Legalized Marijuana

[Montmorency]

What do you see as the worth of the stigma? Why is that worth greater than the benefits of legalization?

Do you think society will experience catastrophic destabilization if weed becomes somewhat more acceptable in polite company?

[rvg]

What do you see as the worth of the stigma? Why is that worth greater than the benefits of legalization?

Do you think society will experience catastrophic destabilization if weed becomes somewhat more acceptable in polite company?

I just don't like it. Isn't that enough? I support things I like and oppose things I don't like. There's nothing else to it.

[TinCow]

I just don't like it. Isn't that enough? I support things I like and oppose things I don't like. There's nothing else to it.

I'm curious as to what differences you see between marijuana and alcohol. What is it that makes the latter acceptable, while the former is worthy of being stigmatized?

[rvg]

I'm curious as to what differences you see between marijuana and alcohol. What is it that makes the latter acceptable, while the former is worthy of being stigmatized?

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, alcohol too deeply ingrained in our culture. It's also a junk food of sorts. Weed has never seen the levels of social acceptance that alcohol has.

[TinCow]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, alcohol too deeply ingrained in our culture. It's also a junk food of sorts. Weed has never seen the levels of social acceptance that alcohol has.

Do you believe that, if alcohol were not so deeply ingrained, it would be better if it were illegal?

[rvg]

Do you believe that, if alcohol were not so deeply ingrained, it would be better if it were illegal?

Certainly.

[TinCow]

Certainly.

Then I applaud you on your consistency and have no further questions; apologies for the cross-examination.

[rvg]

It's no trouble at all :)

[rvg]

So in your view, rvg, all my points about personal freedom, fiscal benefits, and so forth rate lower than your desire for a social stigma?

Yes. As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I do not feel any moral obligation as far as decriminalizing weed.

I find that maddeningly illogical, and makes me worry about other people who refuse to see the big picture.

Perhaps you're looking for a complex explanation where a simple one would suffice: I do not like weed. Many people share that view. In fact, enough of them share that view that in most states weed is illegal. Those states who have allowed it, that's their prerogative. To me that's no more of a reason to legalize weed than it is to legalize prostitution just because Nevada has allowed it. If I were in minority, we wouldn't be having this conversation, as the anti-weed legislation would have been long since repealed.

[TinCow]

It just seems intentionally obtuse, is all. I respect your opinion, but i don't understand the thought process that led you to believe it is the superior opinion.

I've met plenty of people who think that all drugs, including alcohol (and one blasphemer even includes caffeine) should be illegal. It's not an opinion I share, but I think it's an understandable one. Some people believe that substances which cause intoxication or which otherwise alter your mental state are bad for society as a whole. I'm actually fine with that argument, and I don't really fight that one. The people that bug me are those that justify the legality of one drug (usually one they use) but then oppose the legality of another drug (usually one they do not use). That's just ignorance and crazy talk. The general anti-drug stance I think is more of a moral and philosophical argument which is very difficult to debate with statistics and anecdotes.

[HopAlongBunny]

Overall that leaves us where we started; the prohibition issue has never let facts stand in the way of what some think all ought to think.

In Canada we have had a Senate recommendation for decriminalization (1972 Le Dain Comission) sit ignored for 40 years; the recent (2002) recommendation for legalization has been championed twice, to die on the order paper.

For some reason it's an emotive issue, not a rational issue.

Here's to another half century of wasted money, lives and effort

[Fisherking]

Actually rvg’s attitude as those of the people TinCow mentioned is why we have illegal substances.

Anything that might prove to be fun for some people must be bad. Everyone should be as miserable as they are.

These are the people who know best how you should live your life and never miss an opportunity to tell you so.

I know full well that there are people with addictive personalities who will go over the top with a good thing but I see no legitimate reason to tell them they have no right to live as they wish.

[rvg]

Anything that might prove to be fun for some people must be bad. Everyone should be as miserable as they are. These are the people who know best how you should live your life and never miss an opportunity to tell you so.

These miserable, buzzkilling rascals are also commonly known under another name: The Majority.

[TinCow]

These miserable, buzzkilling rascals are also commonly known under another name: The Majority.

Not for long.

[Fisherking]

These miserable, buzzkilling rascals are also commonly known under another name: The Majority.

Call the miscreants anything you like. You obviously judge others not to be capable of making their own decisions and feel that liberty and freedoms should be given up and we should live the way we are told.

How enlightened you are.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The moral crusaders don't need a reason to tell people what to do. They know in their hearts their cause is right and that's all they need.

[rvg]

Call the miscreants anything you like. You obviously judge others not to be capable of making their own decisions and feel that liberty and freedoms should be given up and we should live the way we are told.

How enlightened you are.

Majority rules.

[rvg]

By that logic, everyone who has ever championed a good, but unpopular cause was wrong to try.

Oh, worthy causes are always worth trying. Though the definition of "worthy" varies from person to person.

[Strike For The South]

The most frightining thing in this thread is that Idaho has a job with a coroporation

Bloody patrician IMO

I really don't care about weed. I say we legalize it, so all you thirty somethings in this thread will finally stop complaining becuase you think its the one thing you do that still makes you "cool" and "hip"

This thread has been painful to read becuase of that

Seriously grow old with some dignity

[rvg]

So why is this cause unworthy to you? Why the apathy?

It's just not important to me. I understand that it is important to you, and yes, you do a good job of presenting your case, but I just don't like it. That's a perfectly good reason to vote against something; don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Haven't we presented enough evidence to warrant a better response than "i don't like it" ?

Sure you have, I do not dispute that. I'm not swayed by it, but it is a pretty good case. Thus you'll be better off trying to convince somebody other than myself.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The democratic process depends on people like you, RVG, to make educated decisions on things that only affect you indirectly. This is a prime example. I have given you multitudes of reasons why the legalization of marijuana would benefit the entire country, if not you personally. If you then cannot be depended upon to open your mind and make the logical choice--going instead with only a vague preconcieved prejudice of the issue-- then you are an example of the worst kind of voter. Be responsible and take interest in the big picture.

So what you are saying is that he needs to open his mind.....

Hey RVG give me your address, I want to send you some baked goods.

[drone]

Majority rules.

You have heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority", right?

So what you are saying is that he needs to open his mind.....

Hey RVG give me your address, I want to send you some baked goods.

Send psilocybin instead.

[Crazed Rabbit]

These miserable, buzzkilling rascals are also commonly known under another name: The Majority.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." – Daniel Webster (1782-1852)

You have heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority", right?

An appropriate phrase. RVG and his fellow nanny state authoritarians would be tyrants, if we let them.

The price of freedom is constant vigilance.

CR

[Fisherking]

Majority rules.

Are you so smug and self assured that you forget the very purpose of a constitution and the way a Republic works.
You are talking about a direct democracy which we, thankfully, do not live under.

The rights of everyone are supposed to be protected, not just the majority. Otherwise the “Majority” might think that rvg shouldn’t have that kind of car or even that rvg should not live where he does. Why do you think we did away with the “Jim Crow Laws”?


Your views are far from the majority here, however.

I could really care less about weed from a personal standpoint. I don’t use it but I don’t want others deciding how I live or what I do.

This is just a chance to undo some of the past wrongs of government. Or have you not noticed that they tend to proscribe things and intrude into your life to make everything safer for you?

Your view is that you don’t like it, therefore it should not be allowed. That is not a view I can respect, regardless of what others say.

It is selfish, short sighted, and very narrow minded. By those rules there is nothing that could not be disallowed, to include you. It is a highly repressive point of view.

[rvg]

The rights of everyone are supposed to be protected, not just the majority. Otherwise the “Majority” might think that rvg shouldn’t have that kind of car or even that rvg should not live where he does. Why do you think we did away with the “Jim Crow Laws”?

I was waiting for this... I was waiting for someone to draw a comparison between the civil rights struggle and the legalization of weed. If you think smoking weed is a civil right, then, well...

You have heard the phrase "tyranny of the majority", right?

Sure. If disallowing weed is tyranny, then so be it.

[Idaho]

I was waiting for this... I was waiting for someone to draw a comparison between the civil rights struggle and the legalization of weed. If you think smoking weed is a civil right, then, well...



Sure. If disallowing weed is tyranny, then so be it.

The notion that disallowing weed is tyranny does, on the face of it, seem laughable.

But then when you see the numbers of people imprisoned or fired from their jobs, it seems less like hyperbole. The very fact that it seems silly and insignificant would suggest that judicial intervention was highly disproportionate.

My question to you now, is whether you think infidelity should be made illegal? After all, you have stated that laws should mirror societal dissaproval.

[rvg]

The notion that disallowing weed is tyranny does, on the face of it, seem laughable. But then when you see the numbers of people imprisoned or fired from their jobs, it seems less like hyperbole. The very fact that it seems silly and insignificant would suggest that judicial intervention was highly disproportionate.

I have said repeatedly that I do not have a problem with replacing jail sentences with fines in cases of pot users. Maintaining the social stigma is my main goal, and fines here would do just as well as jail.

My question to you now, is whether you think infidelity should be made illegal? After all, you have stated that laws should mirror societal dissaproval.

Outlawing infidelity is like outlawing alcohol: impractical. Not a bad idea in theory, but only in theory.

[Idaho]

Outlawing infidelity is like outlawing alcohol: impractical. Not a bad idea in theory, but only in theory.

Oh crikey, there really is no hope for you

[Lemur]

I think the group pile-on with RVG is a little bit unseemly. He's admitted that he has no metric, logic, or large-scale reason to his position—he just doesn't like weed and wants it to stay illegal.

IMHO, that's enough said.

What do other posters expect, a change of heart and a mea culpa? That sort of turnaround is exceedingly rare, and requires a lot from the person being asked to admit error.

It's enough that we all lay out our positions and our reasoning. Nobody is required to say, "Crikey, you're right and I was wrong!"

[drone]

What do other posters expect, a change of heart and a mea culpa? That sort of turnaround is exceedingly rare, and requires a lot from the person being asked to admit error.

It's enough that we all lay out our positions and our reasoning. Nobody is required to say, "Crikey, you're right and I was wrong!"

Duty calls.

And by the way, I'm highly disappointed you didn't post the stoned dog picture in this thread.