Log in

View Full Version : Marijuana: 0



Lemur
06-16-2008, 14:08
I don't smoke, but I really, truly don't understand why we spend money and man-hours keeping marijuana illegal. And why do we spend money locking citizens up for smoking the stuff? Can anyone formulate a rationale for this policy? 'Cause it seems completely nonsensical (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/us/14florida.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1213621535-gpq8R1q1swTEp0SBbWSIAw) to this prosimian ...


The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide. Cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found, while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328.

Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and Xanax, led to 743 deaths. Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug, appearing in the bodies of 4,179 of the dead and judged the cause of death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but more than methamphetamine (25) and marijuana (0).

CountArach
06-16-2008, 14:12
Because pollies like to appease conservatives.

Fragony
06-16-2008, 14:18
Maybe it's just harder to detect I don't know. I smoke it myselve, marihuana and traffic, a big nono from here. I'd be more comfortable behind the wheel with a few beers then a few smokes.

//hugs bike

PBI
06-16-2008, 14:21
The more I think about this issue, the less I can see any good reason for keeping it illegal. I don't much like it or the effects it has on people but I am struggling to see why it should be banned. Legalise it, regulate it, restrict it's use in public. I can make my peace with that. Just don't smoke it when I'm around.

Oh, but have strict penalties for driving whilst stoned; I would guess your figures probably don't include those deaths.

naut
06-16-2008, 14:22
Because it's a great scapegoat. :shrug:

Viking
06-16-2008, 14:29
I don't smoke, but I really, truly don't understand why we spend money and man-hours keeping marijuana illegal. And why do we spend money locking citizens up for smoking the stuff? Can anyone formulate a rationale for this policy? 'Cause it seems completely nonsensical (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/us/14florida.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1213621535-gpq8R1q1swTEp0SBbWSIAw) to this prosimian ...


The Florida report analyzed 168,900 deaths statewide. Cocaine, heroin and all methamphetamines caused 989 deaths, it found, while legal opioids — strong painkillers in brand-name drugs like Vicodin and OxyContin — caused 2,328.

Drugs with benzodiazepine, mainly depressants like Valium and Xanax, led to 743 deaths. Alcohol was the most commonly occurring drug, appearing in the bodies of 4,179 of the dead and judged the cause of death of 466 — fewer than cocaine (843) but more than methamphetamine (25) and marijuana (0).

Death has never been an argument against marijuana anyhow.

LittleGrizzly
06-16-2008, 14:47
I'd be more comfortable behind the wheel with a few beers then a few smokes.

I have quite a few friends who have drove both, i can tell you drunk drivers seem to have an air of confidence about them (created by the drink) and then whenever i have watched my friends drive stoned they are almost always slower because they have alot less confidence, also because thier stoned there is an extra worry about the cops, so they try to drive normal.

but I really, truly don't understand why we spend money and man-hours keeping marijuana illegal. And why do we spend money locking citizens up for smoking the stuff? Can anyone formulate a rationale for this policy?

Im just assuming its somewhat similar in America but over here we have a majority of people (im mainly thinking the middle classes) who assume its a terrible thing just because of the name drugs, i can't tell you how many people i have had to explain that tobacco and alcohol are also drugs (and far worse ones at that) anyway back to the name, drugs, the other thing that really doesn't help over here is articles in the daily mail like, man kills man after 6 hour drug binge.... the man had been smoking marijuana several hours previously... the daily mail seems to make an effort to find anything crazy done by anyone on marijuana and then link to two repeatedly until it becomes like a mantra, if we could just convince rupert murdoch to have a go at weed and he decided he didn't mind it then we would only have 50 odd years of propaganda to reverse..... plan!

I think the other part of the problem outside of the daily mail and papers like it is all the propagnada the govermnet put out itself, alot of the dodgy old anti-marijuana productions the goverment made are in the minds of older people and have spread to younger people through word of mouth, the goverment havng been saying its bad and wrong for so long they have alot of people convinced

Lastly the problem is politicians, outside of holland i think it would be political suicide or at least here in the UK it would be, if the labour party did it definetly, if the conservatives did it probably, the storm over here created by a mix of the moralising middle classes and the rupert murdoch papers, needless to say a majority in the country would be left in no doubt that legalising marijuana would cause the downfall of society

Fragony
06-16-2008, 14:59
You are a smoker as well LittleGrizly you know it dulls the senses and that you cannot react as fast in an emergency it can be up to a full second delay, it doesn't have to be the stoned driver causing the situation but having to react to one can be deadly. That is the same for medicine of course, that is why I kinda doubt the numbers in the NYT link Lemur posted, sounds like they are basing a story on a lack of particular data.

PBI
06-16-2008, 14:59
if we could just convince rupert murdoch to have a go at weed and he decided he didn't mind it then we would only have 50 odd years of propaganda to reverse..... plan!


Umm, last I checked Murdoch owns the Times and the Sun, but not the Mail. I think I would`agree that the world would be a better place if he spent more time stoned and less time running his empire, though.:yes:

Lemur
06-16-2008, 19:59
I kinda doubt the numbers in the NYT link Lemur posted, sounds like they are basing a story on a lack of particular data.
Well, looking back over it, no, they do not appear to be counting deaths due to operation of heavy machinery, but rather toxicity-related deaths. They're also not counting any deaths from ill-advised fights that got started after too many brews, either.

I don't think stoned driving is a sufficiently compelling reason to keep marijuana smoking illegal in this country. Remember, when we put someone in jail it costs a minimum of $20k per year to keep the fed and locked down. You need a pretty good justification to cost me and mine that much money.

drone
06-16-2008, 20:31
I don't think stoned driving is a sufficiently compelling reason to keep marijuana smoking illegal in this country. Remember, when we put someone in jail it costs a minimum of $20k per year to keep the fed and locked down. You need a pretty good justification to cost me and mine that much money.

OK, how about "Marijuana makes the illegals and blacks want to rape your daughters!" Isn't that the original reason for it's ban?

Edit-> Oh yeah, I almost forgot. Think of the children!

Fragony
06-16-2008, 20:31
Well I don't care if it is legal or not, there is always such a thing as turning a blind eye. Works here in the netherlands, but the USA, how.

Ice
06-16-2008, 20:36
For about the 1000th time the benefits of legalization far outweigh the costs. It should be legal and I should be able to purchase it like I do alcohol.

Xiahou
06-16-2008, 20:45
I think the "counter-culture" mystique about marijuana only serves to increase it's popularity. As such, I'm in favor of making it boring. I'd like to see casual usage and possession treated more like a speeding ticket that a serious criminal offense. Keep individual possession and use outlawed, but allow certain establishments to be setup for the purpose buying weed and smoking it on the premises only.

I don't ever see this happening, but I think it could work out nicely. I'd still never use the crap, but people that choose to could do so- hopefully without bothering anyone else.

Ice
06-16-2008, 20:56
I don't ever see this happening, but I think it could work out nicely. I'd still never use the crap, but people that choose to could do so- hopefully without bothering anyone else.

Bad experiences, Xiahou? I've never seen marijuana use bother anyone else. Usually the people smoking it are careful not to due to the fact it is illegal and they could get busted,fine, and/or sent to jail.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-16-2008, 21:06
If it's restricted to within your own home, to people above or at the age of whatever the legal cigarette smoking age is, fine. Also taxed and regulated.

El Diablo
06-16-2008, 21:13
Legalise dope.

Tax it.

Put up the tax on chocolate, fast food and chocolate flavoured milk.

Government will be rolling in $$ and can take care of the rest of society...

Fragony
06-16-2008, 21:17
Would be taxing the legalised crime behind it, good luck explaining that.

Lemur
06-16-2008, 21:20
Fragony, could you unpack that idea? 'Cause I'm not quite understanding it as it's currently phrased. "Taxing the legalized crime"? Um, okay, if something's no longer illegal, and then you tax it, I guess you're taxing a legalized crime. Now that miscegenation laws have been struck down, do the fees paid for mixed-race marriage licenses count as "taxing a legalized crime"?

No, I'm probably completely misunderstanding your point. If you've got the time, please expand so that we can respond without making these flailing motions ...

Somebody Else
06-16-2008, 21:28
I have to agree - legalize the stuff, but in a highly restricted manner (something our current government knows all about). Anyone producing the stuff outside the framework gets hammered, hard (Admittedly, this would be tricky to discover, I suspect - more expense). Meanwhile, the legal version gets taxed to the hilt. The people who smoke cigarettes are miles more intelligent, and they still pay through the nose, so this lot'll be easier to extort money from. Oh, and people have to sign something or other to say they are users - perfectly legally, but I'd still not employ them - I've seen just how feckless, useless and mind-numbingly tedious to be around.

The extra cost should be paid for by the taxation, and there should be some more extra (judging by the number of people who seem to use the stuff, despite protestations otherwise... the number of student would-be politicians I know...)

SE

Fragony
06-16-2008, 21:33
Fragony, could you unpack that idea? 'Cause I'm not quite understanding it as it's currently phrased. "Taxing the legalized crime"? Um, okay, if something's no longer illegal, and then you tax it, I guess you're taxing a legalized crime. Now that miscegenation laws have been struck down, do the fees paid for mixed-race marriage licenses count as "taxing a legalized crime"?

No, I'm probably completely misunderstanding your point. If you've got the time, please expand so that we can respond without making these flailing motions ...

Of course taxing it is legalising crime because you are taxing every aspect of it, the end-product isn't just something that just shows up. ' Taxing' it would be more like ' taking a cut'.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-16-2008, 21:36
I have to agree - legalize the stuff, but in a highly restricted manner (something our current government knows all about). Anyone producing the stuff outside the framework gets hammered, hard (Admittedly, this would be tricky to discover, I suspect - more expense). Meanwhile, the legal version gets taxed to the hilt. The people who smoke cigarettes are miles more intelligent, and they still pay through the nose, so this lot'll be easier to extort money from. Oh, and people have to sign something or other to say they are users - perfectly legally, but I'd still not employ them - I've seen just how feckless, useless and mind-numbingly tedious to be around.

The extra cost should be paid for by the taxation, and there should be some more extra (judging by the number of people who seem to use the stuff, despite protestations otherwise... the number of student would-be politicians I know...)

SE

Brilliant post. :bow:

Ice
06-16-2008, 21:40
The people who smoke cigarettes are miles more intelligent

That's a bit insulting. How do you come to this conclusion?

Tribesman
06-16-2008, 21:51
Of course taxing it is legalising crime because you are taxing every aspect of it, the end-product isn't just something that just shows up. ' Taxing' it would be more like ' taking a cut'.

How so ?
If it is legal then it is legal . Growing it would be legislated , shipping it would be legislated , where does this taking a cut of illegal business come into it ?

Sasaki Kojiro
06-16-2008, 21:54
Anyone producing the stuff outside the framework gets hammered, hard (Admittedly, this would be tricky to discover, I suspect - more expense).

Why shouldn't you be able to grow it if you want to?


Meanwhile, the legal version gets taxed to the hilt.

Thus guaranteeing that people will grow their own and deal it like they do currently. Brilliant. Sin taxes are for prudes and people for whom "healthy" is their religion.


The people who smoke cigarettes are miles more intelligent, and they still pay through the nose, so this lot'll be easier to extort money from.

Cigarettes don't really do anything besides make you wobbly unless you are addicted and they're quite unhealthy. Marijuana gets you high and his minor health effects.


Oh, and people have to sign something or other to say they are users - perfectly legally, but I'd still not employ them - I've seen just how feckless, useless and mind-numbingly tedious to be around.

Textbook example of prejudice...

Although somebody supports legalization, if anyone wonders why most people don't support it it's because of this kind of ignorance and prejudice. ~:handball:

Somebody Else
06-16-2008, 22:37
That's a bit insulting. How do you come to this conclusion?

I lived in a flat with 3 of them for a year.Coming home every day to a flat wreathed in that foul-smelling smoke by 3pm was one of the more unpleasant features, I won't mention their personal habits An absolute bloody nightmare, them and their friends. Not met a single one, and I have met several, none of whom I would trust in a position of any responsibility.

SE

Ice
06-16-2008, 22:39
I lived in a flat with 3 of them for a year.Coming home every day to a flat wreathed in that foul-smelling smoke by 3pm was one of the more unpleasant features, I won't mention their personal habits An absolute bloody nightmare, them and their friends. Not met a single one, and I have met several, none of whom I would trust in a position of any responsibility.

SE

:laugh4:

Looks like you are just living with a bunch of idiots. Like I've been saying for a while here, don't judge all weed smokers off a small sample of people.

Geoffrey S
06-16-2008, 23:07
Of course taxing it is legalising crime because you are taxing every aspect of it, the end-product isn't just something that just shows up. ' Taxing' it would be more like ' taking a cut'.
Not now - but when legalized, I see no reason why the production of marijuana shouldn't be just as legal as the distribution.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-16-2008, 23:31
:laugh4:

Looks like you are just living with a bunch of idiots. Like I've been saying for a while here, don't judge all weed smokers off a small sample of people.

The people who smoke weed on a regular basis are the same here, and where I was in Canada, etc., etc.

Sasaki Kojiro
06-16-2008, 23:55
The people who smoke weed on a regular basis are the same here, and where I was in Canada, etc., etc.

I'm sure there are potheads and alcoholics everywhere. But people who smoke aren't the same as potheads just like people who drink aren't the same as alcoholics. You guys seem to be suffering from some confirmation bias.

Ice
06-17-2008, 00:08
I'm sure there are potheads and alcoholics everywhere. But people who smoke aren't the same as potheads just like people who drink aren't the same as alcoholics. You guys seem to be suffering from some confirmation bias.

Uh huh.

I use to smoke quite often when I was during the school year. I maintained a 3.9 as an accounting major and held a 15 hour a week administrative job on top of all normal social activitity.

Simply BS to say everyone smoke smokes cannabis is a low life idiot, although I don't deny those people do exist.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-17-2008, 00:35
I'm sure there are potheads and alcoholics everywhere. But people who smoke aren't the same as potheads just like people who drink aren't the same as alcoholics. You guys seem to be suffering from some confirmation bias.

You notice, I'm sure, that I said "on a regular basis."

Sasaki Kojiro
06-17-2008, 00:45
You notice, I'm sure, that I said "on a regular basis."

You did not, however, say "3 times a day, every day".

Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-17-2008, 00:47
You did not, however, say "3 times a day, every day".

Which is good, because I didn't mean that.

Xiahou
06-17-2008, 01:16
Not now - but when legalized, I see no reason why the production of marijuana shouldn't be just as legal as the distribution.If you mean "well regulated", then I'm in agreement. :yes:

LittleGrizzly
06-17-2008, 01:29
Somebody Else sure signs for stoners so employers know, but why stop the discrimination there ? theres drinkers, fat people, those on anti-depressents...

we could get some kind of goverment survellience so employers could know every little bad habit of thier potential employees

and somebody else as for the bit about being tedious your probably either a hypocrit (drinker) or quite boring yourself.

Spartan198
06-17-2008, 03:34
Yes, it should remain illegal.

Alexander the Pretty Good
06-17-2008, 04:25
You can't wander into a thread this lopsided and not have an argument prepared, can you? ~;p

Fragony
06-17-2008, 04:29
Not now - but when legalized, I see no reason why the production of marijuana shouldn't be just as legal as the distribution.

Hash would also be legal then it's in the same category, and all the smuggling and behind it, really legalising and taxing it is too tricky.

Sasaki Kojiro
06-17-2008, 06:02
Which is good, because I didn't mean that.

Then you missed the point...

Somebody Else
06-17-2008, 09:09
Somebody Else sure signs for stoners so employers know, but why stop the discrimination there ? theres drinkers, fat people, those on anti-depressents...
Happily I'm planning on going into an industry where self-discipline is a requirement.


we could get some kind of goverment survellience so employers could know every little bad habit of thier potential employees
Welcome to Britain under Labour...


and somebody else as for the bit about being tedious your probably either a hypocrit (drinker) or quite boring yourself.
Either a drinker, or boring... So non-drinkers, (or indeed, anyone without any vices) are quite boring are they? Interesting...

And yes, I do drink - but infrequently have I met someone who drinks who behaves in the same way that the majority of those that I have met who smoke do.

Oh, and I have the occasional cigar, even snuff too.

I do not, however, claim to be interesting. It's not my place to do so.

SE

PBI
06-17-2008, 10:34
So non-drinkers, (or indeed, anyone without any vices) are quite boring are they?

Yes, people with no vices are usually tediously self-righteous and very boring in my experience. Having no character flaws at all is usually a recipe for a person being utterly un-likeable in my book.

Why would there be a need to have weed users declare it to potential employers? If it makes them lazy or unprofessional, that should be reason enough not to employ them without delving into their personal habits. If not, it's none of your business.

Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-17-2008, 13:33
Yes, people with no vices are usually tediously self-righteous and very boring in my experience. Having no character flaws at all is usually a recipe for a person being utterly un-likeable in my book.

So any vice is OK (gluttony for the win!), or does it have to be chemically induced?



Why would there be a need to have weed users declare it to potential employers? If it makes them lazy or unprofessional, that should be reason enough not to employ them without delving into their personal habits.

That's what I was thinking originally...if they're lazy, just fire them/don't hire them.

PBI
06-17-2008, 14:15
The nature of the vice doesn't particularly matter, only the degree. Obviously giving in to vice entirely isn't a good idea, but on the other hand I do rather feel that to completely avoid all vice essentially means avoiding all fun. And people who don't like fun, don't tend to be much fun to be around.

Geoffrey S
06-17-2008, 15:05
Hash would also be legal then it's in the same category, and all the smuggling and behind it, really legalising and taxing it is too tricky.
Plenty of places in the US where it could be produced. As for Europe, Morocco is already a major exporter - but in the Rif mountains, it is completely dominated by crime cartels. Legalization would break those and quite possibly be an advantage to the actual farmers in the region. In other words, for best results a coordinated effort with the Moroccan government would be worthwhile - we'd probably get it cheaper, and Morocco would actually make money of the deal.

Fragony
06-17-2008, 15:25
Hmm make sense to me.

LittleGrizzly
06-17-2008, 15:36
Either a drinker, or boring... So non-drinkers, (or indeed, anyone without any vices) are quite boring are they? Interesting...

Probably a bit too much of a generalisation but i would say quite a few people without any vices could be quite boring

And yes, I do drink - but infrequently have I met someone who drinks who behaves in the same way that the majority of those that I have met who smoke do.

Yes smokers tend to behave a bit different to drinkers.... im reminded of a song think its by the streets ill have a look....

I don't see what your problem with smokers behaviour is ? England football fans show us regularly what a good bit of alcohol intake can do, i can't quite imagine a group of stoners quite behaving the same way..... we see the negative effects of drink every weekend in our citys, violence and public disorder, so how can you see this behaviour as ok but stoners as not ?

although you did describe stoners as boring so maybe the problem is they don't get up to all this crap when thier stoned ? ill admit it probably has its own entertainment value, but then call me boring because i won't be out this friday night kicking someones head in and stealing a traffic cone...

Spartan198
06-20-2008, 05:46
You can't wander into a thread this lopsided and not have an argument prepared, can you? ~;p
The stuff is a menace to society. It was made illegal for a reason, and therefor should stay that way.

There's my argument.

Lemur
06-20-2008, 05:49
Spartan198, thanks for expanding on your point, but that's not really an argument. Could you expand on why it's a menace to society, or respond to any of the points brought up in this thread?

PanzerJaeger
06-20-2008, 06:21
Yes, people with no vices are usually tediously self-righteous and very boring in my experience. Having no character flaws at all is usually a recipe for a person being utterly un-likeable in my book.

Funny, I find people who feel it necessary to drink or smoke socially to be supremely boring and in need of a crutch to overcome their insecurities.

I've gotten to the point where I would rather play video games at home that get dragged to yet another frat party.

Score. 4 hours with a bunch of guys who suddenly think I'm their best friend telling me about how awesome some other party was, and at the end of the night the possibility to nail some nasty drunk chick.

Now that I'm legal, getting drunk and/or stoned doesn't have the appeal that it once did. Maybe I'm getting too old for that crap. My friends certainly aren't... :shame:

Ice
06-20-2008, 06:34
The stuff is a menace to society. It was made illegal for a reason, and therefor should stay that way.

There's my argument.

It's illegal for a reason...

Lawl

Viking
06-20-2008, 12:43
Yes, people with no vices are usually tediously self-righteous and very boring in my experience. Having no character flaws at all is usually a recipe for a person being utterly un-likeable in my book.

Erm, you're really going out on a limb there. You're assuming that there is something such as an ideal person, whatever he/she must be like. The word that you're really looking for, is personality.

CountArach
06-20-2008, 13:00
Yes, people with no vices are usually tediously self-righteous and very boring in my experience. Having no character flaws at all is usually a recipe for a person being utterly un-likeable in my book.
Getting a bit esoteric here (Always wanted to use that word...) but isn't being a perfectionist a character flaw in itself?

Reverend Joe
06-20-2008, 13:08
Look, if you're gonna argue that it should be illegal because it's a vice, then just make liquor and tobacco illegal as well.

The Russian Mafia will love you to death. :wall:

The vice argument is a complete non-issue because the precedent set by alcohol states that the government and society are willing to tolerate vices as long as the person does not interfere with the lives of others (drunk fighting, driving, etc.) Besides which, if a person becomes a horrific waste of life because they are a daily smoker, it's their fault, not the drug's fault; it was some flaw in their personality that caused them to become such. As a counterexample, I used to smoke 2-3 times a day over the past semester, and my GPA was 3.0 (out of 4.0) and I am currently attending summer classes, which are basically the hardest thing you can do in college. As for the people I know who smoke, I have only known one true "pothead" in my life, and the dude was a waste of life, grass or no grass. You can just tell when you meet them.

@Spartan: it's less of a menace to society than alcohol. Far less. In fact, I would venture to say that it isn't a menace at all; that the only menace to society is people.

PBI
06-20-2008, 13:22
Erm, you're really going out on a limb there. You're assuming that there is something such as an ideal person, whatever he/she must be like. The word that you're really looking for, is personality.

Yeah, I suppose so.

Sorry for the rather abrasive language in my previous post. I was essentially trying to make the point that abstaining from all vice entirely isn't really very endearing. I guess I learned my lesson about posting hastily while in a bad mood, will try not to do it again.

CountArach
06-20-2008, 13:30
@Sparten: it's less of a menace to society than alcohol. Far less. In fact, I would venture to say that it isn't a menace at all; that the only menace to society is people.
I wasn't going to say it, but I concur (for the most part) :bow:

Mikeus Caesar
06-20-2008, 16:26
Funny, I find people who feel it necessary to drink or smoke socially to be supremely boring and in need of a crutch to overcome their insecurities.

I've gotten to the point where I would rather play video games at home that get dragged to yet another frat party.

Score. 4 hours with a bunch of guys who suddenly think I'm their best friend telling me about how awesome some other party was, and at the end of the night the possibility to nail some nasty drunk chick.

Now that I'm legal, getting drunk and/or stoned doesn't have the appeal that it once did. Maybe I'm getting too old for that crap. My friends certainly aren't... :shame:

Maybe you're just friends with the wrong people?

Getting drunk/stoned can be jolly good fun with the right people. Or even person. Hell, each week it's just me and my friend going out drinking, we have a great time together without the need for silly frat boy parties.

PanzerJaeger
06-20-2008, 22:35
Maybe you're just friends with the wrong people?

Getting drunk/stoned can be jolly good fun with the right people. Or even person. Hell, each week it's just me and my friend going out drinking, we have a great time together without the need for silly frat boy parties.

Maybe you're right.

HoreTore
06-20-2008, 23:07
I have to say, whether marijuana is legal or not isn't something I care about at all... Not even the slightest.

I can't see a single good reason why I should even contemplate giving a rats arse about this subject.

Heck, we've already got the glorious scotch!

Idaho
06-23-2008, 17:12
:wall:The fact that cannabis isn't particularly dangerous means that it isn't important to legalise it.

Crack and heroin need to be legalised, controlled and regulated because the prohibition of them creates a situation where thousands of users die every year, families are broken up, prisons are stuffed full and gangsters are rolling in money. Sort it out humanity :help:

Whacker
06-23-2008, 17:32
So my take is thus:

Yeah, I smoked a bunch when I was younger. Yes, it does slow you down mentally. Yes, it can cause memory loss. Is it any more dangerous than cigarettes? My reading has led me to believe no, in terms of the various substances ingested from it, and being a carcinogen.

As an individual, I really could care less if people want to do it on their own personal time. I don't view it as any worse that alcohol or cigarettes in terms of real and potential damage one can do to oneself and to others directly and indirectly. It's just something I enjoyed doing because of the feeling it gave me, quit absolute cold turkey after a 10 second decision, and never had any regrets or problems doing so (ie. I was not remotely addicted). In short, I just grew out of it.

This next bit is a kinda tricky, and I'm still not sure I have a good solution or final opinion yet, but...

As a businessman and employer, I can't help but want the ability to discriminate based on drug usage. The simple reason is because it does affect performance. Sorry, but one is not going to be able to go out and smoke a bowl on break, then come back in and be as productive as they once were. Weed makes you tired, mellow, gives you the munchies, etc. Other drugs have other effects but it all boils down to being able to concentrate and get the job at hand done. Of course this isn't a 100% airtight argument, some things affect people differently, but I firmly believe that at it's core my argument is solid, re: productivity. Now this does conflict somewhat with my "I don't care if you do it in the privacy of your own home", and this is where I haven't been able to entirely resolve those two. Most businesses have policies against drug usage; come in to work drunk or hopped up on something, and you'll get escorted out the door, and I'm fine with this. So it would seem that the break-even point here is that what you do on your own time at home is off limits to an employer, but if you come into work under the influence of something, then all bets are off and you're risking your job in doing so. /shrug

LittleGrizzly
06-23-2008, 17:33
I would agree with that, drug prohibition just creates a favourable situation for the gangsters, crack and heroin are where most of the money and crime is generated from whereas weed is probably a minor issue compared..

Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-23-2008, 17:57
I would agree with that, drug prohibition just creates a favourable situation for the gangsters, crack and heroin are where most of the money and crime is generated from whereas weed is probably a minor issue compared..

So are you saying we should legalize cocaine and heroin? :inquisitive:

Kralizec
06-23-2008, 18:07
So are you saying we should legalize cocaine and heroin? :inquisitive:

To be honest, I'm not sure if those two should be kept illegal either :shrug:

LittleGrizzly
06-23-2008, 18:10
So are you saying we should legalize cocaine and heroin?

Yes because of the huge number of advantadges.

Dealers will be no more, less likely to be offered or pressured into the first try, obviously can still happen but there won't be a finiancial incentive to get people hooked on drugs.

Lower prices, this will mean that addicts don't have to commit as much crime to support thier habit.

the fact that the drugs they take will be legal and alot cheaper will mean a huge decrease in prison numbers, they could be useful / partially useful members of society still but even if they are unable to get a job they will be a much smaller drain on resources as a waster rather than a criminal

More police time to be spent on important matters or less police needed as there would be a big reduction in drug crime (with it being legal) and a big reduction in all crime to support thier habits

If it isn't illegal it will seem less tempting to some....not much of a difference ill admit but it can make a difference for some people

Tax revenue from selling there drugs on, you could put a decent amount of tax on it and still make it alot cheaper, the majority of the costs with drugs is because of the risk as its illegal, so each step of the chain adds thier own big mark up. I figured out if you buy cannabis in bulk around my area you can get up to half price on what you would for buying small amounts, if it can be so cheap coming through a few people imagine if only the goverment and the local pharmacy were the only links in the chain, even with a high % tax you'd still have it alot cheaper..

Fragony
06-23-2008, 18:13
:wall:The fact that cannabis isn't particularly dangerous means that it isn't important to legalise it.

Fresh and not fruity at all, never thought of it like that.

Ice
06-23-2008, 18:17
As a businessman and employer, I can't help but want the ability to discriminate based on drug usage. The simple reason is because it does affect performance. Sorry, but one is not going to be able to go out and smoke a bowl on break, then come back in and be as productive as they once were. Weed makes you tired, mellow, gives you the munchies, etc. Other drugs have other effects but it all boils down to being able to concentrate and get the job at hand done. Of course this isn't a 100% airtight argument, some things affect people differently, but I firmly believe that at it's core my argument is solid, re: productivity. Now this does conflict somewhat with my "I don't care if you do it in the privacy of your own home", and this is where I haven't been able to entirely resolve those two. Most businesses have policies against drug usage; come in to work drunk or hopped up on something, and you'll get escorted out the door, and I'm fine with this. So it would seem that the break-even point here is that what you do on your own time at home is off limits to an employer, but if you come into work under the influence of something, then all bets are off and you're risking your job in doing so. /shrug

Problem with this, Whacker, is that drug tests can often pick up weed residue in your saliva or urine when are you aren't even high. If you smoke a bowl before you go to sleep, and come in to work to get drug tested, even orally, you are most likely going to fail. IMHO, a new test is needed to protect people's privacy and give a more accurate read out.

Whacker
06-23-2008, 18:28
Problem with this, Whacker, is that drug tests can often pick up weed residue in your saliva or urine when are you aren't even high. If you smoke a bowl before you go to sleep, and come in to work to get drug tested, even orally, you are most likely going to fail. IMHO, a new test is needed to protect people's privacy and give a more accurate read out.

This is true, and I agree a balance needs to be struck. I'd like to perhaps separate this into two issues, first is dealing with drug use outside of work, and two is dealing with drug use while at work.

For the first, again my thoughts are what someone wants to do at home is their own business. This means no surprise drug tests outside of work, though perhaps some exceptions can be made for lines of industry that require high security, like energy suppliers, airline pilots, etc... /shrug. If someone is doing enough outside of work that it's starting to affect their on-the-job performance but they are NOT using or under the influence while at work, then in my view that should be handled like any other performance-based issue; track their performance, document the deficiencies, give them the chance to resolve, and if it's not acceptable terminate employment. Just like any other performance problem.

The second issue would be drug use AT work, on-site (note: this gets gray when talking about work-from-home employees, like myself :sweatdrop:, for now we'll just assume on-site employees). If you walk into work smelling like an Amsterdam coffee shop, or exhibiting characteristics of being "under the influence" of some substance, ie: stoned out of your mind or drunk off your ass, then I think the employer has the right to document the situation, escort the employee out of the office, esp. if they present a danger to themselves or others, and require an immediate drug test (within a certain timeframe) as a condition of employment. If it comes back positive, then one's employment would be terminated. If not, then the employer needs to start being more careful, perhaps the individual was just ill, who knows? Obviously there's some issues with this process that'd have to be resolved, and some privacy rights to be considered, but all in all I don't think that's too bad of a solution.

Your thoughts?

Evil_Maniac From Mars
06-23-2008, 18:32
I'm sorry, but cocaine and heroin are, in my opinion, a little over the line. Marijuana legalized? Maybe. Heroin and cocaine? No.

Lemur
06-23-2008, 19:25
If you walk into work [...] exhibiting characteristics of being "under the influence" of some substance [...]
This brings an old memory to the surface. One of my earliest high school summer jobs was working as a secretary for a dentist. You know, typing, filing, boring work. Anyway, I've always been a bit of an enthusiastic fella, and it turns out at the end of the summer that the dentist is convinced that I'm on cocaine. Why does she believe this? "Because nobody has that much energy," according to her.

I guess older female dentists are unfamiliar with the energy quotient of high school boys.

Anyway, carry on ...

Ice
06-23-2008, 20:08
This is true, and I agree a balance needs to be struck. I'd like to perhaps separate this into two issues, first is dealing with drug use outside of work, and two is dealing with drug use while at work.

For the first, again my thoughts are what someone wants to do at home is their own business. This means no surprise drug tests outside of work, though perhaps some exceptions can be made for lines of industry that require high security, like energy suppliers, airline pilots, etc... /shrug. If someone is doing enough outside of work that it's starting to affect their on-the-job performance but they are NOT using or under the influence while at work, then in my view that should be handled like any other performance-based issue; track their performance, document the deficiencies, give them the chance to resolve, and if it's not acceptable terminate employment. Just like any other performance problem.

The second issue would be drug use AT work, on-site (note: this gets gray when talking about work-from-home employees, like myself :sweatdrop:, for now we'll just assume on-site employees). If you walk into work smelling like an Amsterdam coffee shop, or exhibiting characteristics of being "under the influence" of some substance, ie: stoned out of your mind or drunk off your ass, then I think the employer has the right to document the situation, escort the employee out of the office, esp. if they present a danger to themselves or others, and require an immediate drug test (within a certain timeframe) as a condition of employment. If it comes back positive, then one's employment would be terminated. If not, then the employer needs to start being more careful, perhaps the individual was just ill, who knows? Obviously there's some issues with this process that'd have to be resolved, and some privacy rights to be considered, but all in all I don't think that's too bad of a solution.

Your thoughts?

I'm inclined to agree on the following condition: If your boss believes that you are showing signs of drug use at work, they better be damn sure and have appropriate documentation before they decide to drug test you.

rotorgun
06-23-2008, 20:08
I come from the era of the rampant drug culture of the late 1960's-late 1970's. The big argument then about Mary Jane was that the using of it usually lead to experimentation and use of more serious drugs such as LSD and Heroine. Having participated in such societal acts of passage myself in the past, I would tend to say that it was true for me and many others. We did have a tendency to want to get a "better buzz on" and so sought out dealers in those other drugs. Needless to say, my parents were right (shocking!) and I found out the hard way on some bad experiences with the "harder stuff. Thank goodness I came to my senses and sort of just outgrew my interest in drugs.

Despite this, I am in favor of legalization of marajauna on several grounds.

1) It should be regulated and taxed like tobacco and alcohol is

2) There should be very stiff enforcement of illegal dealing and growing of it outside of regulatory requirements.

3) Selling of it to minors should carry stiff punishments, much as for selling alcohol to kids is handled today.

4) Its price should be regulated, so that the temptation to make a fortune off it illegally (the forbidden fruit effect) will be mitigated.

5) Warnings from the Surgeon General should be printed on the packaging to warn people of any medical dangers associated with its use.

Imagine the IRS getting after a grower who tries to do this under the table, or someone suing a manufacturer of marajauna cigarettes for someone getting cancer from their products and you can imagine its popularity as an illicit drug decreasing dramatically.

Let the lawsuits begin!

Idaho
06-23-2008, 20:42
With weed they should just make it illegal to buy and sell, take in public and give to minors.

Other than that - just grow a few plants in your back garden and be left alone if that's your thing.

Drug policy should be driven by economics and public health. At the moment it is driven by ignorance and moralising.

Spartan198
06-27-2008, 04:07
Look, if you're gonna argue that it should be illegal because it's a vice, then just make liquor and tobacco illegal as well.
Fantastic idea. :whip:

CountArach
06-28-2008, 08:24
Fantastic idea. :whip:
Yes, because its never failed miserably in the past...