Should Marijuana Be Legalized

[ATOMonkey]

I find the concept of "gateway drugs" asinine - it was all dreamed up by powerful people looking to make more money and gain more control over people.

Anything you hear from these idiots is all FUD, pushing their religious agenda's.

Totally agree. All drugs make you "high" differently. Some are much more enjoyable than others in different ways too.

Also, the thought of shooting up anything just gives me the willies. No thanks.

 

[squirrelhntr]

its just like firearms, the users r gonna do it legal or not. its a good thing to let the citizens have more rights. it shrinks fat government.

 

[Fletch]

Totally agree. All drugs make you "high" differently. Some are much more enjoyable than others in different ways too.

And not all "highs" are counterproductive. Imagine how much more we could accomplish as workers if Ritalin were available over the counter.

 

[ATOMonkey]

And not all "highs" are counterproductive. Imagine how much more we could accomplish as workers if Ritalin were available over the counter.

Nuts to that! Just give me come coca leaves and let me be. Just like coffee only better.

 

[misconfig]

Totally agree. All drugs make you "high" differently. Some are much more enjoyable than others in different ways too.

Also, the thought of shooting up anything just gives me the willies. No thanks.

Exactly.. The thought of people going crazy and having a drugged society if we legalized everything is not true. Take a look at Amsterdam for instance, extremely low crime rate and *gasp* legal drugs and prostitution.

You could also argue the point: more people are hooked on prescription drugs over illicit drugs. Those are "legal" so I haven't seen any statistics of abuse.

If anyone should be "anti-drug" it should be me. My mother struggled with narcotics addiction ( prescribed drugs ) for many years and it ultimately killed her.

Although I am still a freedom-loving person and I feel people should be able to do whatever they want to their bodies.

 

[MinuteMan47]

You could also argue the point: more people are hooked on prescription drugs over illicit drugs. Those are "legal" so I haven't seen any statistics of abuse.

If anyone should be "anti-drug" it should be me. My mother struggled with narcotics addiction ( prescribed drugs ) for many years and it ultimately killed her.

Sorry to hear that.

This is the frustrating part. People with cancer, back problems, pain, insomnia, etc... are prescribed ADDICTIVE prescription narcotics, but they can't smoke / ingest THC to get the same relief, but without the side effects?

Makes no sense....to me.

 

[tv1217]

If they legalize marijuana, I'm buying stock in Frito-Lay

 

[dcary7]

You all have valid points and opinions.. and we are all entitled to our different points of view... someone said it earlier.. and I agree.. its not the "use" that is the problem as much as the "abuse"...

i see and understand with the viewpoint of "its our freedoms/rights... do what you want" to a "degree" i agree with that, but at what point should there be outside involvement/enforcement? At some point... it will affect other ppl... do you wait for other ppl to be hurt by ones actions before stopping them? this does not only pertain to drugs... but is relevant.. so hang with me on this analysis... what lvl of "preventative" enforcement is good? and at what point do you feel it is overstepping your rights?

Lets use drunk driving as a simple example.. because it is legal already. You can legally drink if you are over the age of 21. You can legally drive home as long as you have not consumed enough alcohol that you are under .08. Lets say you are driving and over .08. You haven't hurt anyone yet..but you get arrested? is that a violation of your rights in your opinion... cus you didnt hurt anyone? or do you have to wait till you have a head on collision and hurt/kill someone before you feel enforcement is justifiable?

now, keep that scenario in mind... how do you regulate any other substance like that? this isnt so much directed at marijuana as it is at harder drugs - i have already stated my thoughts on marijuana... do you let everyone go out and do whatever they want? and if they kill someone else cus of it then they receive punishment? theres no fast way of measuring the amount of hard drugs in someone's system to determine if they are too messed up to drive etc ..like a PBT for cocaine .

So my question is this, due to people feeling that drugs should be legalized strictly because it is their constitutional right to be free and do what they want.... At what point is involvement acceptable, and at what point is too much? Should there be regulation to "anything" like that, im not limiting it to drugs... but to me it almost seems like ppl feel there should be "no preventative" enforcement at all... if that is your opinion.. that is fine by me... im just curious as to what extent ppl feel there should be regulation. I promise you now, i will not even respond with a argumentative responsive. This has just gotten my curiosity up now..
I feel that some preventative enforcement/laws are beneficial for the safety of others. I'm absolutely not for big government controlling everything. I would be happy with the regulations being established at the state level. . . but . . .to what extent do you feel it should exist?
again: after this post, I am just going to view responses.. if you would like to just pm me your thoughts that is fine too... as to not hijack the thread. if you would like a response, ill be happy to do so in a pm.

-dcary7

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes, you absolutely wait to do something until someone or something is hurt by the actions of others. That is the definition of freedom and liberty.

Anything else is an attempt to pre-empt crime, and that didn't work out well for Tom Cruise.

 

[jsgolfman]

^^^What he said. Try it you might like it.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So my question is this, due to people feeling that drugs should be legalized strictly because it is their constitutional right to be free and do what they want....

The Constitutional right argument is weak if not non-existent. The federal government should have no play - maybe a Commerce clause authority for interstate commerce, but that should not apply if you want to grow a little weed in your back yard and smoke it. I don't support the federal government being involved in drug policy.

State laws fill the gaps left by the Constitution and can and should regulate drug posession and use if their citizens demand it. I think that states have the power to criminalize drugs, or legalize and tax them. States are already starting down the road toward legalization.

At some point the federal government is going to be dealt a wake up call to focus on its responsibilities and leave state matters where they belong - to the states.

 

[dcary7]

The Constitutional right argument is weak if not non-existent. The federal government should have no play - maybe a Commerce clause authority for interstate commerce, but that should not apply if you want to grow a little weed in your back yard and smoke it. I don't support the federal government being involved in drug policy.

State laws fill the gaps left by the Constitution and can and should regulate drug posession and use if their citizens demand it. I think that states have the power to criminalize drugs, or legalize and tax them. States are already starting down the road toward legalization.

At some point the federal government is going to be dealt a wake up call to focus on its responsibilities and leave state matters where they belong - to the states.

right, im aware of this. as the previous posts have stated.. some ppl feel there should be no government involvement at any level, (unless harm has come to an individual as result of its use ) I'm just curious as to ppl stance on that. whether there should be any regulation basically. just curious i suppose..

 

[ATOMonkey]

I don't believe the IN constitution grants authority to legislate prohibition, but I could be wrong on that, I'll have to check.

Even if the constitution did grant IN that authority, I would still oppose it.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Alcohol and Tobacco are both regulated for potency. Marijuana has increased in potency expontionally over the years. Does one expect the ATF or FDA (both pure FAIL as agencies) to not do the same with legalized marijuana? If that does happen, we're back at square one with the more potent, more sought after strains of the plant being illegal.

The average potency has went up, there has always been high potency strains and hash. Yes the ATF regulates alcohol potency, but you can still buy everclear which is about as strong as it gets.

And what does potency really matter? It won't make you any more high, just simply take less to get their. Like beer and whiskey, you can get stinking passed out drunk on both, just it takes less with whiskey.

I've known police officers, lawyers, scientists, and every other walk of life that have, or do still smoke marijuana.

Yep same here, including one person that was so well respected in his job that he was constantly being sent around the country and even out of the country to help figure out problems. And I think he missed 1 day of work in 14yrs.

I also knew a chemist with a phd who worked at a refinery. Never missed work either.

Im going to assume that anything you burn and inhale is detrimental to your health. Marijuana just isnt typically consumed like tobacco (scale-wise).

You are aware that you don't have to smoke it right?

I'm betting your granda didnt get high.... and would probably thump anyone in your family that did

Wouldn't really surprise me if he did.

Eventually the high isnt as good as it used to be... and people will keep looking to make it better.

I don't foresee it creating "new jobs" or solving our unemployment issues. How is it going to alleviate the financial struggles of our country? by taxing it?

I am curious... some people answered "legalize all drugs".... can you tell me what good would come from having meth legalized?

-dcary7

The same can be said for alcohol, the buzz isn't as good so I'll have to try something harder. And from what I remember from way back in the day, the high was always as good as it was, just took a little more to get there.

Oh and it will create jobs, growers/distributors/etc. Look at CA, how many jobs have been created? Do you have any idea how many stores have opened up to distribute MM?

What's the benefits of legalizing meth? I'm guess that if it was legalized it would probably start being made in factories with quality control, and with purer ingredients. And safer ones also. There would be a lot less "home brewers" out there. You do realize it was originally made by the Pharmaceutical comps right?

And you do know there are other drugs than marijuana and meth right? Including quite a few that are plants.

no its not, because you also said you thought they started with cigarettes or alcohol.. so for that line of thinking.. most everyone should be stoned out of their mind on some substance right now.

Also, as I have stated on several occasions already.. you cant look at an individual person in the argument... it is people at as a whole.. the majority. Not the select few you chose to examine.

I apologize, I should have been more clear... I was referring to weed as the first illegal drug that they started with.. which would move them on to a harder substance... "most" everyone I know... that smoked weed... at some other time... tried something else... yes there are people that don't try anything else.. and can smoke it day in and day out and it not affect their daily lives negatively... but there is the completely other end of the spectrum that you have to consider too.

Alcohol, which I feel is just a dangerous (if not more dangerous) is not a gateway drug in my opinion. A persons judgment may be skewed if they are heavily intoxicated which could increase the chance of them doing something that they would not do if they were sober whether it be another drug.. or some other ignorant act. I drink very little any more... an occasional beer here and there with dinner,etc... I dont drink for effect anymore.

dcary7

Can I ask why you consider mj a gateway drug and not alcohol? The only compelling answer ever given to me was one that would point to the legalization of it. And that answer was that alcohol is easily gotten at the store if your over 21 or know someone that is, where marijuana and other drugs have to be gotten from the corner dealer which puts you in an area to have them attempt to push you onto harder drugs.

I said legalize EVERYTHING. Making the drugs forbidden drives the desire up IMO.

During prohibition some people quit drinking because of the law, others started because it was now "illicit and exciting"

now, keep that scenario in mind... how do you regulate any other substance like that? this isnt so much directed at marijuana as it is at harder drugs - i have already stated my thoughts on marijuana... do you let everyone go out and do whatever they want? and if they kill someone else cus of it then they receive punishment? theres no fast way of measuring the amount of hard drugs in someone's system to determine if they are too messed up to drive etc ..like a PBT for cocaine .

-dcary7

How do they do it now? How do they do it for legal prescription meds? There is a test to find out how much active substance is in your body, it's a blood test. And I guarantee some inventor will come out with a test for it, they already have near instant (5 min) saliva tests for the metabolites, but all that shows is that you've use sometime in the past. I don't think it would be that hard for them to come up with one to test for active substances.

 

[88GT]

How is it relevant?


If he smoked marijuana in the past, and marijuana is a gateway drug, then why is he not hitting a crack pipe right now? Or snorting lines of cocaine.

Seems relevant to me.

Calm down, Francis. I was just trying to keep the dots connected. There are several different lines of discussion in this thread and I wanted to keep them straight. Relax, not every question is an attempt to condemn.

Are you actually looking at the same numbers as the rest of us? This poll shows (at this time) 47% in favour of cannabis only. 32% of respondents are in favour of legalising ALL drugs. That's a pretty large number, considering that only 118 people have voted, so far. Pro-legalisation is leading the pack with those in favour of legalising ALL drugs as close second. Your interpretation is flawed.

Actually, I think his interpretation was spot on. More people are making decisions about the legalization of illegal drugs based on their own standard of morality as opposed to the standard of freedom. Those arguing for the complete legalization of all drugs are actually in the minority because those arguing for the legalization of only pot aren't doing it for the cause of freedom, but out of a weak attempt to reconcile the hypocrisy of continually imposing their morality on others with regards to illegal drugs while they remain silent on the ingestion of alcohol and tobacco. THere is no freedom vote in the first group.

 

[steveh_131]

Actually, I think his interpretation was spot on. More people are making decisions about the legalization of illegal drugs based on their own standard of morality as opposed to the standard of freedom. Those arguing for the complete legalization of all drugs are actually in the minority because those arguing for the legalization of only pot aren't doing it for the cause of freedom, but out of a weak attempt to reconcile the hypocrisy of continually imposing their morality on others with regards to illegal drugs while they remain silent on the ingestion of alcohol and tobacco. THere is no freedom vote in the first group.

One person has admitted that they found the poll confusing and chose the first option when they meant the second. It threw me off at first too.

I certainly hope there's a lot of people who misread it, because otherwise that is really sad.

 

[88GT]

One person has admitted that they found the poll confusing and chose the first option when they meant the second. It threw me off at first too.

I certainly hope there's a lot of people who misread it, because otherwise that is really sad.

ATOMonkey? I don't think he was confused as much as he just jumped the gun on the choices.

Unfortunately, I think the results are perfectly indicative of the way INGO membership thinks.

 

[rambone]

Currently 80% support expanding liberty. That's impressive for INGO.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Currently 80% support expanding liberty. That's impressive for INGO.

It's apparent that there are strong Libertarian leanings. Let's see if the get out and vote for Ron Paul. Never thought I'd be considered a conservative on a pro-gun site. I'm think there are a lot of democrats that think they're in republican clothing...

 

[awatarius]

One person has admitted that they found the poll confusing and chose the first option when they meant the second. It threw me off at first too.

I certainly hope there's a lot of people who misread it, because otherwise that is really sad.

I understand making pot legal. It doesn't really do much harm. The only harm it does is support criminals... and that is only because it's illegal. I however could never, and would never support making any illegal class 3 drug legal. If you ever ever dealt with a true meth-head, crack head, coke binger and you wished that on society you are sick. The whole idea is some things are a LOT more dangerous than others, and the harm/level of addiction makes the dangerous to society as a whole. Pot does not fall into that category.

Thanks,
Matthew