Marijuana Legislation

[Texsox]

Whose society? Ours? Less funding of criminal and terrorist organizations for the gov, for users, more controlled distribution and higher potency.

 

Are you suggesting your pot dealer or further up the chain has connections to terrorism?

 

And how does higher potency help society?

[Soxbadger]

What benefit is their to society beyond financial?

 

Medical.

 

 

[Texsox]

Medical.

 

And should be legal everywhere for that. With a 'script

[lostfan]

Also hemp, which has many uses, would be legal, the fact that hemp is illegal is just plain retarded.

[RockRaines]

Are you suggesting your pot dealer or further up the chain has connections to terrorism?

 

And how does higher potency help society?

Yes, I would suggest that a portion of growers that exist outside the united states may have ties to criminal organizations or terrorism. If Growing is legalized and regulated by the government then many of those growers become pretty worthless. Think of the bootlegging industry as a benchmark for this type of model.

 

And high potency helps users. Imagine when liquor was illegal, the quality of drink varied a ton from maker to maker, legalization smoothes out those rough edges and eliminates alot of the bad crop that may or may not be safe for use. (including some strains of pot that have been "soaked")

[RockRaines]

Tex, you still didnt answer my question about your experience. Where do many of your viewpoints on this issue come from? Because a large portion of your arguments are extremely dated and really allign with older governmental viewpoints on drugs as a whole.

[Texsox]

Tex, you still didnt answer my question about your experience. Where do many of your viewpoints on this issue come from? Because a large portion of your arguments are extremely dated and really allign with older governmental viewpoints on drugs as a whole.

 

That it should be legal based on financial and eliminating a potential gateway to other illegal drugs? I didn't think that was old fashioned?

[Texsox]

The entire "gateway" debate is silly. What difference is there between

 

Gate > coffee > cigarettes > alcohol > pot > cocaine

or

coffee > cigarettes > alcohol > gate > pot > cocaine

 

Since people seem to use this path, where do you want to place the gate? Does it really make a difference? I do not think so. It's a silly term and ultimately means nothing.

 

Now, those that keep thinking pot is illegal from bad science and stuff. That just is not as much of a factor today. Today it is factors like the alcohol lobby and the lack of non-financial benefits to society.

 

Complete this

 

Society will benefit from more people getting high because . . .

 

All of the benefits to society, and it is society that has to change the laws are financial. So far we have been willing to spend the money, stupidly in my opinion, to keep pot illegal.

 

We have seen the negative effects of cigarettes and alcohol and have been making it harder, not easier, to use those substances. Why would society then reverse that trend and make another drug legal? Those are the kinds of forces that keep pot illegal.

[RockRaines]

That it should be legal based on financial and eliminating a potential gateway to other illegal drugs? I didn't think that was old fashioned?

Come on Tex, we've been at odds on this subject for awhile. I couldnt find the thread from March where you constantly cited different viewpoints on the subject, most of them being of the "gateway" variety which is an old standard for arguing against marijunana useage. I have several PM's stored from other members discussing the subject on that date. Maybe you have changed your tune here in this thread, but I am under the opionion that alot of your viewpoint comes from less experience in the realm, and if I am wrong I apologize.

[RockRaines]

The entire "gateway" debate is silly. What difference is there between

 

Gate > coffee > cigarettes > alcohol > pot > cocaine

or

coffee > cigarettes > alcohol > gate > pot > cocaine

 

Since people seem to use this path, where do you want to place the gate? Does it really make a difference? I do not think so. It's a silly term and ultimately means nothing.

 

Now, those that keep thinking pot is illegal from bad science and stuff. That just is not as much of a factor today. Today it is factors like the alcohol lobby and the lack of non-financial benefits to society.

 

Complete this

 

Society will benefit from more people getting high because . . .

 

All of the benefits to society, and it is society that has to change the laws are financial. So far we have been willing to spend the money, stupidly in my opinion, to keep pot illegal.

 

We have seen the negative effects of cigarettes and alcohol and have been making it harder, not easier, to use those substances. Why would society then reverse that trend and make another drug legal? Those are the kinds of forces that keep pot illegal.

 

 

Mostly the gate argument is silly becuase there is no chemical reaction in THC that happens in the brain that makes a person more likely to want to try and become addicted to other drugs. There is no "gateway drug" that does not induce heavy addiction and phyical reliance. Genetics and social factors play a much larger part in drug use and abuse.

 

The government doesnt give two s***s about how society will benefit. The government will benefit by increased regulatory control, decrease in revenue moving outside of the united states and greater tax income.

 

Wrap your mind around how society would "benefit": In DuPage county ALONE, a 1 dollar a pack increase in cigarette taxes brings in 40 million dollars in additional revenue to its government. Do you think that non-smokers could POSSIBLY benefit from that money?

 

Cig taxes have brought in around 12 BILLION a year to the federal government for programs that are clearly earmarked for that money including health care for the uninsured. In a time of a growing federal deficit, the legalization of marijuana could help put more money into both the economy as well as programs such as education. How has society really benefitted from more people smoking? We have sacraficed 500k people a year to gain this additional revenue, think about how much better the ratio of zero deaths to tax money collected for marijunana legalization would be.

 

And both cigarettes and alcohol have much worse physical side effects than marijuana. Both are more highly addictive, both have higher long term risk, and both contribute to more deaths per year. THATS why they have been trying to regulate the consumption of those substances. The only reason cigs havent been walked down the path towards illegality is because of the governement revenue associated with purchase as well as the money flowing in from the organizations that distribute the cigs.

 

[Texsox]

Come on Tex, we've been at odds on this subject for awhile. I couldnt find the thread from March where you constantly cited different viewpoints on the subject, most of them being of the "gateway" variety which is an old standard for arguing against marijunana useage. I have several PM's stored from other members discussing the subject on that date. Maybe you have changed your tune here in this thread, but I am under the opionion that alot of your viewpoint comes from less experience in the realm, and if I am wrong I apologize.

My experience comes from watching society for almost 50 years and what is, and is not, allowed, and how those changes come about. If you think I also need to smoke pot to understand, I disagree.

 

People still get high and die. No change in my opinion. If you are high, and get in an accident, that is a pot related death. The same as if your were drunk. You disagreed. No need to rehash that.

 

I clearly stated my gateway argument again, I'm not going to disagree with you. You clearly have more experience with terrorist sponsored (something you added) pot dealers and their inventories. I assumed your local pot dealer would have more than just pot. My mistake.

 

And I see you are agreeing with me, the only benefit is financial. So you are asking society to allow another substance that has no health benefits to individual in exchange for cash. I agree it makes financial sense. Plus, we have sold out our values for a lot less. But as long as we are on a swing where we are being more restrictive on cigarettes (higher and higher sin taxes and less places to smoke) and tougher on alcohol (again higher and higher taxes) I do not see pot being legal anytime soon.

 

 

It seems that you consider pot a vitamin, I'm not ever going to change your mind.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[santo=dorf]

Complete this

 

Society will benefit from more people getting high because . . .

The taxes on the pot would make millions for states and the government.

The fast food industry will have more demand.

Less people will abuse more addictive yet legal substances (pain relievers, alochol) in favor of a substance that gives better effects and can not be lethal directly.

 

I honestly believe if pot was legal, there would be a good number of people who would stop drinking alcohol. A drug that physically destroys the body, causes the users to be aggressive leading to abusive behavior, and that in turn would reduce some violence and drunken driving. We've been over this before, and you try to spin the argument, but driving high is safer than driving drunk. I'm not saying I support driving high, but if we could replace all the drunk drivers in the world with stoned drivers, it'd be much safer. There would also be a lot less public urination/vomitting outside Wrigley Field, campus bar, and other places where binge drinking is part of the scene. I think society benefits from all of this.

[Texsox]

The taxes on the pot would make millions for states and the government.

The fast food industry will have more demand.

Less people will abuse more addictive yet legal substances (pain relievers, alochol) in favor of a substance that gives better effects and can not be lethal directly.

 

I honestly believe if pot was legal, there would be a good number of people who would stop drinking alcohol. A drug that physically destroys the body, causes the users to be aggressive leading to abusive behavior, and that in turn would reduce some violence and drunken driving. We've been over this before, and you try to spin the argument, but driving high is safer than driving drunk. I'm not saying I support driving high, but if we could replace all the drunk drivers in the world with stoned drivers, it'd be much safer. There would also be a lot less public urination/vomitting outside Wrigley Field, campus bar, and other places where binge drinking is part of the scene. I think society benefits from all of this.

 

That is one of the best summaries I've read and some great material for thought. The financial benefits are obvious and I can not believe anyone would disagree.

 

My first reaction would be, in a world where smoking cigarettes is getting harder and harder to do legally in public, wouldn't it be difficult to find places to smoke? Even some localities have banned smoking in bars and taverns.

 

My only objection to the driving argument are those that claim they drive better high than sober. High or drunk is not safe. So whether it is safer drunk, stoned, on heroin, or acid doesn't matter. No one wants an impaired driver driving next to them and that argument would never be used to make pot legal.

 

And I know people who agree with you, they agree to the point that they would never drive drunk, but will drive stoned. Again, not a good argument if you want pot legal.

 

Again, everyone here seems to forget I favor legalizing, but I do so with an open mind. I do not see pot as this magical vitamin that has all these benefits and no costs.

[santo=dorf]

I also have to laugh as if there's something wrong that provides financial benefit to the ENTIRE COUNTRY. Why do you think towns set up riverboats? What does gambling have to offer society besides tax dollars to the local government? Morally I don't think it's OK to spend a great chunk of your paycheck at the slot machine, but hey, why should that be any of my god damn business what you or someone else spends their money on? People need to put their personal morals aside with political issues.

 

While we're at, we should legalize prostitution. We are paying public officials our tax money to prosecute non-violent offenders. Why should we really care that John Doe paid $50 to be pleasured sexually yet we can pay people cash to work on our lawns or do other personal favors for us? Why can't we set up licensed spas to provide sexually pleasure? It'd create jobs and more tax dollars, less of the court's and police's time will be spend going after these folks or setting up stings, it would protect prositutes from violent crime on the street, and it can protect the customers with HIV/STD testings.

 

Put your personal morals aside, and ask yourself if this would actually benefit society.

[RockRaines]

My experience comes from watching society for almost 50 years and what is, and is not, allowed, and how those changes come about. If you think I also need to smoke pot to understand, I disagree.

 

People still get high and die. No change in my opinion. If you are high, and get in an accident, that is a pot related death. The same as if your were drunk. You disagreed. No need to rehash that.

 

I clearly stated my gateway argument again, I'm not going to disagree with you. You clearly have more experience with terrorist sponsored (something you added) pot dealers and their inventories. I assumed your local pot dealer would have more than just pot. My mistake.

 

And I see you are agreeing with me, the only benefit is financial. So you are asking society to allow another substance that has no health benefits to individual in exchange for cash. I agree it makes financial sense. Plus, we have sold out our values for a lot less. But as long as we are on a swing where we are being more restrictive on cigarettes (higher and higher sin taxes and less places to smoke) and tougher on alcohol (again higher and higher taxes) I do not see pot being legal anytime soon.

 

 

It seems that you consider pot a vitamin, I'm not ever going to change your mind.

I honestly think that having an opinion on what is dangerous, what is pot-related danger, and what are the differences between pot and other drugs depends entirely upon first hand experience. Also if you can find some statistics on marijuana related deaths then there is your proof, its not exactly a debate. Does it impair your ability to drive? Sure, but about as much as having the flu, taking Day-Quil, or any other very simple parts of life. Regulation of use and a warning is the way to get around that. Talking on your cell phone is more dangerous these days.

 

As far as the gateway part, there isnt a magic drug dealer store, each product comes from a different part of the world, different countries, different sources, its not exactly easy to find a wal-mart of illegal substances.

 

And a financial benefit to the country, city, state, and county is a societal benefit. If a 10 year old gets to go to a school with better facilities and is taught by a teacher who has had a better education because of taxes collected on marijunana sales, then it DOES benefit society without being a user.

 

Not sure about your "vitamin" comment. Marijuana has been proven to have medicinal purposes if that was your question. Also even though you cant smoke in a handful of cities or states across the country indoors, it wouldnt exactly harm the user base since walking down the street would be a huge boon for the industry anyway.

[RockRaines]

I also have to laugh as if there's something wrong that provides financial benefit to the ENTIRE COUNTRY. Why do you think towns set up riverboats? What does gambling have to offer society besides tax dollars to the local government? Morally I don't think it's OK to spend a great chunk of your paycheck at the slot machine, but hey, why should that be any of my god damn business what you or someone else spends their money on? People need to put their personal morals aside with political issues.

 

While we're at, we should legalize prostitution. We are paying public officials our tax money to prosecute non-violent offenders. Why should we really care that John Doe paid $50 to be pleasured sexually yet we can pay people cash to work on our lawns or do other personal favors for us? Why can't we set up licensed spas to provide sexually pleasure? It'd create jobs and more tax dollars, less of the court's and police's time will be spend going after these folks or setting up stings, it would protect prositutes from violent crime on the street, and it can protect the customers with HIV/STD testings.

 

Put your personal morals aside, and ask yourself if this would actually benefit society.

Heres something for you: If the city of Chicago legalized marijuana useage and taxed accordingly, Im betting taxes would not increase even in the event of the Olympics. In fact, the roads, public transportation, public schools and hospitals could be vastly improved with the tax dollars. I wonder if it would be very hard to convince people in Chicago that their quality of life would improve in those areas without increased taxation if they would vote for legalization.

[lostfan]

I also have to laugh as if there's something wrong that provides financial benefit to the ENTIRE COUNTRY. Why do you think towns set up riverboats? What does gambling have to offer society besides tax dollars to the local government? Morally I don't think it's OK to spend a great chunk of your paycheck at the slot machine, but hey, why should that be any of my god damn business what you or someone else spends their money on? People need to put their personal morals aside with political issues.

 

While we're at, we should legalize prostitution. We are paying public officials our tax money to prosecute non-violent offenders. Why should we really care that John Doe paid $50 to be pleasured sexually yet we can pay people cash to work on our lawns or do other personal favors for us? Why can't we set up licensed spas to provide sexually pleasure? It'd create jobs and more tax dollars, less of the court's and police's time will be spend going after these folks or setting up stings, it would protect prositutes from violent crime on the street, and it can protect the customers with HIV/STD testings.

 

Put your personal morals aside, and ask yourself if this would actually benefit society.

Good ol' George Carlin:

"Selling is legal. f***ing is legal. Why is selling f***ing illegal?"

[Balta1701]

Over at Obama's transition website, Change.gov, there's a function where you can vote up or vote down specific policy ideas. The top vote getter right now is SUPERTRAINS!

 

#2 and #4 have some relevance to this thread.

[RockRaines]

I'm curious how many people on this board who live in chicago would be opposed to legalization of Pot if it meant better highways, tollways, trains and El system.

[NorthSideSox72]

Forgetting the whole gateway concept for now, I see two simple things that make marijuana far less dangerous than hard drugs, or even alcohol...

 

1. MJ is simply not a major danger to the public safety, in the way the others are. Put another way... marijuana doesn't create a person dangerous to others. Alcohol, and hard drugs, do this quite effectively. Since MJ just isn't nearly the public safety issue that those others are, its hard for me to justfy keeping it illegal.

 

2. MJ is less addicitve than alcohol, tobacco, and far less addictive than most harder drugs. It doesn't pull people into a dangerous lifestyle in and of itself.

 

[santo=dorf]

What makes you think that all pot dealers have access to other drugs? That has to be one of the biggest stretches in this thread so far.

 

It'd be like saying we should legalize fireworks because people have access to more powerful explosives like TNT or C4.

Edited January 15, 2009 by santo=dorf

[Texsox]

I honestly think that having an opinion on what is dangerous, what is pot-related danger, and what are the differences between pot and other drugs depends entirely upon first hand experience. Also if you can find some statistics on marijuana related deaths then there is your proof, its not exactly a debate. Does it impair your ability to drive? Sure, but about as much as having the flu, taking Day-Quil, or any other very simple parts of life. Regulation of use and a warning is the way to get around that. Talking on your cell phone is more dangerous these days.

 

As far as the gateway part, there isnt a magic drug dealer store, each product comes from a different part of the world, different countries, different sources, its not exactly easy to find a wal-mart of illegal substances.

 

And a financial benefit to the country, city, state, and county is a societal benefit. If a 10 year old gets to go to a school with better facilities and is taught by a teacher who has had a better education because of taxes collected on marijunana sales, then it DOES benefit society without being a user.

 

Not sure about your "vitamin" comment. Marijuana has been proven to have medicinal purposes if that was your question. Also even though you cant smoke in a handful of cities or states across the country indoors, it wouldnt exactly harm the user base since walking down the street would be a huge boon for the industry anyway.

 

I agree there is a financial benefit. I agree that is the single best reason to legalize it.

 

The death question is fine. You believe if someone dies high in an accident, it is not pot related. I disagree. Just like a drunk driver fatality is alcohol related death, so to is a fatality from driving high. Now tell me no one has ever gotten in an accident when high.

 

You believe pot is a miracle drug. You can't wake someone pretending to be asleep. So I am done.

 

Rock's plan to fix schools and roads? We need more poeple drunk and stoned in this country! Dammit! Get high and support school kids!!

[DukeNukeEm]

There is no reason on earth somebody shouldn't be allowed to get stoned and listen to Dinosaur Jr. albums all night to unwind. I dont smoke pot much at all, but sometimes I really need a night like that. If alcohol can be sold under the assumption that it will be consumed responsibly why cant weed?

 

I dont care much about this issue, but I find most of the arguments against legalization blown way out of proportion and (for lack of a better word) Reaganesque.

[santo=dorf]

I agree there is a financial benefit. I agree that is the single best reason to legalize it.

 

The death question is fine. You believe if someone dies high in an accident, it is not pot related. I disagree. Just like a drunk driver fatality is alcohol related death, so to is a fatality from driving high. Now tell me no one has ever gotten in an accident when high.

 

You believe pot is a miracle drug. You can't wake someone pretending to be asleep. So I am done.

 

Rock's plan to fix schools and roads? We need more poeple drunk and stoned in this country! Dammit! Get high and support school kids!!

Why is that so funny? There are commericials telling people to play the lotto to support public education. The lottery is yet another vice that is only in place for financial reasons that you curious didn't notice. I guess once it's legal you don't really care what others do with their money. Perhaps youd feel the same way if pot was legal.

Edited January 15, 2009 by santo=dorf

[RockRaines]

I agree there is a financial benefit. I agree that is the single best reason to legalize it.

 

The death question is fine. You believe if someone dies high in an accident, it is not pot related. I disagree. Just like a drunk driver fatality is alcohol related death, so to is a fatality from driving high. Now tell me no one has ever gotten in an accident when high.

 

You believe pot is a miracle drug. You can't wake someone pretending to be asleep. So I am done.

 

Rock's plan to fix schools and roads? We need more poeple drunk and stoned in this country! Dammit! Get high and support school kids!!

Wow, total garbage response. Once again cementing your unwillingness to put aside your personal feelings to look at another viewpoint. Its pretty obvious that your lack of experience in the issue is clouding your judgement.