Should marijuana be legalized?

[Cheshire Cat]

Well, I read the first 2 pages and the last page of this thread. While I haven't smoked pot in years, I still think it is a gateway drug. It lead me to tobacco. I really see no problem with legalizing pot, it really isn't that harmful. Although, it's legalization could lead to the legalization of other more societal harmful drugs. I suspect one of the reasons the government is against the legalization of pot, as opposed to alcohol, is the ability to test ones current state of inebriation. If I drive drunk, a blood alcohol test can determine my BAC almost instantaneously, if I drive stoned, there is no test available that can determine if I am stoned right now, or if it was yesterday. that is why the government doesn't want to legalize pot.

 

[PLC1]

"Democracy is no more and no less than 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner."
--That's the most cynical thing I've ever heard. Too bad Hitler or Mussolini aren't around anymore to take you in.

It may be cynical, but it is correct. That's why we don't have a democracy in the US, but a Constitutional republic. We don't vote directly for our laws, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Those two wolves can't pass any unconstitutional law about who's for dinner unless we allow them to ignore the law.

 

[Kelly]

"It may be cynical, but it is correct. That's why we don't have a democracy in the US, but a Constitutional republic. We don't vote directly for our laws, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Those two wolves can't pass any unconstitutional law about who's for dinner unless we allow them to ignore the law."
--I understand that we're a constitutional republic, but as Americans, we adhere to democratic principles. It really bothers me when people use the fact that we're technically a constitutional republic to bash democratic ideology. That's a step towards fascism. Plus, all these people who are so bent on the fact that we're technically a con. republic, not a democracy don't seem to bring that point up when Bush tells us how he is supposedly spreading 'democracy' to Iraq.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

It may be cynical, but it is correct. That's why we don't have a democracy in the US, but a Constitutional republic. We don't vote directly for our laws, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Those two wolves can't pass any unconstitutional law about who's for dinner unless we allow them to ignore the law.

Actually, those two wolves have voted many laws that are against personal property rights. Many owners of property (restaurants) are not permitted to allow smoking on their premises because 2 wolves decided the sheep shouldn't smoke.
In some places. the wolves have decided the sheep shouldn't eat trans-fat either. These are just an example of how the wolves are violating the rights of the minority.

 

[PLC1]

"It may be cynical, but it is correct. That's why we don't have a democracy in the US, but a Constitutional republic. We don't vote directly for our laws, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Those two wolves can't pass any unconstitutional law about who's for dinner unless we allow them to ignore the law."
--I understand that we're a constitutional republic, but as Americans, we adhere to democratic principles. It really bothers me when people use the fact that we're technically a constitutional republic to bash democratic ideology. That's a step towards fascism. Plus, all these people who are so bent on the fact that we're technically a con. republic, not a democracy don't seem to bring that point up when Bush tells us how he is supposedly spreading 'democracy' to Iraq.

Bush is using the term "democracy" rather loosely.

The quote about the wolves and the sheep applies to a classical democracy, one in which the majority rules no matter what. There is nothing wrong with "democratic ideology", so long as there are safeguards in place, such as every successful "democraticy" has.

Look at what is happening in Venezuela. The people have spoken, the majority likes Hugo Chavez and his decidedly anti democratic agenda. It's kind of ironic that the people would use the majority rule to dismantle a democratic government, but that is what is happening.

 

[Kelly]

"While I haven't smoked pot in years, I still think it is a gateway drug. It lead me to tobacco."
--Ha ha ha! You so crazy Cheshire!

"If I drive drunk, a blood alcohol test can determine my BAC almost instantaneously, if I drive stoned, there is no test available that can determine if I am stoned right now, or if it was yesterday. that is why the government doesn't want to legalize pot."
--This reminds me of another point: The human body obviously gets rid of crap that really IS bad for you as quickly as possible: Alcohol in a matter of hours, cocaine in a matter of days, opiates in a matter of days. However, it takes about a month for the human body to rid itself of excess THC. I don't think you need an MS in Biochem to see that there's another bit of significant evidence here that demonstrates that marijuana isn't nearly as bad for you as other things (some of them legal). Alcohol was the gateway drug for me back when I did things that really ARE bad for you. Also, in my experience as a paralegal for a criminal defense attorney, if a violent crime had been committed by someone under the influence, it was ALWAYS alcohol or cocaine related. I've typed hunderds of recorded depositions and have sat in on just as many conversations between the client and attorney (which were protected by attorney-client privilege inn which the clients were completely honest for the sake of their defense) and it was ALWAYS alcohol that influenced the clients to do stupid things (some times cocaine), but NEVER pot.

 

[Kelly]

"The quote about the wolves and the sheep applies to a classical democracy, one in which the majority rules no matter what. There is nothing wrong with "democratic ideology", so long as there are safeguards in place, such as every successful "democraticy" has.

Look at what is happening in Venezuela. The people have spoken, the majority likes Hugo Chavez and his decidedly anti democratic agenda. It's kind of ironic that the people would use the majority rule to dismantle a democratic government, but that is what is happening."
--Can't disagree with you there. But the context that Palerider used it in was an obvious sign that he thinks he knows better than the rest of us and that his vote should count more than yours and especially mine. That sounds like a 'gateway drug' to fascism to me.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

"While I haven't smoked pot in years, I still think it is a gateway drug. It lead me to tobacco."
--Ha ha ha! You so crazy Cheshire!

While that was a bit tongue in cheek, it is still true.

This reminds me of another point: The human body obviously gets rid of crap that really IS bad for you as quickly as possible: Alcohol in a matter of hours, cocaine in a matter of days, opiates in a matter of days. However, it takes about a month for the human body to rid itself of excess THC. I don't think you need an MS in Biochem to see that there's another bit of significant evidence here that demonstrates that marijuana isn't nearly as bad for you as other things (some of them legal). Alcohol was the gateway drug for me back when I did things that really ARE bad for you. Also, in my experience as a paralegal for a criminal defense attorney, if a violent crime had been committed by someone under the influence, it was ALWAYS alcohol or cocaine related. I've typed hunderds of recorded depositions and have sat in on just as many conversations between the client and attorney (which were protected by attorney-client privilege inn which the clients were completely honest for the sake of their defense) and it was ALWAYS alcohol that influenced the clients to do stupid things (some times cocaine), but NEVER pot.

The human body does attempt to get rid of harmful substances, but your analogy is incorrect. Some substances are easier to get rid of than others. I would use radiation as an example. That takes way longer to remove naturally than pot, cocaine or drugs, but is far more harmful. Besides, in a court of law, one can admit alcohol without further incrimination, but admitting any other drug use as a defense only leaves one open for more criminal charges.

 

[palerider]

Palerider, so you went to Vietnam and have and MS in Biochemistry. This has nothing to do with why pot should be kept illegal and why squares like you dabbling in the lives of people like me is somehow justified.

Squares like me. Tell me little girl, where did you set up camp at woodstock? You shouldn't call names when you don't have any idea what the hell you are talking about.

Besides, If you do have an MS, and you ACTUALLY study the effects/benefits of pot, you'd know that there's a whole lot more scholarly lit. that states marijuana is not harmful to you than there is lit. that states it is.The rest of your lame 'dissection' of my comments was nothing more than your typical opinionated rhetoric.

If you had read the thread rather than just jump to the end to put in your 2cents, you would have seen that the stuff that roker was posting to prove that pot is harmless was 20, 30, 40 years old and some was even older than that. Modern studies are showing that pot has some pretty serious physical, physiological, and psychological side effects. Hard science is not rehetoric.

 

[palerider]

--This reminds me of another point: The human body obviously gets rid of crap that really IS bad for you as quickly as possible: Alcohol in a matter of hours, cocaine in a matter of days, opiates in a matter of days. However, it takes about a month for the human body to rid itself of excess THC. I don't think you need an MS in Biochem to see that there's another bit of significant evidence here that demonstrates that marijuana isn't nearly as bad for you as other things (some of them legal).

You really don't think through much of what you say do you. You believe that the speed with which a thing is metabolized out of your system indicates in any way what is good for you and what is not? Consider cyanide. It never leaves your system. You can get exposed to small amounts over years with little or no effect and then all of a sudden, you reach a critical level in your system and you begin to die a horrible death. There are a great many toxins that never leave your body.

It is a good thing that folks like me are around to protect people like you from yourselves. Your understanding of how toxins affect your body make you a prime candidate for a darwin award.

 

[Kelly]

"You really don't think through much of what you say do you. You believe that the speed with which a thing is metabolized out of your system indicates in any way what is good for you and what is not? Consider cyanide. It never leaves your system. You can get exposed to small amounts over years with little or no effect and then all of a sudden, you reach a critical level in your system and you begin to die a horrible death. There are a great many toxins that never leave your body.

It is a good thing that folks like me are around to protect people like you from yourselves. Your understanding of how toxins affect your body make you a prime candidate for a darwin award."
--I'm not saying that this in-and-of-itself proves it. I'm saying it is a bit of evidence that helps to demonstrate my point that pot isn't as bad as other things--like alcohol.

 

[Kelly]

"It is a good thing that folks like me are around to protect people like you from yourselves."
--By spying on me? By throwing me in jail? By prohibiting me from my own creative endeavors? By basically sticking your nose where it doesn't belong??? NO THANKS!!!

--I guess it's about time that I make this point: All insults aside, I do appreciate people like you being on forums like this. At least we can debate about things we both feel strongly about (with good reason--probably on both sides) in an intelligent manner (over all, we are discussing this in a fairly intelligent manner, I think). Anyways, I'll try not to get so heated and I'll try to tone down the insults.

 

[9sublime]

It is a good thing that folks like me are around to protect people like you from yourselves. Your understanding of how toxins affect your body make you a prime candidate for a darwin award.

YES! PALERDIER, thank god for you! If you didn't save us from the ills of this terrible drug, then we could be doing things like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHjHFkDZ1nk

Yes, this is from that genuine government video reefer madness. Maybe you should think twice about what you believe about illegal drugs and legal drugs. Alochol isn't THAT bad for you, but its effects while intoxicated are far worse.
You could end up like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x30kYRp6Y68

 

[PLC1]

"You really don't think through much of what you say do you. You believe that the speed with which a thing is metabolized out of your system indicates in any way what is good for you and what is not? Consider cyanide. It never leaves your system. You can get exposed to small amounts over years with little or no effect and then all of a sudden, you reach a critical level in your system and you begin to die a horrible death. There are a great many toxins that never leave your body.

It is a good thing that folks like me are around to protect people like you from yourselves. Your understanding of how toxins affect your body make you a prime candidate for a darwin award."
--I'm not saying that this in-and-of-itself proves it. I'm saying it is a bit of evidence that helps to demonstrate my point that pot isn't as bad as other things--like alcohol.

And the fact that things like mercury, lead, cyanide, THC, and a whole lot of other things linger in the body much longer than alcohol does is not an indication that such things are less harmful than alcohol. On the contrary, if the effects of alcohol were cumulative, the human race would have either given it up, or died out centuries ago.

I'm betting on the dying out hypothesis, as we certainly haven't shown any signs of wanting to give up alcohol.

 

[PLC1]

Actually, those two wolves have voted many laws that are against personal property rights. Many owners of property (restaurants) are not permitted to allow smoking on their premises because 2 wolves decided the sheep shouldn't smoke.
In some places. the wolves have decided the sheep shouldn't eat trans-fat either. These are just an example of how the wolves are violating the rights of the minority.

The representatives of those wolves have passed some laws that are blatantly unconstitutional and are against property rights. The asset forfeiture laws spring to mind as a great example. Just when the sheep will wake up and see what has happened remains to be seen.

There has been no law passed against trans fats that I'm aware of, but some information has come to light that would discourage its consumption.

Now, the sheep did pass a law against smoking in public places, at least in California. That law was passed as a ballot iniative against the strenuous objections of the wolves, ie, the nicotine pushers. There have been a number of California state laws passed by the will of the majority that could serve as examples of the inadvisability of pure majority rule, but this isn't one of them.

Remember, your freedom ends where my nose begins? The anti smoking laws are a literal example of applying that rule.