's idea, and frankly with hindsight it has done little more than let 1% of the U.S. population join the prison population because of onerous drug law. We're simply putting voters in jail because they smoke pot on weekends, simply placing the burden of funding substance control on the shoulders of the tax payer. It's to the point now that a majority of the police don't care about the average citizen with a few grams on him. I can testify to that. If the police don't care about a law, forget about it.
Prison shouldn't be a revolving door for drug lords either but for America I think it's high time we step back and realise that cannabis (and perhaps some other drugs) has simply been pushed into an underground economy. It could be regulated as well as cigarettes are.
I'd like to see society stop abusing it as much as anyone else, I just happen to believe that banning it is the way to do it.
In the end, what decision they make, doesn't matter to me. But my opinion is that there must/is a better way to handle this without legalizing it.
Or it could be made legal to controlled instances, but not to the public. This is also acceptable to me because it would be much easier to control.
You are quite the pessimist.
>> It's a known thing - reduce speed limits and death tolls decrease. Because of a law that
>> prohibits higher speeds.
Don't claim special knowlege in a debate: common sense has been patently wrong when faced off with scientific explanation. More accidents could be actually caused by sleepiness at the wheel as opposed to alcohol, for instance. [1] Speeding is more of a false cause of the majority of accidents, simply accompanying them. If you really want to rely on that to pursuade people about drugs, make it more convincing.
I consider the relationship between that argument and the topic at hand casual. Why is a speed limit sign more effective or even the same as a real ban on fast cars? The whole parallel is just wrong!
And it's not about what they make either - it's who it's sold to and how it is produced and sold, mostly, rather than shoving people in jail and failing to do so effectively. The police here do not care. I don't know what more you need to hear.
I've always been. Looking posistive on things will only let you down once you find out it really doesn't turn out as you hope.
Oh sure, I wasn't implying otherwise. Speeding is just one of many problems.Quote:
Don't claim special knowlege in a debate: common sense has been patently wrong when faced off with scientific explanation. More accidents could be actually caused by sleepiness at the wheel as opposed to alcohol, for instance. [1] Speeding is more of a false cause of the majority of accidents, simply accompanying them. If you really want to rely on that to pursuade people about drugs, make it more convincing.
But by reducing the speed limits, death tolls have sunk. By banning alcohol when driving a car (was it ever legal?) has siginitficantly reduces death tolls, I would believe (even though there may be some people who can drive fine while drunk).
It's just that the theory is that the more controlled the environment is, the less does everything actually occur outside the defined parameters.
Banning the fast cars would be an even better means to reduce the tolls, of course. But I don't think it's realistic. But I do agree that it would be the best thing - with a controlled law to ban the source, we would get less problems from it.Quote:
I consider the relationship between that argument and the topic at hand casual. Why is a speed limit sign more effective or even the same as a real ban on fast cars? The whole parallel is just wrong!
It could be applied in the same way to drugs - ban the drugs and you cut off people from using it.
Yes, there will also be those who sell drugs or sell these fast cards even though they're banned, but it would be less than if it were legal.
Ahhh... you are pulling my leg. I know for a fact you can do better than that.
I was suggesting these events caused a wash-my-hands effect on behalf of the government and no new investments followed since. I even suggested on a prior post where money could be applied.
Current tobacco tax money is probably being used solely on the public health system with no direct relation to tobacco consumption reduction, which was a government flag over here for a few good years that suddenly ceased to exist.
Do you have trouble reading or you think you are talking to a ten year old child? Stuff your presumptuousness. I've been smoking marijuana probably for more years than you are alive and I have had direct contact with drug addicts and their problems when you were still bouncing between your father stones.Quote:
Originally Posted by maxorator
If you have anything positive to say, by all means. If instead you refuse to read and think on what others are saying, get the heck off my face.
Gosh! I'm tired of these self-conscious know-it-alls that know nothing and yet blindingly and ignorantly vote no everytime a chance is presented itself to finally put an end to the drama of drug consumption. Bloody useless naysayers.