U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-20-2008, 05:39 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles Area
3,306 posts, read 3,327,345 times
Reputation: 592

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4 View Post
1. Saying you should legalize pot b/c other bad things are legal is not a very good argument. You see how many problems are already caused by the other bad things (smoking, alcohol, etc).

2. Legalizing it may send the wrong message to our kids...like it's ok to recreationally use strong mind-altering substances.

3. You can drink without getting drunk. No point in smoking out if you don't get high. And the lack of coordination/poor judgement lasts a lot longer than when you're drunk on alcohol.
1.) The laws are not consistent, so if you're against the legalization of marijuana then I would hope you are also for the return of prohibition. The point of mentioning this is just to note the inconsistency in the laws.

2.) Marijuana is not a "strong mind altering substance". Its in the same class as alcohol. If kids want "strong mind altering substances" well then there are a number of legal options. In some cases they can be fairly easily grow in the US. Marijuana is relatively mild so if you can get kids to sick to it instead of actual strong mind altering drugs then that would be a plus.

3.) This is pretty silly. You can smoke pot without getting baked. Just as people have a few drinks to relax or whatever else, people have a few hits to relax etc. Everyone I know that regularly smokes pot does so in the same fashion as people drink.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Nope, but the difference between smoking pot and eating is that eating is a necessity and smoking pot ain't.
Refined sugars are a relatively modern invention (and are in no sense a necessity) that cause millions of cases of diabetes. Just in America alone 23 million have diabetes. Refined sugars from a health point of few are far more destructive than Marijuana. So, if we are going to ban Marijuana because of its negative health consequences then we should certainly ban refined sugars!

The same can be said for foods high in fat. So, I suppose we could add fast food onto the things that need to be baned.

We can have the ultimate nanny state. Perhaps government officials can wipe our rear ends too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-20-2008, 05:49 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles Area
3,306 posts, read 3,327,345 times
Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold View Post
Yes....drug,tobacco and beer/liquor companies and their investors would lose too much money when faced with the competition from a 'free' substance.
Certainly they would lose money, but Marijuana is no more free than alcohol which is just made by the fermentation of sugars or starches. Making alcohol takes about the same amount of effort (and costs) as growing Marijuana.

This is why prohibition wasn't very successful. Its just too easy to make your own alcohol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 06:32 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,524,507 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Humanoid
Quote:
So, if we are going to ban Marijuana because of its negative health consequences then we should certainly ban refined sugars!
We don't ban it; we (heavily) tax it.
Smoking cigarettes in The Netherlands ain't illegal, but it is very heavily taxed and the same will be for anything unhealthy.
Buying fast-food should not be cheap but very heavily taxed for health insurance reasons, so that if those who eat fast-food (or otherwise live unhealthy) get heart attacks only those who eat fast-food pay for the operation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 07:06 AM
 
2,180 posts, read 3,188,814 times
Reputation: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Reduced speeding? WTF?
It was a typo - he meant spending.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 07:08 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles Area
3,306 posts, read 3,327,345 times
Reputation: 592
Tobacco is heavily taxed in the US too and if Marijuana is legalized it should be taxed above and beyond normal sales tax. But you can't tax it too much, as it will drive the market underground.

So, its okay to legalize Marijuana so long as its heavily taxed?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 08:08 AM
 
Location: Montrose, CA
3,031 posts, read 7,869,281 times
Reputation: 1925
For the record, I do not use pot. However, I am for legalization of pot and all other currently illegal drugs. If someone wants to get high, sell them the good stuff (tax it in the process), give them a safe place to get high, and let 'em rip. If they overdose and kill themselves (obviously not with pot of course), oh well, good riddance.

If pot were legalized, there would be no increase or only a very slight increase in use. For myself, I wouldn't use it even if it were legalized because I simply don't like how being high feels. I don't like the feeling of being drunk, either, so I almost never touch any alcohol.

Legalize, tax, profit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Phoenix, AZ
3,088 posts, read 4,546,364 times
Reputation: 1598
marijuana: cons; likely contributes to health problems, can ( but does not necessarily) lead to experimentation with other, more dangerous drugs, subject to the same abuse that other, legal drugs (alchohol, etc.,) are subject to.

pro's: efforts to enforce control lead to overpopulation in prisons, and stress on law enforcement officials; unable to "tax" illiegal use; illegality maintains an "underground, illegal" culture; may have fewer harmful effects than alcohol, refined sugars, tobacco and other "fully legal" products, diminishes the use of hemp as a useful product / material.

So. . . you decide. . . .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 08:45 AM
 
28,906 posts, read 45,240,795 times
Reputation: 45820
Mind you, I do not partake. That being said, the issue boils down to this question for me:

If you use marijuana in the safety and comfort of your own home and do not share it with minors, how is it the government's business?

After all, alcohol has more severe immediate and long-term health effects, yet hooch is legal and provides substantial tax revenue for the state. Yet the state, for some reason I do not understand has chosen a less harmful substance for prohibition. What gives?

Here's the deal. If you believe government should stay out of your lives, then you really can't pick and choose. The only determinant of government intervention is when innocent lives and their property are harmed in the process. Other than that, it should be your right as a free citizen to do whatever you please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 09:15 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,340 posts, read 10,916,474 times
Reputation: 12290
I have'nt messed around with pot since High school ( pushin' 30 years) but from my memories of it the stuff has less harmful effects than alcohol hands down. I've never heard of anyone takin' a notion to beat up thier wife or black out and end up in the ER with toxicity from smoking pot. Basically the only thing that might be in mortal danger from a person under the influence of THC would be the leftovers in the fridge. During a recovery from a bad bike wreck when I was 18 my doctor told me to get some of the stuff and partake because my appetite was in need. Pulled me off the Morphine ( uuhgg) and a little smoking made even hospital food appealing. I think good ol' May Jane has her niche.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2008, 09:26 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,524,507 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Humanoid
Quote:
But you can't tax it too much, as it will drive the market underground.
Crime doesn't pay; individuals may profit from crime, but society as a whole will eventually pay for it.

Quote:
So, its okay to legalize Marijuana so long as its heavily taxed?
Yes, because as long as society doesn’t get the tab (for a new lung or a new liver) for the (poor) decisions individuals make to run their own health into the ground, I don't give a damn.
So as long as I don't have to pay for it people can drink themselves into a coma, or get lung cancer from smoking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top