[Marijuana] Two states it's legal, more to follow? Government says, "Wanna bet?"

[DeletedUser]

Because we like to deal in facts more then just opinion I'll supply some links for you all to read on the subject of legalized marijuana towards the bottom of this post. I know others here have been following this topic with vigor and eagerness.

I wanna change things up a bit, though. I would like to see arguments based on our current economic, political and scientific structure we currently have in place. I could care less that your best friend's aunt's next door neighbor's best friend knows... blah... blah... blah... Lets discuss the ramifications on the economy or how it's going to affect crime, medical issues or how our political system will or won't accept this due to (Whatever your point here). But base this off of fact! Show me the info!! Put some pride in it, Man! or woman.That doesn't mean you can't include your thoughts or opinion, but it would be nice if we all knew where you were drawing your opinion from. Who knows, we may even be swayed by your points and crown you 'King of the Debate'!

I really think, yes opinion, this will be a very fun topic.

Links you may like to read: http://norml.org/ and http://norml.org/marijuana/medical

This written by a well respected friend of mine, Matt Moffit. Worth checking out: http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/marijuana.htm
http://www.nber.org/reporter/winter05/pacula.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS...onal-marijuana/story?id=17652774#.UJwG7GfZV8E
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/07/politics/marijuana-legalization/index.html

AGAINST:
http://www.calmca.org/
http://www.1stmarijuanagrowerspage....zation/against-legalization-of-marijuana.html

Sorry, I couldn't resist!! :laugh:

 

[DeletedUser34]

I think it should be legalized.
But, what you are missing is who cares how many states pass laws making it legal, thanks to big government, Fed law trumps state law....go set up a grow house and see how fast the DEA knocks on your door.

 

[DeletedUser]

Ummm yeah, I agree with you, but what about prosecution? If you're being brought into the front door of the jail house and the state laws say it's okay, won't they just let you out the back door? See, that's what Colorado and Washington say they're going to do. I think there's going to be a tipping point for the Federal Government if the state's just going to release you.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Ummm fed law is fed courts, if DEA busts down your door, what does the state have to do with the price of pot in china?

 

[Liberty]

The federal government has no business being involved in this matter at all. Last time I looked, there is no enumerated power in the Constitution for drugs. This matter is to be left up to the states and the people to decide.

 

[DeletedUser]

I asked this question in the other thread, but never got a response. Anyway, it's an interesting point.

Allegedly marijuana is "less harmful" to both society and individuals than alcohol, the social drug, the reason according to some here that it should be legalised. Each year there are 75,000 deaths in the United States in which alcohol was a contributing factor, specific causes being drink driving, cirrhosis of the liver, etc. Does this mean anything which causes 74,999 deaths or less nationally should be legalised?

Tobacco use and excessive alcohol use are already the first and third leading cause of preventable death respectively. Quite frankly, I see no reason why stoned drivers should make any other drug the fourth, nor pay police to enforce both alcohol and marijuana limit laws. One social drug is expensive enough, either you swap it or take your second one elsewhere. (Yeah, you found my conservative button, hehe.)

 

[Liberty]

I guess I look at it differently, Diggo. I don't think it's the proper role of government to dictate what people can and cannot put into their own bodies. But, I also think that people need to own the responsibility for their actions too.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, marijuana has never killed anyone. And yes, it is much less harmful than alcohol. So to make illegal the less harmful substance seems contradictory to me. Laws should be consistent across the board, and it's nonsense to keep alcohol legal when marijuana is illegal. Either keep both legal or make both illegal. And since we know how well the Prohibition worked, clearly the latter option is not a good idea.

But it's more than just allowing people to smoke whatever they want. It's the fact that hundreds of thousands of 'innocent' people are jailed for possession of marijuana. It's pretty far-fetched to actually say that these people are criminals and deserve to be in jail. Not only that, but we spend too much on the police, enforcement, arrests, etc. dealing with marijuana. The money saved from decriminalizing it is tremendous, and that money could be much better spent than locking up harmless people. An example would be sending kids to quality preschools/kindergartens. No doubt that would do much more for keeping kids well-off.

 

[DeletedUser]

I guess I look at it differently, Diggo. I don't think it's the proper role of government to dictate what people can and cannot put into their own bodies. But, I also think that people need to own the responsibility for their actions too.

Hehe, if that's a conditional "government cannot dictate what people do so long as they take responsibility", I don't think drugs will ever be legalised :huh:

Well, marijuana has never killed anyone. And yes, it is much less harmful than alcohol. So to make illegal the less harmful substance seems contradictory to me. Laws should be consistent across the board, and it's nonsense to keep alcohol legal when marijuana is illegal. Either keep both legal or make both illegal. And since we know how well the Prohibition worked, clearly the latter option is not a good idea.

So Daniel, just to clarify, it is a postulate of your reasoning that marijuana never has or never will kill anyone?

But it's more than just allowing people to smoke whatever they want. It's the fact that hundreds of thousands of 'innocent' people are jailed for possession of marijuana. It's pretty far-fetched to actually say that these people are criminals and deserve to be in jail. Not only that, but we spend too much on the police, enforcement, arrests, etc. dealing with marijuana. The money saved from decriminalizing it is tremendous, and that money could be much better spent than locking up harmless people.

Meh, irrelevant. Marijuana can continue to be illegal without using prison sentences as a deterrent, and no-one is forcing the police to spend as much as they do investigating drug crime.

 

[DeletedUser]

Marijuana has not killed anyone, but I don't know if it'll remain that way for the future.

But let's say for argument's sake that it has killed a handful of people in the past, or that in the future there will be some deaths directly as a result of marijuana. Even then, it's really not justification enough to keep marijuana illegal by saying that a couple people might get killed or might have been killed. No, not everything that results in 74,999 deaths or less should be legalized. You have to carefully analyze whatever the topic/thing is, and if it makes much more sense to legalize it than keeping it illegal, then that's what should be done. And in the case of marijuana, it's exactly that. It's much less harmful than hundreds of other things that we have daily access to, like junk/fast food, alcohol, and cigarettes. It makes criminals out of people who aren't, too much money is spent regulating it, and it is an utter failure when millions of people smoke marijuana without even getting caught. The way I see it is if it's only harming you, then you can do whatever you want with it.

Diggo, I want to know why you think marijuana should be kept illegal.

 

[DeletedUser]

Marijuana has not killed anyone, but I don't know if it'll remain that way for the future.

But let's say for argument's sake that it has killed a handful of people in the past, or that in the future there will be some deaths directly as a result of marijuana. Even then, it's really not justification enough to keep marijuana illegal by saying that a couple people might get killed or might have been killed. No, not everything that results in 74,999 deaths or less should be legalized. You have to carefully analyze whatever the topic/thing is, and if it makes much more sense to legalize it than keeping it illegal, then that's what should be done. And in the case of marijuana, it's exactly that. It's much less harmful than hundreds of other things that we have daily access to, like junk/fast food, alcohol, and cigarettes. It makes criminals out of people who aren't, too much money is spent regulating it, and it is an utter failure when millions of people smoke marijuana without even getting caught. The way I see it is if it's only harming you, then you can do whatever you want with it.

Diggo, I want to know why you think marijuana should be kept illegal.

Hehe, nice dodge. You don't want to legalise anything that would result in 74,999 annual deaths or less, but you do justify legalising marijuana since after "careful analysis" you determined that other substances can be more harmful? Given the added bonus of "I'm not sure if it'll remain that way [zero fatalities] for the future", one could be forgiven for thinking 74,999 was your magic number.

Let's clear up an important misnomer. It is practically impossible for a healthy human adult to overdose on marijuana when smoked, it's true, but the drug actually has similar health risks to obesity. Sure, it doesn't kill anyone directly, but it exacerbates other health problems:

"The cardiovascular changes have not posed a health problem for healthy, young users of marijuana or THC. However, such changes in heart rate and blood pressure could present a serious problem for older patients, especially those with coronary arterial or cerebrovascular disease. Cardiovascular diseases are the leading causes of death in the United States (coronary heart disease is first; stroke is third), so any effect of marijuana use on cardiovascular disease could have a substantial impact on public health (S. Sidney, IOM workshop). The magnitude of the impact remains to be determined..." -- http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2003/Marijuana-and-Medicine-Assessing-the-Science-Base.aspx​

That brings me to your false postulate, that smoking marijuana only harms yourself. It impacts society around you from the moment you light up, from the general unpleasantness of those smoking in public places to the impacts of passive smoking. You've then got the problem of stoned people stumbling around the neighbourhood, although typically not violent still highly dangerous behind the wheel; have you considered how much it would cost to enforce no-stoned-driving laws? It then comes back a third time to hit the health system down the track, since although opioids are wonderful painkillers, they don't actually fix the problem. Old, obese and stoned could just become the trifecta that crumbles our healthcare system, at least until we develop that no-responsibility wonderpill everyone is after.

It's also up for interpretation what you call a failure. I don't advocate spending money funding drug squads to go after marijuana suppliers, not that you quoted a figure spent of course, but as far as I'm concerned marijuana not being readily available at your local convenience store is a big win. Sure, it's out there, but it hasn't become a social epidemic in our lazy society like tobacco, alcohol or obesity/fastfood; I'd rather not legalise the stuff and make it one.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, at least now I can say that I understand why.

The facts about just how harmful marijuana is are surprisingly ambiguous, as many credible sources will say anything from very harmful to not very harmful. But what we do know is that it is less harmful than many other things, and what I don't care for is this double standard.

But, I'm too busy and tired to keep debating this. I suppose since I can't continue on that I'll concede to your points.

 

[DeletedUser34]

Ohhhh Daniel you make me cry!!!!!
for a brief moment the echo had somebody to argue with

 

[Liberty]

Hehe, if that's a conditional "government cannot dictate what people do so long as they take responsibility", I don't think drugs will ever be legalised :huh:

I didn't intend anything to be conditional. What I meant by it was that if someone wants to stuff their faces with french fries every day, smoke cigarettes, or shoot heroin, it should be their choice to do so. But, if they get sick because of it, they should pay for their own medical care. That is them being responsible for their own choices.

 

[Liberty]

Hehe, nice dodge. You don't want to legalise anything that would result in 74,999 annual deaths or less, but you do justify legalising marijuana since after "careful analysis" you determined that other substances can be more harmful? Given the added bonus of "I'm not sure if it'll remain that way [zero fatalities] for the future", one could be forgiven for thinking 74,999 was your magic number.

Let's clear up an important misnomer. It is practically impossible for a healthy human adult to overdose on marijuana when smoked, it's true, but the drug actually has similar health risks to obesity. Sure, it doesn't kill anyone directly, but it exacerbates other health problems:

"The cardiovascular changes have not posed a health problem for healthy, young users of marijuana or THC. However, such changes in heart rate and blood pressure could present a serious problem for older patients, especially those with coronary arterial or cerebrovascular disease. Cardiovascular diseases are the leading causes of death in the United States (coronary heart disease is first; stroke is third), so any effect of marijuana use on cardiovascular disease could have a substantial impact on public health (S. Sidney, IOM workshop). The magnitude of the impact remains to be determined..." -- http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2003/Marijuana-and-Medicine-Assessing-the-Science-Base.aspx​

That brings me to your false postulate, that smoking marijuana only harms yourself. It impacts society around you from the moment you light up, from the general unpleasantness of those smoking in public places to the impacts of passive smoking. You've then got the problem of stoned people stumbling around the neighbourhood,

So? Where do you draw the line? Walk the other way. Seriously, if we all start believing that we have the right to legislate against everything that we personally find offensive, we're all going to be in jail.

although typically not violent still highly dangerous behind the wheel; have you considered how much it would cost to enforce no-stoned-driving laws?

If someone is at fault in a wreck, we already have laws against that, don't we?

It then comes back a third time to hit the health system down the track,

Which is yet another argument against socialized medicine.

since although opioids are wonderful painkillers, they don't actually fix the problem.

And some problems, medical doctors don't seem to be able to fix; yet there is much pain. Who are you to decide that the person should be left in horrible, horrible, pain?

Old, obese and stoned could just become the trifecta that crumbles our healthcare system, at least until we develop that no-responsibility wonderpill everyone is after.

You let each person bear the responsibility for their own healthcare.

It's also up for interpretation what you call a failure. I don't advocate spending money funding drug squads to go after marijuana suppliers, not that you quoted a figure spent of course, but as far as I'm concerned marijuana not being readily available at your local convenience store is a big win. Sure, it's out there, but it hasn't become a social epidemic in our lazy society like tobacco, alcohol or obesity/fastfood; I'd rather not legalise the stuff and make it one.

Did you not learn anything from prohibition?

 

[DeletedUser]

Liberty, that fence of yours is so politically incorrect yet staunch at the same time! You're like a Republican Liberal!

I can see Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh being completely confused with your views.

The only true argument for Marijuana is the economic value it represents and the additional monies it would bring to the economy. Being able to bring the national debt down to levels not seen since 1950 in about ten years is an awesome prospect. No one really cares about liberalism views in the form of freedom to do what you want with your body and all that. It has to benefit the whole greater then the few.

Arguments against marijuana stemming from public to personal safety has its merits usually in the form of abuse by it's user and the casualties in that person's wake. Of course that can be said about any over the counter drug including alcohol, but opposition points out that adding something dangerous to an already 'Super Size Me' population will result in disaster. In a land where consumption of any type is in plenty how will Marijuana really make anything any worse, especially since it's availability is also in plenty?

Marijuana brings it's own contradictions to the table. On one hand we worry that we'll be a stoned society driving down the lonely dark highways like mindless zombies running over small children. On the other side of coin we see the economic value with the lifting of oppressive taxes on both the rich and poor, that both Democrats and Republicans blame each other for imposing. Marijuana both solves and creates problems for everyone no matter what your political views are, unless you're Liberty :razz:.

The only way to decide the best course of action is to weigh out the benefits against the cons. With every good deed comes a price no matter the intent.

 

[Liberty]

Liberty, that fence of yours is so politically incorrect yet staunch at the same time! You're like a Republican Liberal!

Hardly. There is nothing I have said that our Founding Fathers would disagree with. What slot would you put them in?

I can see Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh being completely confused with your views.

See, this is an example of the false choices a lot of people think they have and a lot of the reason for that is because it is the picture that the media paints.

The only true argument for Marijuana is the economic value it represents and the additional monies it would bring to the economy. Being able to bring the national debt down to levels not seen since 1950 in about ten years is an awesome prospect.

I disagree with you on what the true argument is, but do agree that with the level that Americans have been propagandized and dumbed down, that selling them on the economic benefits is an easier sell. But, beyond marijuana, the real money is to be made from hemp, in my opinion. It is asinine that our drug laws also end up prohibiting hemp from being produced.

No one really cares about liberalism views in the form of freedom to do what you want with your body and all that. It has to benefit the whole greater then the few.

They'd better start caring and soon. Our country was founded on individual liberty; not Marxist doctrine.

Arguments against marijuana stemming from public to personal safety has its merits usually in the form of abuse by it's user and the casualties in that person's wake. Of course that can be said about any over the counter drug including alcohol, but opposition points out that adding something dangerous to an already 'Super Size Me' population will result in disaster. In a land where consumption of any type is in plenty how will Marijuana really make anything any worse, especially since it's availability is also in plenty?

It's the wrong argument. The argument should be what the vast majority of Americans used to know. It's no one else's business what each of us do with our OWN bodies. If you do not even own your own body, what do you own? Think about it.

Marijuana brings it's own contradictions to the table. On one hand we worry that we'll be a stoned society driving down the lonely dark highways like mindless zombies running over small children. On the other side of coin we see the economic value with the lifting of oppressive taxes on both the rich and poor, that both Democrats and Republicans blame each other for imposing. Marijuana both solves and creates problems for everyone no matter what your political views are, unless you're Liberty :razz:.

I don't understand this quandry you are having. Seriously, why do you think you have the right to dictate to your neighbor what he do with his own body? We already have laws that are used to prosecute the person in the wrong for a traffic accident, and there are laws for driving under the influence, for that matter. What you seem to be for are pre-crime laws.

The only way to decide the best course of action is to weigh out the benefits against the cons. With every good deed comes a price no matter the intent.

No, the best course of action is to remember that it is individual liberty that once made America the most free and prosperous country the world has ever known. It was not the nanny state; nor your neighbors' belief that they could use the force of big government to do what they would be arrested for, if they did it on their own. What is with people wanting to force their neighbor to do what they wish them to do, if that neighbor is not infringing on their own liberty one iota? Don't they have enough to do managing their own selves? Such people used to called busybodies.

 

[DeletedUser]

Well, at least now I can say that I understand why.

The facts about just how harmful marijuana is are surprisingly ambiguous, as many credible sources will say anything from very harmful to not very harmful. But what we do know is that it is less harmful than many other things, and what I don't care for is this double standard.

But, I'm too busy and tired to keep debating this. I suppose since I can't continue on that I'll concede to your points.

Yep, it's very difficult to study the effects of an illegal drug, particularly long term. To requote the article I referenced, "the impact remains to be determined," any decisions we make at present are from under a blindfold. However, double standard is a matter of perspective. It's alcohol that is the "only" drug that is legal and hence socially acceptable outside the medical field; if you want to correct the double standard then your mission could equally well be criminalising alcohol.

I didn't intend anything to be conditional. What I meant by it was that if someone wants to stuff their faces with french fries every day, smoke cigarettes, or shoot heroin, it should be their choice to do so. But, if they get sick because of it, they should pay for their own medical care. That is them being responsible for their own choices.

That's well and good, but let's face it, no-one will pay for their own medical care. Now the United States has passed universal healthcare, I don't know of any developed nation that leaves the sick and dying to face their consequences. Whether you like it or not, insurance companies, government, relatives or even charities will inevitably end up footing the bill; with no change to that policy on the horizon I'm not even going to debate the hypothetical otherwise.

And yeah, I'm ignoring your sarcastic one line running commentary hehe, it's a fallacious tactic. Try engaging with the original parameters of debate -- "But base this off of fact! Show me the info!"

 

[Liberty]

That's well and good, but let's face it, no-one will pay for their own medical care.

Really? They sure used to.

Now the United States has passed universal healthcare, I don't know of any developed nation that leaves the sick and dying to face their consequences.

America has never judged themselves by what other nations did. We were different and that difference is one of the reasons why so many people around the world wanted to come here. Talk about fallacious reasoning... you have it in spades. That because other countries are socialist, that America should become that too.

Whether you like it or not, insurance companies, government, relatives or even charities will inevitably end up footing the bill; with no change to that policy on the horizon I'm not even going to debate the hypothetical otherwise.

We got in this mess because people had no clue what they were doing and were too ignorant to stand up against the creeping socialism infusing our country. This socialist remaking of our country, while going on for quite some time, most certainly has been ramped up recently. If you don't feel prepared to talk about it, that's fine, I will.

And yeah, I'm ignoring your sarcastic one line running commentary hehe, it's a fallacious tactic. Try engaging with the original parameters of debate -- "But base this off of fact! Show me the info!"

What exactly do you think is "fallacious"? That people own their own bodies? You need data for that?

 

[DeletedUser]

America has never judged themselves by what other nations did.

In a debate the words 'Never' and 'Always' should not be used unless you have some irrefutable evidence to prove it.

That because other countries are socialist, that America should become that too.

Liberty, you're missing the argument here, but I'll respond to your 'Socialist' comment. We are, kiddo! You live in a Republic! You need to recognize the difference between a Democratic government and a Republican government. In our form of government we are For the people, By the people. Our government has owned Telco Companies, Railroad Companies, you name it. We have social welfare programs dating back in the early 1900's. FDR started Workers Compensation and Death Benefits. Eisenhower started Social Security, as we know it now. (Interesting fact, FDR was believed to have started Social Security, but what he actually organized was Death Benefits and Workers Disability for spouses who's husbands were either hurt or killed on the job, usually in Mining or factories.)

"Lets never forget that a Government cannot be run as a business. If the Government was treated as a business it would only care about the bottom line and not it's people." Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1935

Now, can we get back to the topic and drop the whole Socialism nonsense?