Marijuana: 0

[Ice]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

[Xiahou]

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.

[LittleGrizzly]

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]

Yes, it should remain illegal.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You can't wander into a thread this lopsided and not have an argument prepared, can you?

[Fragony]

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]

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

Then you missed the point...

[Somebody Else]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Hmm make sense to me.

[LittleGrizzly]

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]

You can't wander into a thread this lopsided and not have an argument prepared, can you?

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]

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]

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...

[Ice]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

@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)

[Mikeus Caesar]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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