Should marijuana be legalized and regulated?

[scribbles 6031]

Personally, I'm a little torn. I don't use the stuff, never have, and never will. I value my cognitive abilities and don't feel the need to muddy my brain with drugs. By that token, I don't like the idea of a drug being made legally legitimate for recreational use. There is no good reason to recreationally use pot, and certainly none that make up for the actual harms and risks it presents. "Just cause I like to" isn't a valid reason.

Rationally, I think there is more *potential* for risk management if pot is decriminalized, but this is dependent on how it will (and it should) be regulated. For all those people spouting about how weed is perfectly safe and non-addictive and innocent, there are reams of studies and neuroscientific investigations that show otherwise. Nobody should go to jail for smoking a joint, but that doesn't mean its use shouldn't be regulated.

Not the least of the worries, there are no reliable and practical ways to establish intoxication from pot use at roadside, which means there is an immediate problem with people getting high and driving. Or, how about professions where being high could lead to personal liability or risk the safety of others?

This isn't a simple nut to crack, and I really hope we don't simply wipe out all criminal law without consideration for these things.

[PistolPete 61421]

To answer the question that started the thread-> No f-ing way should they. We can't get control of drunk drivers and now having drivers high? The marijuana they say today is far more potent than it was 20-30 years ago. Let's not be foolish about this election promise as this was NOT why I voted for change. There is many more important issues to deal within our great country then marijuana.

 

In my opinion

[mrgreen760 37785]

Personally, I'm a little torn. I don't use the stuff, never have, and never will. I value my cognitive abilities and don't feel the need to muddy my brain with drugs. By that token, I don't like the idea of a drug being made legally legitimate for recreational use. There is no good reason to recreationally use pot, and certainly none that make up for the actual harms and risks it presents. "Just cause I like to" isn't a valid reason.

Rationally, I think there is more *potential* for risk management if pot is decriminalized, but this is dependent on how it will (and it should) be regulated. For all those people spouting about how weed is perfectly safe and non-addictive and innocent, there are reams of studies and neuroscientific investigations that show otherwise. Nobody should go to jail for smoking a joint, but that doesn't mean its use shouldn't be regulated.

Not the least of the worries, there are no reliable and practical ways to establish intoxication from pot use at roadside, which means there is an immediate problem with people getting high and driving. Or, how about professions where being high could lead to personal liability or risk the safety of others?

This isn't a simple nut to crack, and I really hope we don't simply wipe out all criminal law without consideration for these things.

 

If everyone who uses pot recreationally could be coloured purple for a day your mind would be blown. It covers the waterfront and all walks of life. I have more than 30 years experience and have held executive positions and it's never hampered my cognitive abilities. I never toked on the job nor drank on the job.

 

Like everything in life not everyone should imbibe and alcohol should likely be at the top of that list. Personally I support decriminalization as the first step, mostly because governments tend to screw things up.

 

Peace

MG

[scribbles 6031]

If everyone who uses pot recreationally could be coloured purple for a day your mind would be blown. It covers the waterfront and all walks of life. I have more than 30 years experience and have held executive positions and it's never hampered my cognitive abilities. I never toked on the job nor drank on the job.

 

Like everything in life not everyone should imbibe and alcohol should likely be at the top of that list. Personally I support decriminalization as the first step, mostly because governments tend to screw things up.

 

Peace

MG

I'm actually well aware of how widespread pot use is. And, while your ability to use pot recreationally hasn't, by your estimation, impeded you in any way, I don't think the personal testimony of one person establishes the rule for everyone else. I've known just as many people who regularly used pot who literally couldn't remember the specifics of the beginning of a conversation in order to be able to participate in it 5 minutes later.

 

As you say, not everyone should use it. My point was simply that defining who should, when, and why, is a pretty important aspect of this discussion that should be explored well before laws are erased from the books.

[Phaedrus 209521]

My point was that racism is inextricable from legalization. If you're going to talk about legalization, you have to talk about racism. They are not separate issues.

 

I'd be more inclined to say that racism is inextricable from criminalization. Given the enormous power that exists for LE to decide which laws to enforce and on whom to enforce them, I'd have thought that legalization would help.

 

This whole discussion is predicated on the rather naïve assumption that a politician will actually keep their election promises.

 

Given how much this one's being talked about and how excited a lot of people seem to be about it, I suspect it'll be quite hard to walk back from. But, yeah, it's far from a done deal.

 

Personally, I'm a little torn. I don't use the stuff, never have, and never will. I value my cognitive abilities and don't feel the need to muddy my brain with drugs. By that token, I don't like the idea of a drug being made legally legitimate for recreational use. There is no good reason to recreationally use pot, and certainly none that make up for the actual harms and risks it presents. "Just cause I like to" isn't a valid reason.

 

So should we ban everything else that people enjoy that can't be proven beneficial? Alcohol? Tobacco? Pop? Cookies? Weed is far less harmful than quite a few things that are widespread and widely accepted, and I see no harm with allowing people to have some vices. I consider "Because I like to" to be a perfectly valid reason. I'm not convinced by the merits of criminalizing pleasure.

 

We can't get control of drunk drivers and now having drivers high? The marijuana they say today is far more potent than it was 20-30 years ago.

 

Driving high already happens.

 

Yes, potency has gone up... but if it's legalized, then that'll make it much easier to know how strong the stuff you're smoking is because it can be printed on the packaging, much like the alcohol content of the beer you may be drinking at this moment. And that means that we can make informed decisions rather than just relying on guesswork. As an aside - this is one of the big reasons I prefer legalization to decriminalization on this one.

 

And yes, people will still make bad choices and do stupid things. And innocent people will get injured and die. But as I said, that already happens.

[scribbles 6031]

I'd be more inclined to say that racism is inextricable from criminalization. Given the enormous power that exists for LE to decide which laws to enforce and on whom to enforce them, I'd have thought that legalization would help.

 

 

 

Given how much this one's being talked about and how excited a lot of people seem to be about it, I suspect it'll be quite hard to walk back from. But, yeah, it's far from a done deal.

 

 

 

So should we ban everything else that people enjoy that can't be proven beneficial? Alcohol? Tobacco? Pop? Cookies? Weed is far less harmful than quite a few things that are widespread and widely accepted, and I see no harm with allowing people to have some vices. I consider "Because I like to" to be a perfectly valid reason. I'm not convinced by the merits of criminalizing pleasure.

 

 

 

Driving high already happens.

 

Yes, potency has gone up... but if it's legalized, then that'll make it much easier to know how strong the stuff you're smoking is because it can be printed on the packaging, much like the alcohol content of the beer you may be drinking at this moment. And that means that we can make informed decisions rather than just relying on guesswork. As an aside - this is one of the big reasons I prefer legalization to decriminalization on this one.

 

And yes, people will still make bad choices and do stupid things. And innocent people will get injured and die. But as I said, that already happens.

Should alcohol be prohibited? I enjoy my scotch, but, really, yes it should. Tobacco? I like my cigars, but, again, it should.

Where I would actually argue, philosophically, that one vice is less deserving of prohibition than another is probably in that vice's likelihood of endangering the health and safety of others. From that perspective, tobacco is possibly less of a concern, since the biggest risk (outside of second hand smoke) is to the user. Alcohol and drugs, on the other hand, alter behavior, perception, and cognitive capacity. There are just too many ways where hat can lead to a risk of harm to people other than the user.

 

The notion that people should be allowed their vices is fine in concept, but when those vices, practiced irresponsibly, endanger other people, the equation changes. And, time and again it's proven that expecting people to act responsibly is like trying to catch unicorn farts. :)

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Should alcohol be prohibited? I enjoy my scotch, but, really, yes it should. Tobacco? I like my cigars, but, again, it should.

Where I would actually argue, philosophically, that one vice is less deserving of prohibition than another is probably in that vice's likelihood of endangering the health and safety of others. From that perspective, tobacco is possibly less of a concern, since the biggest risk (outside of second hand smoke) is to the user. Alcohol and drugs, on the other hand, alter behavior, perception, and cognitive capacity. There are just too many ways where hat can lead to a risk of harm to people other than the user.

 

The notion that people should be allowed their vices is fine in concept, but when those vices, practiced irresponsibly, endanger other people, the equation changes. And, time and again it's proven that expecting people to act responsibly is like trying to catch unicorn farts. :)

 

Sounds like big brother, Scribbles. Do we go back to the good old days of prohibition and Al Capone. Should we ban fast food while we're at it? One could argue that obesity and diabetes takes valuable and limited health care resources away from other sick people, thereby endangering them due to others careless overeating.

 

If people want to smoke an herb that makes them feel relaxed or alleviates pain, I have no problem with that. Just put safety measures in place that has consequences for misuse, such as driving under the influence, etc. They do that for guns, auto's, investing, etc., etc., etc.

 

Criminalizing a social vice that consenting adults in large numbers already use is a fight government cannot win. Better to put controls on it and tax it than fight it. We know how well fighting it has worked. Let's try something different for a change. Fear mongering is a tool used to avoid trying something new. I'm not saying that's what you are doing but others do it.

[scribbles 6031]

Sounds like big brother, Scribbles. Do we go back to the good old days of prohibition and Al Capone. Should we ban fast food while we're at it? One could argue that obesity and diabetes takes valuable and limited health care resources away from other sick people, thereby endangering them due to others careless overeating.

 

If people want to smoke an herb that makes them feel relaxed or alleviates pain, I have no problem with that. Just put safety measures in place that has consequences for misuse, such as driving under the influence, etc. They do that for guns, auto's, investing, etc., etc., etc.

 

Criminalizing a social vice that consenting adults in large numbers already use is a fight government cannot win. Better to put controls on it and tax it than fight it. We know how well fighting it has worked. Let's try something different for a change. Fear mongering is a tool used to avoid trying something new. I'm not saying that's what you are doing but others do it.

 

Why do we have a government? I'd argue it's to manage the needs, security and benefits of the many, which should mean that my needs, security and benefits are usually met as well. So, in principle, legislation should ensure that public safety is considered as more important than personal recreation. Otherwise, we live in a society where I do whatever the hell I want, and too bad if it screws you or anyone else over.

 

Where that line is drawn is important. If I want to eat myself to death, that isn't directly putting your life in danger. It's costing the public more in terms of money and resources for our health care system to try and keep my indulgent ass alive, but that's several steps removed from someone getting high, jumping in the car and killing a family of 4 on the highway.

 

Call it Big Brother, but we expect government to be there to keep us safe and prosperous. We just don't like it when, in seeking to do so, they stop us from doing things we like to do.

 

And, to be clear, I stated that I am rationally in favor of legalization (not decriminalization). I may think it's retarded for people to feel the need to use drugs (let's not be so evasive as to call it an herb, or let's call cocaine an herb as well) or think it's not dangerous, but I also know that harm reduction starts with removing a system of punitive enforcement. I don't like heroin, either, but believe safe injection sites are logically a good thing.

 

I just think legalization is a lot harder to accomplish than simple age limits and taxation. Flat out decriminalization would be irresponsible.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

I would rather we put laws and penalties in place to manage irresponsible people than banning something from everyone because of a few bad apples. We don't ban cell phones even though some text and drive and cause accidents. We use laws.

 

I don't mean to badger the point but I have strong feeling on this.

[piano8950 32577]

There is no good reason to recreationally use pot, and certainly none that make up for the actual harms and risks it presents. "Just cause I like to" isn't a valid reason.

 

 

Fair enough, but then the same argument can be made for alcohol and cigarettes. So we either ban it all, or we legalize it.

 

I for one think we should just legalize and tax it.

[VedaSloan 119179]

I'd be more inclined to say that racism is inextricable from criminalization. Given the enormous power that exists for LE to decide which laws to enforce and on whom to enforce them, I'd have thought that legalization would help.

 

Yes, legalization will certainly help--but who does it help? It isn't the people who are already in prison on marijuana charges who don't get pardons; it isn't the people who are prevented from moving from the illegal drug trade to the now legal one because people with felony drug convictions aren't permitted to sell/grow weed (this is based off Colorado); and it definitely isn't the black people who will still get arrested on other bullshit charges.

 

Also, to Pistol Pete who was concerned about stoned drivers, you know driving high isn't the same as driving drunk right? Different effects and all that?

 

And Zeno, you said "take it out of the hands of the criminal element." What exactly do you think that means? It basically means they're fucked since you just took their livelihood away and if we go off Colorado's example, you have also prevented them from moving to the legal trade. I think fucked is a pretty good word to describe it.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

 

And Zeno, you said "take it out of the hands of the criminal element." What exactly do you think that means? It basically means they're fucked since you just took their livelihood away and if we go off Colorado's example, you have also prevented them from moving to the legal trade. I think fucked is a pretty good word to describe it.

 

If it were up to me I would have ignored the small time dealers and focused my efforts on the suppliers. How? By taking away their supply profit through legalization. There is a lot of violence in the "illegal" drug trade and if taking it out of the hands of the criminal element(suppliers and subsequent dealers) reduces that violence, then that seems like a reasonable step. Failure to address the supply side just perpetuates the murders and violence over turf.