Marijuana Should Be Legal

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
mindeffer01 wrote:
How can a female plant not bud? Or do they only sell male plants?

If you remove all the male plants the female will produce flower upon flower with no seeds expensive stuff[/quote]

Yea, we used to sex the plants, destroy the males and develope different strains of sensamelia. Red hair, purple, orange, skunk, depending on the seed stock. Usualy fetched about $200 an oz., up to 3 if the skunk was realy sticky. But that was way back when… Now I just stick to basil, sage, rosemary. I’ve got a strain of basil now that is anise scented. Big purple sticky buds too. Just a bit marinated into chicken tastes like heaven.

242

[quote]mike1212ms wrote:

NO DRUG EFFECTS ANYONE BUT THE USER!
[/quote]

This might be the dumbest thing I’ver ever read. What color is the sky in your world? How many robberies/murders/DUI deaths are commited by people on drugs (including alcohol)? Who pays the medical bill when a crack addict gets taken to the emergency room? How much money does a business loose when an employee is too hungover to come to work? You don’t live in a vacuum, pinhead.

243

[quote]mike1212ms wrote:
How do they justify making any drug illigal? Crack, roids, weed, speed, lsd, angel dust, meth, etc.

NO DRUG EFFECTS ANYONE BUT THE USER! Therefor, they should have the choice to use it.

Note- No, I dont do any of the drugs listed above. [/quote]

Explain that to some of the crack babies that wander around my neighborhood. Or the folks that can’t even get a decent asking price because they live near the house that generates most of the crime around here. Or maybee the tweaked out crackhead that threatened to shoot up me, my girlfriend and house because my dog was barking at him. You are a simple minded dumbass.

244

[quote]mindeffer01 wrote:
mike1212ms wrote:
How do they justify making any drug illigal? Crack, roids, weed, speed, lsd, angel dust, meth, etc.

NO DRUG EFFECTS ANYONE BUT THE USER! Therefor, they should have the choice to use it.

Note- No, I dont do any of the drugs listed above.

Explain that to some of the crack babies that wander around my neighborhood. Or the folks that can’t even get a decent asking price because they live near the house that generates most of the crime around here. Or maybee the tweaked out crackhead that threatened to shoot up me, my girlfriend and house because my dog was barking at him. You are a simple minded dumbass.

[/quote]

Right. Hard to say that heroin and crack only effect the user.

245

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
mike1212ms wrote:

NO DRUG EFFECTS ANYONE BUT THE USER!

This might be the dumbest thing I’ver ever read. What color is the sky in your world? How many robberies/murders/DUI deaths are commited by people on drugs (including alcohol)? Who pays the medical bill when a crack addict gets taken to the emergency room? How much money does a business loose when an employee is too hungover to come to work? You don’t live in a vacuum, pinhead.
[/quote]

Reddog
Believe it or not you will pay for all those problems whether it is legal or not. One problem you won?t pay for is incarceration of someone who would be no problem regardless of the legality of marijuana.
peace

246

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Reddog
Believe it or not you will pay for all those problems whether it is legal or not. One problem you won?t pay for is incarceration of someone who would be no problem regardless of the legality of marijuana.
peace
[/quote]

Agreed. It’s my opinion that legalizing drugs would lead to more of this, which would lead to more money out of my pocket. However, my point was that the statement that drug use affects only the user was asinine.

247

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Gregus wrote:
The 10th amendment is an interesting issue. How is it that the Feds can bust and openly arrest the citizens of California for growing cannabis licensed by the state that they live in. There’s a serious disparity brewing there.

That’s exactly what Im trying to get Zeb to answer. It seems that some Conservatives are all for a strict reading of the Constitution…except when it stands in the way of their social agenda.

Very true. Conservatives are all for strict construction, states rights, and individual liberties. Unless the action in question is a ‘sin’. Then, forget about it.
[/quote]

Its frustrating because as someone who believes in a limited federal government, states rights, personal liberty, etc. I see self proclaimed conservatives doing damage to the cause…not to mention the fact that philosophical inconsistency on that level is just plain irritating. While wanting to save people from self destruction is a noble cause, its not the government’s place and, as Ive already said, the power to do good can just as easily be used for bad.

I, for one, happen to believe that drug use, alcohol abuse, homosexuality, etc. ARE sins but I also understad that I have sin in my own life and am in no position to throw people in jail and/or use the threat of government force against those who sin in ways that I dont. Obviously, when someone’s “sin” causes direct physical harm to another or in any way violates the rights of another, the government then has the obligation to step in. For instance, in cases where a pregnant mother uses drugs, that person should be charged with child abuse (or something similar) but drug use shouldnt be illegal for those who do it in a responsible way(i.e. no one else but the user is harmed).

248

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Reddog
Believe it or not you will pay for all those problems whether it is legal or not. One problem you won?t pay for is incarceration of someone who would be no problem regardless of the legality of marijuana.
peace

Agreed. It’s my opinion that legalizing drugs would lead to more of this, which would lead to more money out of my pocket. However, my point was that the statement that drug use affects only the user was asinine.[/quote]

Well, along with the government keeping its nose out of the personal affairs of the citizenry, it ought to keep its hands out of its pocket. The government shouldnt be paying for the hospitalization of drug users…pure and simple. And if someone’s drug abuse harms another, then the user oght to be punished. If he stole to buy drugs, he should be thrown in jail for theft; if he killed someone while driving high, he should be thrown in jail for murder; if he forgot to feed his kids because he was high, he should be thrown in jail for child abuse. Its no different then alcohol…and I still havent seen any proof that the legalization of drugs would lead to more use.

249

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
Well, along with the government keeping its nose out of the personal affairs of the citizenry, it ought to keep its hands out of its pocket. The government shouldnt be paying for the hospitalization of drug users…pure and simple. [/quote]

I agree in principle, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. If the gov’t doesn’t foot the bill, then the hospital is not going to treat them, & they die on the side walk. In the grand scheme of thing, this might be just(reap as you sow), but not a very humanitarion approach.

[quote]And if someone’s drug abuse harms another, then the user oght to be punished. If he stole to buy drugs, he should be thrown in jail for theft; if he killed someone while driving high, he should be thrown in jail for murder; if he forgot to feed his kids because he was high, he should be thrown in jail for child abuse.
[/quote]

This is kind of a “shut the barn door after the horses have gotten out” approach. Yes, the person should be thrown in jail, but that isn’t much help to the person they murdered, or their own dead kids.

250

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Reddog
Believe it or not you will pay for all those problems whether it is legal or not. One problem you won?t pay for is incarceration of someone who would be no problem regardless of the legality of marijuana.
peace

Agreed. It’s my opinion that legalizing drugs would lead to more of this, which would lead to more money out of my pocket. However, my point was that the statement that drug use affects only the user was asinine.

Well, along with the government keeping its nose out of the personal affairs of the citizenry, it ought to keep its hands out of its pocket. The government shouldnt be paying for the hospitalization of drug users…pure and simple. And if someone’s drug abuse harms another, then the user oght to be punished. If he stole to buy drugs, he should be thrown in jail for theft; if he killed someone while driving high, he should be thrown in jail for murder; if he forgot to feed his kids because he was high, he should be thrown in jail for child abuse. Its no different then alcohol…and I still havent seen any proof that the legalization of drugs would lead to more use.

[/quote]

I agree with this to an extent. The problem is that some hospitals have a policy that they will not turn anyone away even if they don’t have insurance.

People smoke they get lung cancer, people drink, they get liver disease, people eat until they are fat pieces of sh*t and then get diabetes, heart disease, etc. Unfortunately we are all stuck paying their bills indirectly through taxes, and insurance premiums. It is complete bullshit.

251

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Gregus wrote:
The 10th amendment is an interesting issue. How is it that the Feds can bust and openly arrest the citizens of California for growing cannabis licensed by the state that they live in. There’s a serious disparity brewing there.

That’s exactly what Im trying to get Zeb to answer. It seems that some Conservatives are all for a strict reading of the Constitution…except when it stands in the way of their social agenda.

Very true. Conservatives are all for strict construction, states rights, and individual liberties. Unless the action in question is a ‘sin’. Then, forget about it.

Its frustrating because as someone who believes in a limited federal government, states rights, personal liberty, etc. I see self proclaimed conservatives doing damage to the cause…not to mention the fact that philosophical inconsistency on that level is just plain irritating. While wanting to save people from self destruction is a noble cause, its not the government’s place and, as Ive already said, the power to do good can just as easily be used for bad.

I, for one, happen to believe that drug use, alcohol abuse, homosexuality, etc. ARE sins but I also understad that I have sin in my own life and am in no position to throw people in jail and/or use the threat of government force against those who sin in ways that I dont. Obviously, when someone’s “sin” causes direct physical harm to another or in any way violates the rights of another, the government then has the obligation to step in. For instance, in cases where a pregnant mother uses drugs, that person should be charged with child abuse (or something similar) but drug use shouldnt be illegal for those who do it in a responsible way(i.e. no one else but the user is harmed).[/quote]

I largely agree with you. But I do think that public and private interests must be weighed. I think that marijuana should be legal but am not so sure about other drugs (such as heroin and crack). It may sound hypocritical, but I don’t think it is. I think marijuana is comparatively harmless. From all I know about it, I don’t think any potential pitfalls arising from legalization would be damaging enough to warrant circumventing someone’s right to use it. But I have unfortunately known people who got heavily into other drugs. Lives were destroyed and not just the users’. I don’t know enough about the issue. But I think legalization would cause more even more problems. I believe enough that there is a compelling argument for them remaining illegal. On the other hand, there could be positive benefits such as a reduction in crime and murder that goes along with the illegal drug trade. I just don’t know enough. I would have to do more research.

252

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Well, along with the government keeping its nose out of the personal affairs of the citizenry, it ought to keep its hands out of its pocket. The government shouldnt be paying for the hospitalization of drug users…pure and simple.

I agree in principle, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. If the gov’t doesn’t foot the bill, then the hospital is not going to treat them, & they die on the side walk. In the grand scheme of thing, this might be just(reap as you sow), but not a very humanitarion approach.

And if someone’s drug abuse harms another, then the user oght to be punished. If he stole to buy drugs, he should be thrown in jail for theft; if he killed someone while driving high, he should be thrown in jail for murder; if he forgot to feed his kids because he was high, he should be thrown in jail for child abuse.

This is kind of a “shut the barn door after the horses have gotten out” approach. Yes, the person should be thrown in jail, but that isn’t much help to the person they murdered, or their own dead kids.
[/quote]

I agree. I just don’t believe that people (drug abusers) should just be left to die on the street regardless of the fact that they only have themselves to blame. In terms of smokers, they pay through higher insurance. Would their actions and consequences affect my own premiums? I would hope not and don’t believe it should. The cost for medical care for illness associated with smoking should entirely be covered by smokers in terms of higher insurance rates, in my opinion. I’m not sure if it is. I’m a baby, and I don’t pay my own insurance yet.

253

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Well, along with the government keeping its nose out of the personal affairs of the citizenry, it ought to keep its hands out of its pocket. The government shouldnt be paying for the hospitalization of drug users…pure and simple.

I agree in principle, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. If the gov’t doesn’t foot the bill, then the hospital is not going to treat them, & they die on the side walk. In the grand scheme of thing, this might be just(reap as you sow), but not a very humanitarion approach.[/quote]

This is going to sound harsh but it simply isnt the job of government to pay for the mistakes and misjudgements of others. In my opinion, it is here to protect us from outside threats and harm from others…thats it.

If we, as private individuals and of our own volition, cant find it in ourselves to help those in need then all the government intervention in world isnt going to help the dehumanization of our society. Id like to believe that if the government would get of the way we would be more apt to help through private charity. As things stand now, we simply look to an inefficient, impersonal government to take care of “social injustices” rather than doing it ourselves.

Keep in mind that I only want federal drug laws abolished but in any case, where do we draw the line? People engage in all kinds of destructive behavior that can and does negatively effect others. Should we outlaw all of it? Besides, I have yet to see any evidence that drug use would become more prevalent if drug laws were abolished. I simply dont believe many people abstain from drugs (especially hard drugs) on the basis of their legal statis. If someone wants to do heroin that bad (and accept all the health risks) then they are going to do heroin.

Aside from the fact that I identify more with Kantian ethics and believe values such as individualliberty have intrinsic worth regardless of outcome, I believe even the most ardent utilitarian would find that legalizing drugs would eleviate more suffering than it would cause. We could better help those addicted, diminish drug related crime, and better regulate drug content (how many people overdose because they dont know what they are really getting).

254

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Well, along with the government keeping its nose out of the personal affairs of the citizenry, it ought to keep its hands out of its pocket. The government shouldnt be paying for the hospitalization of drug users…pure and simple.

I agree in principle, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. If the gov’t doesn’t foot the bill, then the hospital is not going to treat them, & they die on the side walk. In the grand scheme of thing, this might be just(reap as you sow), but not a very humanitarion approach.

And if someone’s drug abuse harms another, then the user oght to be punished. If he stole to buy drugs, he should be thrown in jail for theft; if he killed someone while driving high, he should be thrown in jail for murder; if he forgot to feed his kids because he was high, he should be thrown in jail for child abuse.

This is kind of a “shut the barn door after the horses have gotten out” approach. Yes, the person should be thrown in jail, but that isn’t much help to the person they murdered, or their own dead kids.

I agree. I just don’t believe that people (drug abusers) should just be left to die on the street regardless of the fact that they only have themselves to blame. In terms of smokers, they pay through higher insurance. Would their actions and consequences affect my own premiums? I would hope not and don’t believe it should. The cost for medical care for illness associated with smoking should entirely be covered by smokers in terms of higher insurance rates, in my opinion. I’m not sure if it is. I’m a baby, and I don’t pay my own insurance yet.

[/quote]

So leave the smokers to fend for themselves but bend over backwards to help the heroin addict? Why the double standard?

255

I don’t use it nor do I know anyone who uses it, so for me it’s a non-issue across the board.

[quote]buffballswell wrote:
In my humble opinion marijuana should be legal. Your thoughts please.[/quote]

256

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
reddog6376 wrote:
LBRTRN wrote:
Well, along with the government keeping its nose out of the personal affairs of the citizenry, it ought to keep its hands out of its pocket. The government shouldnt be paying for the hospitalization of drug users…pure and simple.

I agree in principle, but that opens up a whole other can of worms. If the gov’t doesn’t foot the bill, then the hospital is not going to treat them, & they die on the side walk. In the grand scheme of thing, this might be just(reap as you sow), but not a very humanitarion approach.

And if someone’s drug abuse harms another, then the user oght to be punished. If he stole to buy drugs, he should be thrown in jail for theft; if he killed someone while driving high, he should be thrown in jail for murder; if he forgot to feed his kids because he was high, he should be thrown in jail for child abuse.

This is kind of a “shut the barn door after the horses have gotten out” approach. Yes, the person should be thrown in jail, but that isn’t much help to the person they murdered, or their own dead kids.

I agree. I just don’t believe that people (drug abusers) should just be left to die on the street regardless of the fact that they only have themselves to blame. In terms of smokers, they pay through higher insurance. Would their actions and consequences affect my own premiums? I would hope not and don’t believe it should. The cost for medical care for illness associated with smoking should entirely be covered by smokers in terms of higher insurance rates, in my opinion. I’m not sure if it is. I’m a baby, and I don’t pay my own insurance yet.

So leave the smokers to fend for themselves but bend over backwards to help the heroin addict? Why the double standard?

[/quote]

If the heroin addicts lived into their 50s and 60s and went on to develop some disease (often terminal) that all evidence suggests is caused by or at least heavily correlated with heroin use, I would say that they should pay for that with higher premiums. Except that won’t happen. They’d be dead first. I was refering to offering treatment for acute life-threatening complications and funding for rehab programs.

257

[quote]LBRTRN wrote:

This is going to sound harsh but it simply isnt the job of government to pay for the mistakes and misjudgements of others. In my opinion, it is here to protect us from outside threats and harm from others…thats it.

If we, as private individuals and of our own volition, cant find it in ourselves to help those in need then all the government intervention in world isnt going to help the dehumanization of our society. Id like to believe that if the government would get of the way we would be more apt to help through private charity. As things stand now, we simply look to an inefficient, impersonal government to take care of “social injustices” rather than doing it ourselves. [/quote]

In an ideal world, I’d agree with you, but your view is very unrealistic. I’m a huge proponent of limited frderal gov’t, but you have to draw the line somewhere.

[quote]
Keep in mind that I only want federal drug laws abolished but in any case, where do we draw the line? People engage in all kinds of destructive behavior that can and does negatively effect others. Should we outlaw all of it? [/quote]
No, but we shouldn’t legalize more destructive behavior.

Study a little history. Shortly after the turn of the century China legalized opium, and it plunged thier country in such chaos that it took them most of the remaining century to recover. Pull your head out of the sand.

258

[quote]Charles Staley wrote:
I don’t use it nor do I know anyone who uses it, so for me it’s a non-issue across the board.

buffballswell wrote:
In my humble opinion marijuana should be legal. Your thoughts please.

[/quote]

You don’t know anyone who uses it? Ever? On occasion?

259

Well certainly as a kid in high school, everyone I knew used it. I may have friends/relatives who use it, but if they do, I’m unaware of it.

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Charles Staley wrote:
I don’t use it nor do I know anyone who uses it, so for me it’s a non-issue across the board.

buffballswell wrote:
In my humble opinion marijuana should be legal. Your thoughts please.

You don’t know anyone who uses it? Ever? On occasion? [/quote]

260

[quote]reddog6376 wrote:

Study a little history. Shortly after the turn of the century China legalized opium, and it plunged thier country in such chaos that it took them most of the remaining century to recover. Pull your head out of the sand.

[/quote]

This has been discussed before. There is significant potential for physiological addiction with opium. That is not the case with marijuana. Study a little NBB.

EDIT-if you’re just refering to heroin or crack, then I agree with you. The likely harm it would do to our country as a whole outweighs any right people have to put what they want inside their bodies.