Could all or some of you who voted yes please explain to me why you think it should be legal? I can't comprehend why in the world you would think that. I guess maybe you are thinking that it would deter young people from using it if it was legal. Should there not be a drinking age either? Do you think it would stop underage drinking if it was legal for them to do it?
-<cite>I guess maybe you are thinking that it would deter young people from using it if it was legal.</cite>
No, I can't say that is part of my thought process.
-<cite>Should there not be a drinking age either?</cite>
Personally, I think it should be enforced based on self-control and maturity. Age is subjective. We all know people that are 21 or older that should not be drinking alcohol while there are people younger than 21 that can. Unfortunately, it's easier to enforce a set age.
-<cite>Do you think it would stop underage drinking if it was legal for them to do it?</cite>
I doubt it. It might take the thrill away, but nothing is going to universally stop underage drinking. To be brutally honest, Genesee County makes it more of an issue than it really is. Contrary to popular myth, a lot of people under the age that drink regularly are far more responsible than those legally drinking. Not that justifies it, but giving out criminal records and fines for just underage drinking is a bit overkill, but I'm getting off topic.
You strike me as the kind of person that cannot see the difference between "illegal" and "wrong". Just because something is "illegal" that doesn't make it "wrong". It means a law was passed that makes it a crime to do X, whatever X is.
For example, in Kendall, its against town ordinances to camp out on your own land more than 72 hours a month. If you want to camp out for 2 weeks you need a permit, which can only be obtained once a year.
Maybe Medical MARIJUANA for cronic "well documented" pain (By "well documented" I mean a long history like 2 years or more)or for Cancer and/or AIDS patients.
Amy; because so much time and money is spent on chasing down people who use marijuana and processing them through the courts and even imprisoning some, while marijuana use is still going on everywhere. I don't know about you, but I and many others are quite fed-up with the government telling us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. For the record, I haven't smoked pot in many,many years, I submit to random drug testing for my job. Doesn't mean I agree with it. If pot was legal, I may roll one up on occasion, much like having an occasional drink, but no more than that, if at all. It holds no mysteries for me any more. Maybe you wouldn't, maybe you don't like an occasional alcoholic drink, a lot of people don't, so what? The point is that not everyone is the same, and government shouldn't be dictating. There are also medical benefits to marijuana for anxiety and helping with nausea, I think it is absolutely stupid that it isn't allowed for treatment as a prescription medicine. I believe there should be an age restriction, same as alcohol, but lowering the drinking age to 18 would take some of the mystique rebellion cred away from drinking. Also, I think it is ridiculous that a person is considered old enough and responsible enough to marry, vote and join the armed forces at 18, but not have a drink.
Like Dave, for the record, I have no personal interest in marijuana -- even if it were legal. I've not partaken in more than 15 years and simply no longer have an interest.
However, as a matter of principle:
-- Marijuana is certainly no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol, both legal and regulated substances, so why is marijuana illegal?
-- Like Prohibition, the illegality promotes criminality.
-- Enforcing the law prohibiting marijuana costs taxpayers a lot of money, and to what end, to fight a losing battle?
-- But mostly, as a matter of morals and ethics, no adult has the right to tell another adult how to live his or her life, and its even more offensive when the power of the government is used to impose some other person's idea of right and wrong on another adult. There is simply no justification for one adult telling another adult, "You can't smoke marijuana."
Please bear with me on my comment since I have a sever head cold and having a hard time thinking clear but I wanted to put my two cents in.
I voted yes because although I don't think it should be a free for all and everyone should be allowed to grow plantations of it, but there should be more of a regulation of what amount of possession should be legal to have.
I see nothing wrong in a person growing a plant or two for personal consumption or if found with so many grams in their possession that they aren't charged.
Alcohol kills more people than pot does, since alcohol produces increased aggression where in contrast pot calms a person down, and I would rather be in a car with a person that was smoking than a person that just put a bender on at the bar.
I found an interesting site and although it is a pro marijuana site, it does have an interesting chart showing the comparison of drugs in terms of addiction and dangers:
What Dave and Howard said, PLUS the fact that it would undoubtedly be taxed - highly [pun intended].
I'm another one that has not gotten high in many years, and have no interest in it, but am not opposed to those that choose to. Choice. An important American value.
It being illegal does not deter use, costs millions, if not billions, of dollars in a fruitless attempt to enforce, and can actually be used for good in certain medical situations.
Mentioned above is one tactic that does deter use - random testing by employers. I don't know if this is good or bad. What do I care if a co-worker got high last night? It's used as a CYA method for insurance purposes, but that's another issue.
Amy, you say that you can't comprehend why people think it should be legalized. You've read some reasons on this board.
What are your reasons for being so extremely opposed? You didn't present any.
I realize the stats continue to show that alcohol is attributable to more deaths than marijuana, but that is only due to availability and accessibility. The data are skewed in marijuana's favor simply by statistical odds, so that argument is not valid. My question is, if marijuana were legal, how long would it take before corporate sponsorship, and mass marketing played into the equation?
Teens don't start drinking because it tastes good, it's cheap, or it because it creates positive changes in their lives, they start drinking because marketing has convinced them it is cool. They continue drinking for social reasons. There are many adults who drink for the same reason. I know some of you are going to come back with the "I drink responsibly at home, it relaxes me, no peer pressure, no social pressure" and to that I say good for you, but you are in the minority. Rarely do you see alcohol marketed to individual home use, it is marketed as a social substance. I wonder how marijuana use and/or abuse would evolve with similar marketing. Teens try it now because it is off limits, once it is legal there may be a temporary spike in use out of curiosity followed by a lull due to the novelty wearing off, then comes the "hook" as it becomes more mainstream. Certainly big business will not resist the temptation to make huge profits off the sale of legal marijuana, and advertisers will drool at the opportunity to market the next social phenomenon.
I see an almost nostalgic view towards most marijuana use amongst mainstream society. If it were legal, mass produced, and mass marketed, that nostalgia would vanish as pot became just another watered down, over hyped, corporate controlled commodity.
I stated in an earlier post that I cannot make a logical argument against legalization given our laws concerning alcohol, I resist it simply on my values. I just don't see legalization being the panacea people think it will be.
Take into account the drug related violence due to trafficking and distribution of drugs with our borders, plus the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating both violent and non-violent drug offenders and you can see what an enormous relief this would be both on society in general and our enormous War on Drugs tax burden.
I don't just want this stuff decriminalized with some sort of 'brown paper bag' policy. I want it grown, packaged and distributed by multi-million dollar companies and sold at gas stations and drug stores after it has been sufficiently regulated and taxed just like alcohol and cigarettes.
Our opinions about marijuana as adults are a product of what we were told when we were kids. What we were told when we were kids is based on the existing law. The existing law is there because of a particularly wealthy logging company hiring lobbyists in the early 20th Century. Figure it out folks.
Marijuana is certainly no more dangerous than alcohol and probably less so, but the synthetic products that are made to simulate marijuana are extremely dangerous. Why not legalize the real thing and regulate it?
Jeff: "If it were legal, mass produced, and mass marketed, that nostalgia would vanish as pot became just another watered down, over hyped, corporate controlled commodity." Then later you write:"I just don't see legalization being the panacea people think it will be." By making it legal, you're probably right, it will eventually become like tobacco and alcohol, an over-hyped, corporate commodity, that in and of itself will make it un-cool to some and take away it's cachet as anti-establishment. Now you've gotten it down to being used by those who really like it. It won't be the huge, resource-sucking problem it is right now. Plus, to add to what Chris wrote, ending prohibition stopped the violence among bootleggers; spirits distributors don't have gunfights over turf anymore, they might have price-wars or advertising competition. Whoever ultimately distributes marijuana will not be having gunfights across schoolyards, or drive-bys of street corner dealers.
The debate becomes clouded by ineffectual arguments. Many say legalize it because we could regulate and tax it. According to the official NYS Taxation and Finance website, total revenues from Alcohol fees, alcoholic beverage taxes, cigarette sales and excise taxes combined amount to .02% (point zero two) of all taxation revenue in New York State. So that pretty much negates the taxation argument for legalization. I am not basing my views on that alone, just paring out arguments that don't hold up.
Chris, I'm not sure the CNN article really applies to the marijuana debate. Marijuana is only mentioned once and it is in the context of crossing the border during Prohibition. Few of these killings can be attributed to marijuana trafficking, since the real money is in cocaine and heroin. Marijuana has almost reached the point of inconsequential in terms of trafficking violence compared to the money makers. Therefore if that were a compelling factor in the any drug argument, then we should be legalizing cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. since those are the drugs that are really costing law enforcement dollars and human lives through distribution violence.
What is the cost of continuing on the path we are on, versus changing it? What does Amsterdam do?
Legal or illegal really doesn't seem to have any baring. If one wants it they'll get it. Personally, I think that it would be better than having access to synthetic stuff, but then again I eat organic and avoid GMO.
For the record, unlike my hippie friends I've never tried it, but I could if I wanted to, just like I had access to alcohol as a kid and never drank it.
Jeff, I'm for legalizing cocaine and heroin as well and for the same reasons i listed above. Both drugs could be made enormously safer simply by regulating the way they are processed from plant to powder form.
Meth is different entirely for myriad reasons. if there was ever a drug that needed to be scrubbed from the face of the earth, it's meth.
As a funny aside, when I was under the age of 18 it was much easier to get weed than it was to get cigarettes.
I suppose I should clarify this while we're here. I'm not some secret modern hippie. I don't smoke pot. I used to, but then I realized all it did was make me feel sleepy and awkward. Every now and again I think I'd like to smoke pot and then I remember why I don't.
That's the power of choice, folks. If I wanted to get high, I could. If I chose to get high it wouldn't change any of your lives one little bit and it really wouldn't change mine at least not any more than my life is changed when I choose to head down to a local bar and have a couple beers with a friend. Our attitude toward drugs, marijuana in particular, is a symptom of our never ending war on drugs, not the other way around.
Dave, I am trying to weed out (no pun intended) arguments that don't hold water or are guesses at best. I am not convinced that it is the "huge, resource-sucking problem" it used to be. I think that argument as well as the turf war/violence applies to the stronger drugs. Marijuana enforcement has eased considerably. In fact at one nearby SUNY school, enforcement of marijuana related offenses are left to the student judicial system and not even prosecuted by campus security or local law enforcement.
I am attempting to not only argue it but reconcile it my own mind as a liberty vs. license issue. We certainly need fewer laws and less government intrusion in our personal lives, but not at the expense of order and civility. Just because something is legal does not mean its unbridled use is a good thing. C.M. pointed out the growing of hemp by some of the founding fathers. Utilizing it for medicinal ingestion and/or making of rope are not arguable. Implying that they were also rolling blunts and therefore we should legalize now is a stretch. When a society behaves in a way that has it's basis in morality and concern for others before self (liberty), then few laws are needed to maintain order. When society wants to engage in every behavior without regard to consequence (license), then more laws are needed to maintain civility.
If I thought we could in one legislative move, return to our attitudes, uses, and behaviors in regards to marijuana of say 200 years ago, then I would be all for it. I just don't see that happening. What I do see is another substance that alters ability and impairs judgement being used on a more regular basis and all the implications that go along with it such as driving under the influence and abuses that break up families.
If I had to describe the danger of marijuana smoking by comparing it to something equally detrimental to humanity, I'd be forced to choose between Facebook and network television. That's not to say I'd rally around a law to criminalize devotees of Farmville and fans of ABC's "Revenge." ...And how do I justify the comparison? Drug use = a self-centered pastime with little or no intellectual value that wastes time and defers productive activity. Amen.
This poll should have been split: possession, sale.
Jeff- you make it sound like $2.6 billion is inconsequential money. That is what .02% of our $130 billion budget equals.
I vote yes because the government should stop dictating everything in our lives. I agree with Chris, let's legalize it, sell it at the store, and give up on an ill fated fight.
I guess you are right Jef, in that the resource-sucking is probably more appropriate to cocaine, heroin and other hard drugs. BTW I am for legalizing them too, but I digress. Maybe you can't ever reconcile marijuana usage as acceptable in your mind. It still should be abhorrent to you to dictate to others, regardless. You can set the example that you wish to exhibit, you can even preach the gospel if you so choose, or the evils of drink and cannabis, all are your guaranteed freedoms of speech, and I'm down with that. My point is how can we, as a nation, based on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness arrest, fine and take away any adult's right to partake of a substance which they choose and makes them happy providing of course that it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Jeff: "When a society behaves in a way that has it's basis in morality and concern for others before self (liberty), then few laws are needed to maintain order. When society wants to engage in every behavior without regard to consequence (license), then more laws are needed to maintain civility."
I've said it before many times, and I'll say it again: You can't protect society by making more laws. It's a never ending circle.
Amy, although I understand your concern for children, this discussion is about adult behavior and whether it should me enforced by criminal law. Parents are responsible for the behavior of their minor children and should not be deferring their role as parents to law enforcement. I am reminded of the tale of Alfred Hitchcock's father who sent young Alfred to the police station with a note requesting the jailer put the boy in a cell as punishment. Parents who cannot handle their children should not expect the entire population to submit to codes of law based upon parental lack of control.
Bud, the statistics I quoted are tax revenues. Total taxation of cigarettes and alcohol account for .02 not .2 % of total tax revenues not the total budget, I'm not sure where you are coming up with $2.6 billion in tax revenues, it is not in any NYS records and yes, the actual number is almost inconsequential. Additional tax revenues on pot would insignificant as an argument.
Dave, I agree with most of your premises, as I stated before my argument is more personal values based than logic based when you factor in alcohol laws. If I thought for one minute that upon the reintroduction of legalized marijuana, people would behave responsibly with it, I might be swayed. However, as it becomes mainstream, more people will smoke marijuana then get behind the wheel of a car, more people will partake on a regular basis and there will be an affect on households, jobs and overall productivity. Those things will happen in many (not all) cases. I admit to being torn on the issue because I am a believer in liberty but if for this moment, I have to choose between a few gang members shooting at each other over pot, or more innocent lives lost because of impaired driving, or broken homes, I'll choose the former.
I have to chime in and say that I know of many that still smoke and they are some of the hardest working people that I know and are involved in their childrens lives. I never see them in domestic disputes, rarely miss work and are all around good people. Compared to those that I know that abuse alcohol that have broken marriages, children that basically have to raise themselves due to the parents being smashed all the time, and shortening their lives by liver failure among certain cancers that alcohol can produce.
I found this information on druglibrary.org and thought it was interesting enough to share;
In summary, this program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small. Still we can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol. We therefore agree with Moskowitz' conclusion that "any situation in which safety both for self and others depends upon alertness and capability of control of man-machine interaction precludes the use of marijuana". However, the magnitude of marijuana's, relative to many other drugs', effects also justify Gieringer's (1988) conclusion that "marijuana impairment presents a real, but secondary, safety risk; and that alcohol is the leading drug-related accident risk factor". Of the many psychotropic drugs, licit and illicit, that are available and used by people who subsequently drive, marijuana may well be among the least harmful. Campaigns to discourage the use of marijuana by drivers are certainly warranted. But concentrating a campaign on marijuana alone may not be in proportion to the safety problem it causes.
CONCLUSIONS
The major conclusions from the present program are summarized as follows:
* Current users of marijuana prefer THC doses of about 300 ug/kg to achieve their desired "high".
* It is possible to safely study the effects of marijuana on driving on highways or city streets in the presence of other traffic.
* Marijuana smoking impairs fundamental road tracking ability with the degree if impairment increasing as a function of the consumed THC dose.
* Marijuana smoking which delivers THC up to a 300 ug/kg dose slightly impairs the ability to maintain a constant headway while following another car.
* A low THC dose (100 ug/kg) does not impair driving ability in urban traffic to the same extent as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.04g%.
* Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these.
* Drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to under-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and do not invest compensatory effort.
* The maximum road tracking impairment after the highest THC dose (300 ug/kg) was within a range of effects produced by many commonly used medicinal drugs and less than that associated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08g% in previous studies employing the same test.
* It is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.
"any situation in which safety both for self and others depends upon alertness and capability of control of man-machine interaction precludes the use of marijuana"
That is the defining statement of your post. Stating that less people will die in marijuana related vehicle accidents than alcohol related accidents may be correct but is still not a convincing argument. Over 10,000 people lose their lives each year in alcohol related accidents. Even if driving while under the influence of marijuana were TWICE as safe, that is still 5,000 fatalities. And that assumes that marijuana is the only substance present. Acceptable trade-off? I just don't buy the argument that only a few thousand more people will die as valid. Stating that you know people who smoke weed and are good parents does not constitute empirical evidence.
All of these arguments outside of the liberty issue are not convincing from the standpoint of potential risk vs. potential reward therefore the question remains, what is the urgent and compelling reason to legalize marijuana right now?
There is only one thing stopping it from being legal. That is a way to easily test for it, similar to a breathalyzer test. Just as we cannot allow people to drive after drinking too much, we can not allow people that smoked marijuana to drive. We do not yet have this technology, but when it does exist in a low cost reliable form, then a serious debate will start on legalizing it.
I think that the government would want to legalize it, because they'd love to tax it.
But we also have to remember that the marijuana that is out there today is not the same stuff that was out there 30 years ago. But before alcohol was legal, there were many people that died from moonshine, now I doubt if that is a problem.
All changes in laws and social behavior have positive and negative effects on society as a whole. But I don't think it will become legal anytime soon.
Why not legalize? Then it can be regulated and taxed like tobacco. Anybody know what the crime and statistics are from where marijuana is legal overseas(Holland?) Alcohol-it used to be drinking age was 18- was changed to 21 in the early 80's(IIRC it went to 19 first). I legally couldn't drink at my wedding(I was 19 at time)-how screwed up is that???
So I'm sitting in my backyard smoking a doobie when my neighbor sees me and calls the cops. He is oppossed to marijuana use, and feels this is his civic duty to turn me in to the police.
Two weeks later I'm sitting in my back yard and spot the same neighbor drinking a beer, I oppose alcohol use, so I call the cops, the cops laugh. How f---ing ridiculous can it get. What the hell is the difference?
Amy I am just curious on why you think legalizing marijuana would be bad? It is no more dangerous than Alcohol. As far as under age drinking, I really do not believe there too many of us that have never done that. I am strong believer and agree with Dave, "If you are old enough to lay your life down for your country, you should be able to drink!" Beside, marijuana is natural and not man made.
What is up Bob? The one thing people forget is you cannot compare us with the rest of the world. Cultural differences are a major factor. How countries deal with issues are totally different. Germany for example, if you are old and tall enough to reach the bar you can drink. However, if you are stopped for drinking and driving they are much harsher on you. If, you fail to submit to a blood test, they will take it by force. Zero tolerance over there. So, this crap about how crime is down because, things are legal is BS. Their culture, the way they view things are not the same. The outside influences are not the same. Beside, under age drinking laws never stopped you from enjoy brews. Some great parties back in the day.
Richard, laws are meant to protect our rights, not limit them. When a person is doing anything that hurts no one, they should not face arrest because others disagree with what that person does, it's just that simple.
Here is a good example of how screwed up marijuana laws are: a 16 old is a client of GCASA, on every visit, the 16 old is constantly told that pot is bad, addictive, etc.etc. The 16 year old goes online at home and watches a video showing teens in California smoking pot in the school, the pot is being used to help control symptoms of ADHD.
The kid in GCASA has severe ADHD, his symptoms are treated with adderal, a highly addictive stimulant. BOTTOM LINE, A DRUG IS A DRUG IS A DRUG.....including alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.
All the laws in the world will not stop use and abuse of drugs, whether they are procured legally or illegally.
I say legalize (and tax the crap out of) Mary Jane with limitations similar to alcohol. And make that fake pot from the Rez that puts hole in your brain ILLEGAL !!
That "incense" stuff seems to be much more of a problem than pot ever was.....and it is over the counter!! Bad bad bad....
Could all or some of you who
Could all or some of you who voted yes please explain to me why you think it should be legal? I can't comprehend why in the world you would think that. I guess maybe you are thinking that it would deter young people from using it if it was legal. Should there not be a drinking age either? Do you think it would stop underage drinking if it was legal for them to do it?
http://www.balancedpolitics.o
http://www.balancedpolitics.org/marijuana_legalization.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_cannabis
http://www1.american.edu/ted/hemp.htm
For starters.
-<cite>I guess maybe you are thinking that it would deter young people from using it if it was legal.</cite>
No, I can't say that is part of my thought process.
-<cite>Should there not be a drinking age either?</cite>
Personally, I think it should be enforced based on self-control and maturity. Age is subjective. We all know people that are 21 or older that should not be drinking alcohol while there are people younger than 21 that can. Unfortunately, it's easier to enforce a set age.
-<cite>Do you think it would stop underage drinking if it was legal for them to do it?</cite>
I doubt it. It might take the thrill away, but nothing is going to universally stop underage drinking. To be brutally honest, Genesee County makes it more of an issue than it really is. Contrary to popular myth, a lot of people under the age that drink regularly are far more responsible than those legally drinking. Not that justifies it, but giving out criminal records and fines for just underage drinking is a bit overkill, but I'm getting off topic.
You strike me as the kind of person that cannot see the difference between "illegal" and "wrong". Just because something is "illegal" that doesn't make it "wrong". It means a law was passed that makes it a crime to do X, whatever X is.
For example, in Kendall, its against town ordinances to camp out on your own land more than 72 hours a month. If you want to camp out for 2 weeks you need a permit, which can only be obtained once a year.
Maybe Medical MARIJUANA for
Maybe Medical MARIJUANA for cronic "well documented" pain (By "well documented" I mean a long history like 2 years or more)or for Cancer and/or AIDS patients.
Amy; because so much time and
Amy; because so much time and money is spent on chasing down people who use marijuana and processing them through the courts and even imprisoning some, while marijuana use is still going on everywhere. I don't know about you, but I and many others are quite fed-up with the government telling us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. For the record, I haven't smoked pot in many,many years, I submit to random drug testing for my job. Doesn't mean I agree with it. If pot was legal, I may roll one up on occasion, much like having an occasional drink, but no more than that, if at all. It holds no mysteries for me any more. Maybe you wouldn't, maybe you don't like an occasional alcoholic drink, a lot of people don't, so what? The point is that not everyone is the same, and government shouldn't be dictating. There are also medical benefits to marijuana for anxiety and helping with nausea, I think it is absolutely stupid that it isn't allowed for treatment as a prescription medicine. I believe there should be an age restriction, same as alcohol, but lowering the drinking age to 18 would take some of the mystique rebellion cred away from drinking. Also, I think it is ridiculous that a person is considered old enough and responsible enough to marry, vote and join the armed forces at 18, but not have a drink.
Seconded.
Seconded.
Like Dave, for the record, I
Like Dave, for the record, I have no personal interest in marijuana -- even if it were legal. I've not partaken in more than 15 years and simply no longer have an interest.
However, as a matter of principle:
-- Marijuana is certainly no more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol, both legal and regulated substances, so why is marijuana illegal?
-- Like Prohibition, the illegality promotes criminality.
-- Enforcing the law prohibiting marijuana costs taxpayers a lot of money, and to what end, to fight a losing battle?
-- But mostly, as a matter of morals and ethics, no adult has the right to tell another adult how to live his or her life, and its even more offensive when the power of the government is used to impose some other person's idea of right and wrong on another adult. There is simply no justification for one adult telling another adult, "You can't smoke marijuana."
Please bear with me on my
Please bear with me on my comment since I have a sever head cold and having a hard time thinking clear but I wanted to put my two cents in.
I voted yes because although I don't think it should be a free for all and everyone should be allowed to grow plantations of it, but there should be more of a regulation of what amount of possession should be legal to have.
I see nothing wrong in a person growing a plant or two for personal consumption or if found with so many grams in their possession that they aren't charged.
Alcohol kills more people than pot does, since alcohol produces increased aggression where in contrast pot calms a person down, and I would rather be in a car with a person that was smoking than a person that just put a bender on at the bar.
I found an interesting site and although it is a pro marijuana site, it does have an interesting chart showing the comparison of drugs in terms of addiction and dangers:
http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/
What Dave and Howard said,
What Dave and Howard said, PLUS the fact that it would undoubtedly be taxed - highly [pun intended].
I'm another one that has not gotten high in many years, and have no interest in it, but am not opposed to those that choose to. Choice. An important American value.
It being illegal does not deter use, costs millions, if not billions, of dollars in a fruitless attempt to enforce, and can actually be used for good in certain medical situations.
Mentioned above is one tactic that does deter use - random testing by employers. I don't know if this is good or bad. What do I care if a co-worker got high last night? It's used as a CYA method for insurance purposes, but that's another issue.
Amy, you say that you can't comprehend why people think it should be legalized. You've read some reasons on this board.
What are your reasons for being so extremely opposed? You didn't present any.
Here's a good article on the
Here's a good article on the topic.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/60959/
I realize the stats continue
I realize the stats continue to show that alcohol is attributable to more deaths than marijuana, but that is only due to availability and accessibility. The data are skewed in marijuana's favor simply by statistical odds, so that argument is not valid. My question is, if marijuana were legal, how long would it take before corporate sponsorship, and mass marketing played into the equation?
Teens don't start drinking because it tastes good, it's cheap, or it because it creates positive changes in their lives, they start drinking because marketing has convinced them it is cool. They continue drinking for social reasons. There are many adults who drink for the same reason. I know some of you are going to come back with the "I drink responsibly at home, it relaxes me, no peer pressure, no social pressure" and to that I say good for you, but you are in the minority. Rarely do you see alcohol marketed to individual home use, it is marketed as a social substance. I wonder how marijuana use and/or abuse would evolve with similar marketing. Teens try it now because it is off limits, once it is legal there may be a temporary spike in use out of curiosity followed by a lull due to the novelty wearing off, then comes the "hook" as it becomes more mainstream. Certainly big business will not resist the temptation to make huge profits off the sale of legal marijuana, and advertisers will drool at the opportunity to market the next social phenomenon.
I see an almost nostalgic view towards most marijuana use amongst mainstream society. If it were legal, mass produced, and mass marketed, that nostalgia would vanish as pot became just another watered down, over hyped, corporate controlled commodity.
I stated in an earlier post that I cannot make a logical argument against legalization given our laws concerning alcohol, I resist it simply on my values. I just don't see legalization being the panacea people think it will be.
Here's about 48,000 reasons
Here's about 48,000 reasons and these are just the drug related killings in Mexico.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/15/world/mexico-drug-war-essay/index.html?hp…
Take into account the drug related violence due to trafficking and distribution of drugs with our borders, plus the cost of prosecuting and incarcerating both violent and non-violent drug offenders and you can see what an enormous relief this would be both on society in general and our enormous War on Drugs tax burden.
I don't just want this stuff decriminalized with some sort of 'brown paper bag' policy. I want it grown, packaged and distributed by multi-million dollar companies and sold at gas stations and drug stores after it has been sufficiently regulated and taxed just like alcohol and cigarettes.
Our opinions about marijuana as adults are a product of what we were told when we were kids. What we were told when we were kids is based on the existing law. The existing law is there because of a particularly wealthy logging company hiring lobbyists in the early 20th Century. Figure it out folks.
Marijuana is certainly no more dangerous than alcohol and probably less so, but the synthetic products that are made to simulate marijuana are extremely dangerous. Why not legalize the real thing and regulate it?
Jeff: "If it were legal, mass
Jeff: "If it were legal, mass produced, and mass marketed, that nostalgia would vanish as pot became just another watered down, over hyped, corporate controlled commodity." Then later you write:"I just don't see legalization being the panacea people think it will be." By making it legal, you're probably right, it will eventually become like tobacco and alcohol, an over-hyped, corporate commodity, that in and of itself will make it un-cool to some and take away it's cachet as anti-establishment. Now you've gotten it down to being used by those who really like it. It won't be the huge, resource-sucking problem it is right now. Plus, to add to what Chris wrote, ending prohibition stopped the violence among bootleggers; spirits distributors don't have gunfights over turf anymore, they might have price-wars or advertising competition. Whoever ultimately distributes marijuana will not be having gunfights across schoolyards, or drive-bys of street corner dealers.
The debate becomes clouded by
The debate becomes clouded by ineffectual arguments. Many say legalize it because we could regulate and tax it. According to the official NYS Taxation and Finance website, total revenues from Alcohol fees, alcoholic beverage taxes, cigarette sales and excise taxes combined amount to .02% (point zero two) of all taxation revenue in New York State. So that pretty much negates the taxation argument for legalization. I am not basing my views on that alone, just paring out arguments that don't hold up.
Chris, I'm not sure the CNN article really applies to the marijuana debate. Marijuana is only mentioned once and it is in the context of crossing the border during Prohibition. Few of these killings can be attributed to marijuana trafficking, since the real money is in cocaine and heroin. Marijuana has almost reached the point of inconsequential in terms of trafficking violence compared to the money makers. Therefore if that were a compelling factor in the any drug argument, then we should be legalizing cocaine, heroin, meth, etc. since those are the drugs that are really costing law enforcement dollars and human lives through distribution violence.
What is the cost of
What is the cost of continuing on the path we are on, versus changing it? What does Amsterdam do?
Legal or illegal really doesn't seem to have any baring. If one wants it they'll get it. Personally, I think that it would be better than having access to synthetic stuff, but then again I eat organic and avoid GMO.
For the record, unlike my hippie friends I've never tried it, but I could if I wanted to, just like I had access to alcohol as a kid and never drank it.
Jeff, I'm for legalizing
Jeff, I'm for legalizing cocaine and heroin as well and for the same reasons i listed above. Both drugs could be made enormously safer simply by regulating the way they are processed from plant to powder form.
Meth is different entirely for myriad reasons. if there was ever a drug that needed to be scrubbed from the face of the earth, it's meth.
As a funny aside, when I was
As a funny aside, when I was under the age of 18 it was much easier to get weed than it was to get cigarettes.
I suppose I should clarify this while we're here. I'm not some secret modern hippie. I don't smoke pot. I used to, but then I realized all it did was make me feel sleepy and awkward. Every now and again I think I'd like to smoke pot and then I remember why I don't.
That's the power of choice, folks. If I wanted to get high, I could. If I chose to get high it wouldn't change any of your lives one little bit and it really wouldn't change mine at least not any more than my life is changed when I choose to head down to a local bar and have a couple beers with a friend. Our attitude toward drugs, marijuana in particular, is a symptom of our never ending war on drugs, not the other way around.
Dave, I am trying to weed out
Dave, I am trying to weed out (no pun intended) arguments that don't hold water or are guesses at best. I am not convinced that it is the "huge, resource-sucking problem" it used to be. I think that argument as well as the turf war/violence applies to the stronger drugs. Marijuana enforcement has eased considerably. In fact at one nearby SUNY school, enforcement of marijuana related offenses are left to the student judicial system and not even prosecuted by campus security or local law enforcement.
I am attempting to not only argue it but reconcile it my own mind as a liberty vs. license issue. We certainly need fewer laws and less government intrusion in our personal lives, but not at the expense of order and civility. Just because something is legal does not mean its unbridled use is a good thing. C.M. pointed out the growing of hemp by some of the founding fathers. Utilizing it for medicinal ingestion and/or making of rope are not arguable. Implying that they were also rolling blunts and therefore we should legalize now is a stretch. When a society behaves in a way that has it's basis in morality and concern for others before self (liberty), then few laws are needed to maintain order. When society wants to engage in every behavior without regard to consequence (license), then more laws are needed to maintain civility.
If I thought we could in one legislative move, return to our attitudes, uses, and behaviors in regards to marijuana of say 200 years ago, then I would be all for it. I just don't see that happening. What I do see is another substance that alters ability and impairs judgement being used on a more regular basis and all the implications that go along with it such as driving under the influence and abuses that break up families.
If I had to describe the
If I had to describe the danger of marijuana smoking by comparing it to something equally detrimental to humanity, I'd be forced to choose between Facebook and network television. That's not to say I'd rally around a law to criminalize devotees of Farmville and fans of ABC's "Revenge." ...And how do I justify the comparison? Drug use = a self-centered pastime with little or no intellectual value that wastes time and defers productive activity. Amen.
This poll should have been split: possession, sale.
Jeff- you make it sound like
Jeff- you make it sound like $2.6 billion is inconsequential money. That is what .02% of our $130 billion budget equals.
I vote yes because the government should stop dictating everything in our lives. I agree with Chris, let's legalize it, sell it at the store, and give up on an ill fated fight.
I guess you are right Jef, in
I guess you are right Jef, in that the resource-sucking is probably more appropriate to cocaine, heroin and other hard drugs. BTW I am for legalizing them too, but I digress. Maybe you can't ever reconcile marijuana usage as acceptable in your mind. It still should be abhorrent to you to dictate to others, regardless. You can set the example that you wish to exhibit, you can even preach the gospel if you so choose, or the evils of drink and cannabis, all are your guaranteed freedoms of speech, and I'm down with that. My point is how can we, as a nation, based on the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness arrest, fine and take away any adult's right to partake of a substance which they choose and makes them happy providing of course that it doesn't infringe on anyone else's right to their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Jeff: "When a society behaves
Jeff: "When a society behaves in a way that has it's basis in morality and concern for others before self (liberty), then few laws are needed to maintain order. When society wants to engage in every behavior without regard to consequence (license), then more laws are needed to maintain civility."
I've said it before many times, and I'll say it again: You can't protect society by making more laws. It's a never ending circle.
Amy, although I understand
Amy, although I understand your concern for children, this discussion is about adult behavior and whether it should me enforced by criminal law. Parents are responsible for the behavior of their minor children and should not be deferring their role as parents to law enforcement. I am reminded of the tale of Alfred Hitchcock's father who sent young Alfred to the police station with a note requesting the jailer put the boy in a cell as punishment. Parents who cannot handle their children should not expect the entire population to submit to codes of law based upon parental lack of control.
Bud, the statistics I quoted
Bud, the statistics I quoted are tax revenues. Total taxation of cigarettes and alcohol account for .02 not .2 % of total tax revenues not the total budget, I'm not sure where you are coming up with $2.6 billion in tax revenues, it is not in any NYS records and yes, the actual number is almost inconsequential. Additional tax revenues on pot would insignificant as an argument.
Dave, I agree with most of your premises, as I stated before my argument is more personal values based than logic based when you factor in alcohol laws. If I thought for one minute that upon the reintroduction of legalized marijuana, people would behave responsibly with it, I might be swayed. However, as it becomes mainstream, more people will smoke marijuana then get behind the wheel of a car, more people will partake on a regular basis and there will be an affect on households, jobs and overall productivity. Those things will happen in many (not all) cases. I admit to being torn on the issue because I am a believer in liberty but if for this moment, I have to choose between a few gang members shooting at each other over pot, or more innocent lives lost because of impaired driving, or broken homes, I'll choose the former.
I have to chime in and say
I have to chime in and say that I know of many that still smoke and they are some of the hardest working people that I know and are involved in their childrens lives. I never see them in domestic disputes, rarely miss work and are all around good people. Compared to those that I know that abuse alcohol that have broken marriages, children that basically have to raise themselves due to the parents being smashed all the time, and shortening their lives by liver failure among certain cancers that alcohol can produce.
I found this information on druglibrary.org and thought it was interesting enough to share;
http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/dot78_1e.htm
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
DOT HS 808 078 NOVEMBER 1993
MARIJUANA AND ACTUAL DRIVING PERFORMANCE
EFFECTS OF THC ON DRIVING PERFORMANCE
In summary, this program of research has shown that marijuana, when taken alone, produces a moderate degree of driving impairment which is related to the consumed THC dose. The impairment manifests itself mainly in the ability to maintain a steady lateral position on the road, but its magnitude is not exceptional in comparison with changes produced by many medicinal drugs and alcohol. Drivers under the influence of marijuana retain insight in their performance and will compensate where they can, for example, by slowing down or increasing effort. As a consequence, THC's adverse effects on driving performance appear relatively small. Still we can easily imagine situations where the influence of marijuana smoking might have an exceedingly dangerous effect; i.e., emergency situations which put high demands on the driver's information processing capacity, prolonged monotonous driving, and after THC has been taken with other drugs, especially alcohol. We therefore agree with Moskowitz' conclusion that "any situation in which safety both for self and others depends upon alertness and capability of control of man-machine interaction precludes the use of marijuana". However, the magnitude of marijuana's, relative to many other drugs', effects also justify Gieringer's (1988) conclusion that "marijuana impairment presents a real, but secondary, safety risk; and that alcohol is the leading drug-related accident risk factor". Of the many psychotropic drugs, licit and illicit, that are available and used by people who subsequently drive, marijuana may well be among the least harmful. Campaigns to discourage the use of marijuana by drivers are certainly warranted. But concentrating a campaign on marijuana alone may not be in proportion to the safety problem it causes.
CONCLUSIONS
The major conclusions from the present program are summarized as follows:
* Current users of marijuana prefer THC doses of about 300 ug/kg to achieve their desired "high".
* It is possible to safely study the effects of marijuana on driving on highways or city streets in the presence of other traffic.
* Marijuana smoking impairs fundamental road tracking ability with the degree if impairment increasing as a function of the consumed THC dose.
* Marijuana smoking which delivers THC up to a 300 ug/kg dose slightly impairs the ability to maintain a constant headway while following another car.
* A low THC dose (100 ug/kg) does not impair driving ability in urban traffic to the same extent as a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.04g%.
* Drivers under the influence of marijuana tend to over-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and compensate when they can; e.g. by increasing effort to accomplish the task, increasing headway or slowing down, or a combination of these.
* Drivers under the influence of alcohol tend to under-estimate the adverse effects of the drug on their driving quality and do not invest compensatory effort.
* The maximum road tracking impairment after the highest THC dose (300 ug/kg) was within a range of effects produced by many commonly used medicinal drugs and less than that associated with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08g% in previous studies employing the same test.
* It is not possible to conclude anything about a driver's impairment on the basis of his/her plasma concentrations of THC and THC-COOH determined in a single sample.
"any situation in which
"any situation in which safety both for self and others depends upon alertness and capability of control of man-machine interaction precludes the use of marijuana"
That is the defining statement of your post. Stating that less people will die in marijuana related vehicle accidents than alcohol related accidents may be correct but is still not a convincing argument. Over 10,000 people lose their lives each year in alcohol related accidents. Even if driving while under the influence of marijuana were TWICE as safe, that is still 5,000 fatalities. And that assumes that marijuana is the only substance present. Acceptable trade-off? I just don't buy the argument that only a few thousand more people will die as valid. Stating that you know people who smoke weed and are good parents does not constitute empirical evidence.
All of these arguments outside of the liberty issue are not convincing from the standpoint of potential risk vs. potential reward therefore the question remains, what is the urgent and compelling reason to legalize marijuana right now?
There is only one thing
There is only one thing stopping it from being legal. That is a way to easily test for it, similar to a breathalyzer test. Just as we cannot allow people to drive after drinking too much, we can not allow people that smoked marijuana to drive. We do not yet have this technology, but when it does exist in a low cost reliable form, then a serious debate will start on legalizing it.
I think that the government would want to legalize it, because they'd love to tax it.
But we also have to remember that the marijuana that is out there today is not the same stuff that was out there 30 years ago. But before alcohol was legal, there were many people that died from moonshine, now I doubt if that is a problem.
All changes in laws and social behavior have positive and negative effects on society as a whole. But I don't think it will become legal anytime soon.
Why not legalize? Then it can
Why not legalize? Then it can be regulated and taxed like tobacco. Anybody know what the crime and statistics are from where marijuana is legal overseas(Holland?) Alcohol-it used to be drinking age was 18- was changed to 21 in the early 80's(IIRC it went to 19 first). I legally couldn't drink at my wedding(I was 19 at time)-how screwed up is that???
So I'm sitting in my backyard
So I'm sitting in my backyard smoking a doobie when my neighbor sees me and calls the cops. He is oppossed to marijuana use, and feels this is his civic duty to turn me in to the police.
Two weeks later I'm sitting in my back yard and spot the same neighbor drinking a beer, I oppose alcohol use, so I call the cops, the cops laugh. How f---ing ridiculous can it get. What the hell is the difference?
There are many more uses for
There are many more uses for Cannabis than smoking it to get "HIGH".
http://cannabiscureuk.wordpress.com/2012/01/11/breaking-news-cannabis-s…
Amy I am just curious on why
Amy I am just curious on why you think legalizing marijuana would be bad? It is no more dangerous than Alcohol. As far as under age drinking, I really do not believe there too many of us that have never done that. I am strong believer and agree with Dave, "If you are old enough to lay your life down for your country, you should be able to drink!" Beside, marijuana is natural and not man made.
What is up Bob? The one thing
What is up Bob? The one thing people forget is you cannot compare us with the rest of the world. Cultural differences are a major factor. How countries deal with issues are totally different. Germany for example, if you are old and tall enough to reach the bar you can drink. However, if you are stopped for drinking and driving they are much harsher on you. If, you fail to submit to a blood test, they will take it by force. Zero tolerance over there. So, this crap about how crime is down because, things are legal is BS. Their culture, the way they view things are not the same. The outside influences are not the same. Beside, under age drinking laws never stopped you from enjoy brews. Some great parties back in the day.
Hey, heres an idea....let's
Hey, heres an idea....let's shitcan ALL the laws...and let everybody do what ever they want.
Are you with me?
Richard, laws are meant to
Richard, laws are meant to protect our rights, not limit them. When a person is doing anything that hurts no one, they should not face arrest because others disagree with what that person does, it's just that simple.
Here is a good example of how screwed up marijuana laws are: a 16 old is a client of GCASA, on every visit, the 16 old is constantly told that pot is bad, addictive, etc.etc. The 16 year old goes online at home and watches a video showing teens in California smoking pot in the school, the pot is being used to help control symptoms of ADHD.
The kid in GCASA has severe ADHD, his symptoms are treated with adderal, a highly addictive stimulant. BOTTOM LINE, A DRUG IS A DRUG IS A DRUG.....including alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana.
All the laws in the world will not stop use and abuse of drugs, whether they are procured legally or illegally.
I say legalize (and tax the
I say legalize (and tax the crap out of) Mary Jane with limitations similar to alcohol. And make that fake pot from the Rez that puts hole in your brain ILLEGAL !!
That "incense" stuff seems to be much more of a problem than pot ever was.....and it is over the counter!! Bad bad bad....