Legalization of Marijuana

dru's konstantine.:

If we weren't supposed to have responsibilities, we would never be legal adults. There's no point in being an adult if you aren't trusted to make any decisions for yourself. And if we can't be trusted with making decisions then we shouldn't be given any expectations because obviously we're still just children who can't think for ourselves.

In some cases we should be granted responsibility, but in others we should not. I do not think we should be allowed to own automatic weapons and be left to operate them responsibly, for example.

Whenever we trust the public with responsibilities there are going to be those who fail to meet them, so we should only do so in limited situations.

kizzman:

Whenever we trust the public with responsibilities there are going to be those who fail to meet them, so we should only do so in limited situations.

I think that the abuse of a drug by the minority should not override the majority of people who do not abuse a drug. Some people like to run people over with cars. Should we make cars illegal?

dru's konstantine.:

I think that the abuse of a drug by the minority should not override the majority of people who do not abuse a drug. Some people like to run people over with cars. Should we make cars illegal?

I've surely addressed the separate issues dilemma before...

All I can manage to say at the moment is "Two wrongs do not make a right."

kizzman:

I've surely addressed the separate issues dilemma before...

All I can manage to say at the moment is "Two wrongs do not make a right."

I don't see what two wrongs making a right has to do with the conversation. A person making an informed decision certainly doesn't seem to be a "wrong" to me.

I don't think people should wait to have sex until they're married, but I'm certainly not going to suggest we make a law about it.

the moon and dru.:

I don't see what two wrongs making a right has to do with the conversation. A person making an informed decision certainly doesn't seem to be a "wrong" to me.

You were making a comparison on my level by connecting cars to marijuana. You said cars are dangerous, should they be illegal? My argument is that that is a separate issue and just because cars are legal does not mean marijuana should be.

Hypothetically, if there were a drug that was absolutely identical to marijuana in terms of effects, and the only difference was the chemicals that it is composed of, and that drug was legal but marijuana was not, that is still not grounds for marijuana to be legalized. It's not about establishing fairness among drugs (drugs are not people and they do not have rights), it's about removing as many possible unnecessary harmful risks from society. Each issue is a separate issue.

the moon and dru.:

You said likely which is not conclusive. I'm probably one of those with the genetic make-up that it could possibly effect just like I could possibly be hit by lightning. I'm an adult and I'd like to make the choice for myself (and do).

I don't see how it could be a choice. What exactly is there to choose? To get a potentially fatal incredibly painful disease or not to get a potentially fatal incredibly painful disease. Why would any reasonable person who knows the implications of marijuana use choose to take it? We don't refuse people who have attempted suicide medical care because dying it's their choice to make for themselves - we recognize that suicide is not the product of rational choices, I don't see why drug use would be any different.
Actually, the chances of being struck by lightning are something along the lines of one in a million, where as the chances of a person without any schizophrenic relatives of developing it are 1 in 2500 and that of a person with schizophrenic first degree relatives of 1 in 10.

kizzman:

You were making a comparison on my level by connecting cars to marijuana. You said cars are dangerous, should they be illegal? My argument is that that is a separate issue and just because cars are legal does not mean marijuana should be.

Hypothetically, if there were a drug that was absolutely identical to marijuana in terms of effects, and the only difference was the chemicals that it is composed of, and that drug was legal but marijuana was not, that is still not grounds for marijuana to be legalized. It's not about establishing fairness among drugs (drugs are not people and they do not have rights), it's about removing as many possible unnecessary harmful risks from society. Each issue is a separate issue.

I can't keep up with the debate since my time on the forum is limited but luckily you addressed the point we argued several pages ago.

I completely disagree with the notion that we as a society should strive to eliminate "unnecessary harmful risks". Unnecessary is a ridiculously ambiguous and subjective term, and I honestly can't take this attitude seriously. I'm sure there's plenty of people out there who would think televisions to be completely unnecessary and argue that idk, radiation emitting from them is reason enough to have televisions legally banned. Non-procreative sex bears risks and it isn't exactly necessary. Lets outlaw it. There are numerous numerous things we could deem unnecessary that bear risks with them. Illegalising them all is an awful choice.

I don't think we should have authorities legally funneling our choices (more than they have to) based on their subjective arbitration. Ensuring general safety is a high priority, but enabling personal freedoms should be an even higher agenda. And these two notions should remain in their respective jurisdictions and form sort of a balance.

What does that mean? Well we should strive to enable as much personal freedoms as we can but do so in a way that will not harm the security of other people. Vice versa also applies - we should strive to make things as safe as possible as long as they don't infringe on personal freedoms.

Having marijuana legal may have some negative influences if its use goes unregulated, but if appropriate laws are made, like they were for alcohol and cars (no drunk driving etc.) I don't see why it should remain illegal.

Of course you made your response to this before, saying that even though we have laws for alcohol and cars, they are still killing people. But that is a matter of faulty laws and their enforcement, as well as the human factor and accidents, not the principle of whether or not we should have marijuana legal.

kizzman:

You were making a comparison on my level by connecting cars to marijuana. You said cars are dangerous, should they be illegal? My argument is that that is a separate issue and just because cars are legal does not mean marijuana should be.

Hypothetically, if there were a drug that was absolutely identical to marijuana in terms of effects, and the only difference was the chemicals that it is composed of, and that drug was legal but marijuana was not, that is still not grounds for marijuana to be legalized. It's not about establishing fairness among drugs (drugs are not people and they do not have rights), it's about removing as many possible unnecessary harmful risks from society. Each issue is a separate issue.

I don't think she was saying that CARS are dangerous, she's saying people that abuse their ability to drive a car (by intentionally causing harm), in the same manner that some people abuse drugs, and some people just use them.

acorna:

I don't think she was saying that CARS are dangerous, she's saying people that abuse their ability to drive a car (by intentionally causing harm), in the same manner that some people abuse drugs, and some people just use them.

Drug abuse is not something you do, it's something that happens to you. People are neither guilty nor responsible for developing mental illnesses, it's just something that happens to them without their wanting to.

Mr W. H.:

Drug abuse is not something you do, it's something that happens to you. People are neither guilty nor responsible for developing mental illnesses, it's just something that happens to them without their wanting to.

Are you saying people don't choose to abuse drugs? Because I'm pretty sure I did back when I had my pill problem. It was fueled by depression, but I made the choice.

Mr W. H.:

Drug abuse is not something you do, it's something that happens to you. People are neither guilty nor responsible for developing mental illnesses, it's just something that happens to them without their wanting to.

Just pointing out that car accidents are something that simply just happens to you as well.

kizzman:

[...] it's about removing as many possible unnecessary harmful risks from society. Each issue is a separate issue.

I was discussing this debate with my mom and we both agreed that you cannot remove unnecessary risks from society. Even the possible ones. 'Cause it's pretty much possible to remove a lot of risks but society won't allow it because we have the right to make decisions for ourselves.

Is it possible to remove cars (that kill)? Yes.
Is it possible to sterilize people that have the potential to pass on mental disorders? Yes.
Is it possible to sterilize people who are guilty of violent crimes because research indicates this can be passed onto children? Yes.

But should we? No. It's not our right or our place.

There are things so much more dangerous than weed that are legal and acceptable. So to make weed illegal because of the risks when we accept others risks is hypocritical.

dru's jeans.:

Are you saying people don't choose to abuse drugs? Because I'm pretty sure I did back when I had my pill problem. It was fueled by depression, but I made the choice.

Having "a pill problem" and actually being addicted are two different things. But no, you don't choose to have a mental disorders. It's sadly one of the most widely spread prejudices/myths that people have about mental disorders, but if you can't control craving drugs if you have an addiction any more than you can control, I dunno, cancerous tumors or getting chronic sinusitis. I can't just will my sinuses into good health.

Xsoteria:

Just pointing out that car accidents are something that simply just happens to you as well.

Car accidents is too general. What kind of accidents? If I get in a car and drive over my best friend, that's a car accident, but it's also something I've decided. If I get in a car and while driving something goes wrong and my tire explodes, that's a car accident, but it's not something I had any control over.

dru's jeans.:

I was discussing this debate with my mom and we both agreed that you cannot remove unnecessary risks from society. Even the possible ones. 'Cause it's pretty much possible to remove a lot of risks but society won't allow it because we have the right to make decisions for ourselves.

Is it possible to remove cars (that kill)? Yes.
Is it possible to sterilize people that have the potential to pass on mental disorders? Yes.
Is it possible to sterilize people who are guilty of violent crimes because research indicates this can be passed onto children? Yes.

But should we? No. It's not our right or our place.

There are things so much more dangerous than weed that are legal and acceptable. So to make weed illegal because of the risks when we accept others risks is hypocritical.

Abuse runs in families because abusers often abuse their families not because abuse is in any way genetic. At the same time what I really wanted to say is that sterilizing people with Down's syndrome is sadly still a pretty common practice so our society does work towards eliminating as many possible risks as possible. Personally, I feel like persons who know they have dangerous illnesses that can be passed on through their genes (I don't mean just mental disorders, but things like Alzheimer's too) should opt for adoption. I'm certainly going to adopt, it's just twisted to run the risk of giving your children a dangerous painful disease just to have the satisfaction of knowing that they're genetically yours.

Mr W. H.:

Abuse runs in families because abusers often abuse their families not because abuse is in any way genetic. At the same time what I really wanted to say is that sterilizing people with Down's syndrome is sadly still a pretty common practice so our society does work towards eliminating as many possible risks as possible. Personally, I feel like persons who know they have dangerous illnesses that can be passed on through their genes (I don't mean just mental disorders, but things like Alzheimer's too) should opt for adoption. I'm certainly going to adopt, it's just twisted to run the risk of giving your children a dangerous painful disease just to have the satisfaction of knowing that they're genetically yours.

I didn't say abuse was genetic. I said studies support it. Just like studies support what you believe, which is a major influx of schizophrenia due to marijuana.

I don't plan to adopt and I have Bipolar. I think that's my right and I think think I'm "twisted", even if you weren't specifically directing that toward me. I thought about it long and hard, felt incredibly guilty over it, spent many days crying because I really, really want to be pregnant and eventually decided that if my child ends up having Bipolar, I will be equipped to handle the situation so I will be having children. And if the government ever tried to take away that right, I think we'd end up keeping a lot of women from having children because if you go back far enough, I'm sure everyone has a disease in their closet.

@Mr W.H.

If you decided to sit in your car and run over your friend, that's not an accident, now is it.

Hell yes. A friend of mine from Brazil is being sent back for smoking marijuana. He wasn't supposed to go back until July but he's now leaving in less than 2 weeks. I'm gonna miss him so much.

I think it should be. I lived in the Netherlands for two years, marijuana is legalized there and studies have shown that the country has one of the lowest drug abuse rates. They also have one of the best education system and much lower crime rates than say, the UK, there marijuana is illegal.

I think if there were coffee shops in other countries, it would work out. Coffee shops in Holland give out marijuana, but no more than 5 grams per customer and for over 18's only. In coffee shops you can't drink alcohol while there. Also, growing small amounts of plants for your own use is also allowed, though growing for commercial use isn't.

I reckon if it works there then why shouldn't it work anywhere else?

Certainly, you cannot remove all risks from society, unnecessary or otherwise. And unnecessary is an ambiguous term. But that does not mean all attempts to reduce societal risks are moot. The difference in perspective on this point seems to be that some of you can't separately consider issues--i.e., cars have nothing to do with marijuana, but we do know that when we strictly consider the substance and consumption, recreational marijuana use causes quantifiable and identifiable damage and has no quantifiable and identifiable benefits, so why should we allow recreational marijuana use to take place?

^Video games, sports games, music, majority of the film industry, cars built so they can go 300 km/h - they all fit this category. There is no "quantifiable and identifiable" benefit from these things, they are a relative liability, yet billions of dollars are poured into these things every year. Why? Because our society doesn't work on the principle you seem to think it does. It actually tries and puts personal freedoms and indulgence before calculable benefits.

The reason people are making comparisons with cars and what not, is not so that we could kill the strawman, but so that we could identify the principle on which marijuana is justifiably illegal. If it's illegal because it has no benefits and brings certain risks, then on that same principle we should make a lot more things illegal.

Xsoteria:

^Video games, sports games, music, majority of the film industry, cars built so they can go 300 km/h - they all fit this category.

Do they have quantifiable and identifiable damages?

Xsoteria:

There is no "quantifiable and identifiable" benefit from these things, they are a relative liability,

Explain the liabilities? Are 300 km/h sports cars more dangerous that normal cars?

Xsoteria:

yet billions of dollars are poured into these things every year. Why? Because our society doesn't work on the principle you seem to think it does. It actually tries and puts personal freedoms and indulgence before calculable benefits.

It's because people pay into whatever they want and a fair percentage of the time people are fools.

Xsoteria:

The reason people are making comparisons with cars and what not, is not so that we could kill the strawman, but so that we could identify the principle on which marijuana is justifiably illegal. If it's illegal because it has no benefits and brings certain risks, then on that same principle we should make a lot more things illegal.

No, you're making a leap there. Why do you think that if one bad thing is legal then it is necessary to make all bad things legal? Drugs don't get precedence. If they are harmful, there is no real reason to legalize. Separate issues are irrelevant.