Weed

[pogoowner]

I've never consumed marijuana, and there's a good chance I never will, but I certainly believe it should be legal (or decriminalized).

[MasterShakezula]

I don't do any drugs, but I say legalize it.

Hell, legalize all drugs.

Sure, I don't necessarily like the thought of people being able to buy hard drugs, but it happens anyways, regardless of their legality, and I'd much rather that if people are buying these sorts of drugs, that it's coming from actual reputable companies, as opposed to cartels.

Your average corporation wouldn't be committing the typical atrocities associated with cartels, I don't think.

And as for the health issues with this, I say that if a person's willing to take the risks associated with hard drug use, let them face those consequences on their own.  They're probably fully aware of their decision.  I mean, yes, it's not good for people to be dying from the effects of hard drug use, but it is their decision to or not to take that path.

[jsem]

I kinda miss the good ole days where I had to be the one man, pro-drug use army.  I kinda feel irrelevant in here now.

Pro use? So, you'd advocate for people to use heroin?

You probably just worded it wrong though.. hopefully

[Omega]

I voted yes, but in the end, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Americans will still continue their destructive drug abuse cycle to their early graves, legal or not.

But what irks me the most is that when Americans consume marijuana, they fail to see the true price of their silly leisurely drug consumptions; they are fueling loathsome drug mafias south of the border with endless amounts of money and weapons and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Mexico and elsewhere just so they can pretend to have problems and "soothe" their "difficult life" with hallucinogenic herbs. Such apathy to their direct sponsorship in crimes astounds me.

[jsem]

loathsome drug mafias south of the border with endless amounts of money and weapons and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Mexico and elsewhere

The exact reason you should've voted yes.

[Omega]

loathsome drug mafias south of the border with endless amounts of money and weapons and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Mexico and elsewhere

The exact reason you should've voted yes.

Wow. Huge eff up there.  I voted yes.

[El Barto]

I kinda miss the good ole days where I had to be the one man, pro-drug use army.  I kinda feel irrelevant in here now.

Pro use? So, you'd advocate for people to use heroin?

You probably just worded it wrong though.. hopefully

Nope.  Worded correctly.      Do I think that everybody should rush out to do some heroin?  No.  But I do think that more people should be open to exploring other avenues and broadening their horizons.  It's an interesting world out there,  with a lot of neat things to do.

I voted no, but in the end, it doesn't really make much of a difference. Americans will still continue their destructive drug abuse cycle to their early graves, legal or not.

But what irks me the most is that when Americans consume marijuana, they fail to see the true price of their silly leisurely drug consumptions; they are fueling loathsome drug mafias south of the border with endless amounts of money and weapons and are indirectly responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands in Mexico and elsewhere just so they can pretend to have problems and "soothe" their "difficult life" with hallucinogenic herbs. Such apathy to their direct sponsorship in crimes astounds me.

Not apathy at all.  Take it up with our rather misguided government.  Personally,  I'd much rather grow my own stash; cheaper, better and chemical free.  Unfortunately,  that would throw a damper on the war Uncle Sammy is so keen to fight.  That's why the penalty for getting caught with a bag of Mexican dirt weed is a slap on the wrist,  while getting busted growing in your back yard can lead to honest-to-goodness federal time.  It's our government fucking the Mexicans over--not the stoners.

[Ħ]

The argument I hear the most for the legalization of weed is that substance laws, as they are now, are inconsistent.  This is true.  Alcohol is worse than weed.  I don't think anyone's going to disagree with that.

So, in order to correct inconsistency, there are two options.  1) Legalization of weed.  2) Prohibition on alcohol.  Either of these would solve the inconsistency problem.  I would opt for option 2, though, because I really think that there needs to be a tighter regulation on the selling of alcohol.  And after we solve the alcohol problem, we can move on to the weed question.  One step back before taking two steps forward.

[Sigz]

Because prohibition worked so well the first time.

[Ħ]

Because prohibition worked so well the first time.

  Well, first, times are different, and I think we've got evidence to back up resorting to prohibition.  And second, more restrictions to reduce alcohol related accidents is all that's need.  I'm not saying we should prohibit it altogether.

[Sigz]

What kind of evidence, and what kind of restrictions?

[ZeppelinDT]

also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.

If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it).  Also... quality control.

[zxlkho]

also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.

If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it).  Also... quality control.

Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.

[Ħ]

What kind of evidence, and what kind of restrictions?

I dunno the answers to those questions.  All I said was that I think we have enough evidence. 
 
It's an issue I don't really care about to be honest.  I care enough to post my half-thought-up views in a thread on an Internet forum, but not enough to actually research it out.  What can I say.

[jsem]

Prohibition didn't work with alchohol, so it was lifted. About the same time as marijuana was criminalized in the US. Seriously, how could they not understand that is was the PRINCIPLE of prohibition that was ineffective?

[LieLowTheWantedMan]

yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.

[ZeppelinDT]

also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.

If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it).  Also... quality control.

Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.

No, I mean... it's definitely not difficult to get.  I'm just saying it would be a lot nicer if I could just drop by 7-11 on my way home from work and pick up an eighth with my Big Gulp and hot dog.  (And of course, the "I" in this scenario is just a purely hypothetical pot smoker).

[Dark Castle]

I don't smoke, but if I were, I'd have no idea where to begin lol.  I believe it should be legalized.

[zxlkho]

also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.

If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it).  Also... quality control.

Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.

No, I mean... it's definitely not difficult to get.  I'm just saying it would be a lot nicer if I could just drop by 7-11 on my way home from work and pick up an eighth with my Big Gulp and hot dog.  (And of course, the "I" in this scenario is just a purely hypothetical pot smoker).

I don't think you understand. That's how it pretty much is at Virginia Tech.

[Ħ]

also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.

If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it).  Also... quality control.

Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.

No, I mean... it's definitely not difficult to get.  I'm just saying it would be a lot nicer if I could just drop by 7-11 on my way home from work and pick up an eighth with my Big Gulp and hot dog.  (And of course, the "I" in this scenario is just a purely hypothetical pot smoker).

I don't think you understand. That's how it pretty much is at Virginia Tech.

Isn't that where DTVT works?

[Scheavo]

I kinda miss the good ole days where I had to be the one man, pro-drug use army.  I kinda feel irrelevant in here now.

Anyhoo,  decriminalization is the ticket--not legalization.  Government control via legalization would be a supreme clusterfuck. 

I think this partly comes down to terminology... basically, to say you want to make something not illegal, you're saying make it legal. I agree with you on your argument that positive legalization could come with a bunch of bullshit regulations regarding the individual user / individual grower. Decriminalization can sometimes not go far enough, and basically just amounts to giving up on the individual user, while still concentrating on the manufacturing and commerce of the stuff (which still means a whole bunch of social problems).

[zxlkho]

also yes it should be legalized, but I don't really care. I'll still smoke regardless.

If I were a partaker in such things, I believe I'd care mostly because making it legal would make it easier to get and it would make me less paranoid about having it (or, more specifically, transporting it).  Also... quality control.

Trust me, it's REALLY easy to get. I think one positive thing about it being legal though would be the prices would probably drop significantly.

No, I mean... it's definitely not difficult to get.  I'm just saying it would be a lot nicer if I could just drop by 7-11 on my way home from work and pick up an eighth with my Big Gulp and hot dog.  (And of course, the "I" in this scenario is just a purely hypothetical pot smoker).

I don't think you understand. That's how it pretty much is at Virginia Tech.

Isn't that where DTVT works?

and it's also where I go to school. I thought you knew this.


Also, everyone here needs to watch the documentary The Union: The Business Behind Getting High. Fantastic documentary about the history of marijuana in the US and other related things (including why it would be beneficial to be legalized)

[El Barto]

I kinda miss the good ole days where I had to be the one man, pro-drug use army.  I kinda feel irrelevant in here now.

Anyhoo,  decriminalization is the ticket--not legalization.  Government control via legalization would be a supreme clusterfuck. 

I think this partly comes down to terminology... basically, to say you want to make something not illegal, you're saying make it legal. I agree with you on your argument that positive legalization could come with a bunch of bullshit regulations regarding the individual user / individual grower. Decriminalization can sometimes not go far enough, and basically just amounts to giving up on the individual user, while still concentrating on the manufacturing and commerce of the stuff (which still means a whole bunch of social problems).

This is my point.  You weren't around when we were discussing Cali's misguided attempt to legalize it.  Proposition 420, or whatever they called it,  was horrendous.  What they have now and what they were trying to enact is essentially the difference between decriminalization and legalization. 

[zxlkho]

https://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9077214414651731007

Everyone watch this.

[yeshaberto]

watching it right now...doubt I will watch whole thing, but interesting so far

[zxlkho]

Honestly it's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

[Dark Castle]

Honestly it's one of the best documentaries I've ever seen.

When I get back from a hall event, I'll finish it.  I really like it so far and it figures marijuana is still illegal even though every argument the government had is just completely floored.

[hefdaddy42]

Legalize it.  It's stupid that it's illegal.

[Perpetual Change]

What hefdaddy said.

But I don't agree with the arguement that "prohibition can't work" or something. It can work. It tends to work, too, when the substance in question isn't relatively harmless and something a lot of people like.

[zxlkho]

How can it work? It's not like there's illegal things out there that you can't get. Prohibition just makes it a little harder and raises prices.

[black_biff_stadler]

What hefdaddy said.

But I don't agree with the arguement that "prohibition can't work" or something. It can work. It tends to work, too, when the substance in question isn't relatively harmless and something a lot of people like.

Are you implying weed isn't relatively harmless or did I take your wording the wrong way?

[zxlkho]

I believe meant that it IS relatively harmless, which is true.

[Perpetual Change]

How can it work?

Check out how Mao Zedong handled China's opium problem. That's at least one example of prohibition working.

EDIT: From Wiki:

The Mao Zedong government is generally credited with eradicating both consumption and production of opium during the 1950s using unrestrained repression and social reform. Ten million addicts were forced into compulsory treatment, dealers were executed, and opium-producing regions were planted with new crops.

So, if something's a big enough problem (weed isn't but you might be able to argue that alcohol was in the early 20th century) it can be dealt with. But you to be willing to take a hard, police-state level line on drugs, which prohibition in the 20's was not and The War on Drugs was only close to under Nixon.

And yeah, it won't eliminate the substance all together. But it will produce results, I'm sure.

[snapple]

I voted no.

Why? Unfortunately I have very personal reasons that I don't feel comfortable sharing, let alone online.

[Liberation]

I'm very anti-drugs in general, and not even slightly interested in marijuana, but some arguments I've heard recently kinda pushed me to the "yes" side. Basically:
- it can be taxed, the government profits instead of criminals
- it will probably be better quality/safer
- it will lose some of the appeal (it's hard not to get the impression that for a fair amount of people it's interesting because it's "bad") and after the initial interest could actually be less popular.

This kinda convinced me about the idea. However, marijuana only because it's the least dangerous. All "harder" drugs - fight that shit as much as possible.