Completely Off-topic Poll

[El Dangerouso]

I know I might be in the minority with this one, but for all your case studies, why not just look at a place where it might not be legal, but at least tolerated: The Netherlands. Now I know we have some folks from the land of rain, wooden shoes, tulips, windmills, etc. on the board, and I would really like to hear what they have to say. I could have my story wrong because of my perspective.

All I know is the Netherlands is not an economic powerhouse. The United States is. My wife did an exchange semester in Maastricht (help me out with the spelling if I've blown it). Parks were full of folks strung the hell out on pot and herion, and there was pretty much no chance of them contributing to the economic situation of their country (anyone ever heard of GDP?). It was just a fact of life. My parks are not like that, and I want them to stay that way.

That said, none of this sociological stuff is a science. I suppose that experience does not mean that if you did legalize pot here, the exact same thing would happen. You might see no connection between drug legalization and a downhill economic spiral, I see one.

I would rather have more people working in industries that do things other than provide a chemical substance that alters your reality through controlling you mood. I'm sure this would be a profitable industry, and many folks would flock to it were it legal (I know there are people already working in illegal pot for a living, but let's face it, if it's legal, there will be many more), we are a capitalist country, and I love the fact we are. I'm not okay with supporting that industry on the grounds that it is an industry that will have ill effects on overall productivity. You can make the same arguments about tobacco, alcohol, etc. Guess what? They're already legal, and we have to deal with the reality of today. I'm taking about something we can keep from possibly changing for the worse. I'm okay with spam, because it may not be natural for some 80 year old to have an erection, but he can still drive with no imparment (assuming he has no other health problems that would limit his driving). Hell, it wasn't natural for the majority of the population to live past 65 not too long ago. Should we halt or remove all the drugs that have improved the quality of life for our family members into their later years because they come from a non-organic compound? The fact that it is organic does not make it okay or good. Would you like for me to list plenty of organic poisons?

Again, I have no way of seeing the future, and neither does anyone else (I don't care what Miss Cleo said). I realize I could be wrong, guess what, so could you. I choose to speak with my vote until asked, and since you asked I would vote "no."

[bigdguitars]

yea if tsl was around he might answer....

[Southpa]

Interesting discussion. Some people have "opinions" based on past negative experiences. Its unfortunate because in a lot of cases those opinions are biased by circumstances and the true facts are clouded by an unreasoning sense of outrage. Like everyone here I don't believe ANY form of drug should be involved in the operation of heavy equipment, automobiles etc. etc. ANY drug that can alter your perception of reality or affect motor skills, hand-eye coordination etc. is suspect in the event of a motor vehicle or work-related accident. That said, driving while under the influence of anything is a moot point in this discussion, just read the label. I'm sorry if you lost a loved one to someone who was driving while under the influence, but I could also say the same thing of someone who was inattentive because he was stuffing his face with a big Mac or was talking on the phone. The end result is still the same.

In Vancouver recently they've opened up facilities where junkies can get high legally. Kind of makes you think that whoever is in charge has lost his mind, eh? But when looked at in the proper perspective and "in the long run" the bottom line is how much money would it cost the taxpayers otherwise? By providing a safe environment for these people to shoot up they are helping to prevent the spread and cost of treatment of AIDS, hepatitis etc. by providing clean needles. It will also lessen the burden on taxpayers where the criminal courts and jails are concerned. It might lower drug related crimes like breakins,theft and property damage in the lower manland area. Also, these people can get councilling to help them deal with their problems. Another good part of this facility is that a database can be constructed to assess how many users are actually out there and help to decide on future steps.

I used to smoke a lot of pot and hash in my early days. I still do a "toot" now and then but in very minute amounts. It stays at home and doesn't interfere with employment and outside social life. I don't drive while stoned and I rarely get drunk anymore. Maybe the fear of being pulled over has put a slight crimp in my social life, but as it is, having a social life like I had in the old days can get pretty dangerous and expensive. I used to be a real animal and I'm darn sure that if I continued the way I did I wouldn't be alive right now.

Should pot be legalized? Is it worth the effort? The politicians are afraid to make these decisions because it may affect how the folks at home will vote for them during the next election. Thats all they really care about. Voicing their "opinions" based on past negative experiences and feelings about social issues is concidered political suicide among politians until they know how well it will be received. For the time being they are all fence-sitters until the numbers are counted up and they know what the public wants. I have yet to see a politician answer a question with YES or NO. The same goes with same-sex marriages, BIG topic in the news these days. And I'll bet my eye teeth that the general concensus will go 50/50 among the population. But if the politicians can convince everyone that their legislation will save taxpayers money AND is morally acceptable then you will see some things change.

How much money is actually being spent on the war on drugs? As I understand correctly, roughly 5% of all smuggled drugs are confiscated by port authorities. The rest makes in into the country. To me that doesn't warrant the expense. I might be mixing apples and oranges, that is, hard drugs (cocaine, heroin, etc.) and soft drugs, (pot, hashish) when speaking of illegal transport and distribution. For instance, I can't see it being worthwhile to smuggle marijuana into BC when we're already growing the best stuff in the world. The idea is laughable! But in other places its a serious issue.

I think that most people fear that if you open the "door of immorality" a little bit then eventually it will swing wider and wider. But its easy enough to see how morally corrupt our society has become when looked at through the eyes of someone born 100 years ago. Its called "change" and there are always good and bad aspects that come with it. On the other hand it is an opportunity to make lemonade out of lemons. If it was made available only through licensed distributers then it can be considered a "controlled substance", taxable by law. The criminal element will be forced out of business, or perhaps forced into legal enterprise, . If you can't stop the demand anyway, what is the sense of throwing money into a black hole?

Edited February 10, 2005 by Southpa

[bigdguitars]

southpa very very very well said, the best way to understand the issue is too look at it from all sides...

I had a cousin killed by a drunk driver, so I don't blame the alcohol the guy drank I blame him for being irresponsible...

Things have become so over complicated in todays society, if people were responsible for thier actions then weed might be legal?

[antonio jueveras]

I think it should be legal.

Edited February 10, 2005 by antonio jueveras

[skibum5545]

I had a cousin killed by a drunk driver, so I don't blame the alcohol the guy drank I blame him for being irresponsible...

←

Excellent point.

El Dangerouso-- Marijuana was made legal in the Netherlands in 1976. While they aren't an economic powerhouse now, were they pre-legalization? To me, that would be a much more telling statistic.

[nsherman2006]

i'm gonna step into the middle of the ring to get bashed by all of you'se. I am VERY VERY VERY vividly anti-drug use. I think it is a terrible decision. Smoking, alcohol, any sort of intoxicating or mind-altering substance are enemies of mine. There are no positive long-term effects, just a short-term high. To me, it's not worth messing up your life for a few hours of feel-good time. That said, i am a proponent of drug legalization. I know all of you are saying, WHA? That kid is whacko! But seriously, i think that the war on drugs cannot be won. Tons of government money is being spent on fighting drugs, where legalizing them would bring in tons of tax revenue. I am very much disappointed in the prison system and the fact that some inmates have oppurtunities that free citizens do not really pisses me off. But this isn't about the prison system. I think we should legalize drugs because it brings in revenue, reduces costs of fighting drugs, and allows for government regulation. Crime would decrease, prisons would have room for real criminals, and government regulation would be possible. Why fight a battle that you can't win? Instead, we should put the money toward educating kids, and keeping them off drugs instead of waiting for them to get hooked so we can throw them in a prison cell and pay their rent. I think strict penalties for driving under the influence of any sort of substance should be penalized very strictly, and i'm sure that if we put a few good scientist and engineers on the case with some government funding, we could find a way to detect marijuana or other drugs influencing a driver. Now i know may of you don't agree with what i feel, but don't take it personally. This is my opinion, feel free to rebutt it with yours, but hold on the personal attacks please. Peace out! Neal

[skibum5545]

Actually, I respect that opinion a lot. This poll isn't about whether marijuana is good or bad (although that inevitably plays a role), it's about whether drugs should be legalized.

That said, your opinion makes perfect sense. The government attempts to regulate drug use now, but fails. By legalizing it, as paradoxical as it may sound, they would be better able to attain their goal.

[nsherman2006]

exactly^

[marksound]

I'm torn on this issue.

Let me preface by saying that I am well over 21 and I like beer. A lot. I have a mixed drink occasionally. I smoke cigarettes (down to 2-3 packs a week). That's about all the vices I can handle.

I have smoked pot. It didn't really do anything for me, so I choose not to do it. I do know a lot of people who enjoy it. Most are normal, hard-working, responsible Americans. Many are scumbags. Still others are in-between.

The problem I have with it is that the arguments from organizations like NORML haven't convinced me that marijuana should be made completely legal. On the other hand, I don't think that simple possession should be a felony.

Maybe it should be handled the same as liquor. Taxed and sold in "package stores." If you're caught driving with an "open container," you go downtown. Like that.

I don't know.

[Curtis P]

maybe i am biased, but like Maiden said, opinons are like assholes, we all got em!! so heres mine, lol

I think it should be completley illegal, think bout it, you smoke a ciggarette, you got the filter on it, you smoke a joint, or some bowls, do buckets or whatever, wheres the filter on that?? your still breathing in smoke, and its worse for you, instead of breathing it right out like a ciggarette, you hold it in your lungs to get a better hit, so how good can that be??

And another thing, if you go out and smoke pot, and say you get the great idea to go and play guitar in the middle of the night, so you plug in and crank your amp WAAY up, police come and you get a domestic disturbance charge, your stoned and you forget where you put the tiicket or whatever, so another fine for not paying it

if its so natural, then why does it harm us? you cannot sit here and tell me that smoke inhalation of ANY kind will not cause lung cancer, especially when you hold it in your lungs for a bigger hit

Curtis

[VanKirk]

Legalizing it while greatly increasing enforcement and punishment of any subsequent crimes (DWI etc.) would allow for its safe and responsible use (which happens already but is punished) while eliminating irresponsible use (which happens already but needs to be more severely punished).

←

Well said.

There's tons of things that are bad for you but that doesn't mean they should all be illegal and regulated by the government.

[marksound]

The biggest problem, as I see it, is the polariztion factor. The "Herberts" (ten points for naming the reference) are against it, the stoners are for it.

Somebody show me the logic in keeping it illegal, and I'm with you. Somebody give me the facts to prove that it's ok to open the gate, I'm there. So far I haven't heard it from either side.

Until then , I'm in the middle of the road. And I don't like to be in the middle of the damn road. Too easy to get runned over.

[skibum5545]

Herbert-- any relation to Herbert Hoover, who appointed Harry Anslinger, major opponent of marijuana, supporter of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, propaganda artiste extraordinaire, and (oh yeah!) lying scumbag?

Curtis-- bagged rolling tobacco is legal, unfiltered cigarettes are legal, and then there's always bongs.

Any way you cut it, a pack a day is still worse than a joint a week, filters or no filters.

Pot is not illegal because it is a carcinogen. Nothing should be -illegal- because it is bad for you. The nation has a much bigger obesity problem than it does a marijuana problem, but the government has yet to outlaw Lays, pork rinds, or Twinkies.

If something poses a major societal risk, like heroin or crack cocaine, then that is grounds for keeping it illegal. Marijuana does not pose such a risk. In fact, I would dare say that potato chips and fast food pose a much higher societal risk to our nation than marijuana ever has.

You also work your way into a "slippery slope" logical fallacy-- just because you smoke won't make you play music loud or forget where you put things. Pot may make you forgetful and cause a lack of coordination, but it doesn't make you inconsiderate of others. Besides, an increased risk of noise violations hardly constitutes grounds for the illegality of a substance. Also, if you forget where you put a ticket, then it serves you right to have to pay more. Again, not so great a risk as to constitute legitimate grounds for outlawing marijuana.

On a side note, look into the 1938 marijuana murder trials. Some funny stuff there.

Edited February 11, 2005 by skibum5545

[lovekraft]

...The "Herberts" (ten points for naming the reference) are against it...

Star Trek® - "The Road to Eden". Oops, -5 points for conspicuous Trekkie geekery!

Neal's ideas pretty much coincide with mine - I'm not going to tell you that I think any psychoactive drug is completely benign, but I still think it's every adult's right to choose his own poisons, so long as those choices don't infringe on others. I also think that suicide is anathema, but I'll defend your right to commit suicide nigh unto death. Legislating morality has never worked, and with no disrespect intended towards anyone, the only felonies I find more ludicrous in our system than the drug laws are the prohibitions against prostitution.

I don't think that smoking weed constantly is a great way to go through life, I just don't think you should have that choice made for you by law enforcement.

[marksound]

Herbert-- any relation to Herbert Hoover, who appointed Harry Anslinger, major opponent of marijuana, supporter of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, propaganda artiste extraordinaire, and (oh yeah!) lying scumbag?

Curtis-- bagged rolling tobacco is legal, unfiltered cigarettes are legal, and then there's always bongs.

Any way you cut it, a pack a day is still worse than a joint a week, filters or no filters.

Pot is not illegal because it is a carcinogen. Nothing should be -illegal- because it is bad for you. The nation has a much bigger obesity problem than it does a marijuana problem, but the government has yet to outlaw Lays, pork rinds, or Twinkies.

If something poses a major societal risk, like heroin or crack cocaine, then that is grounds for keeping it illegal. Marijuana does not pose such a risk. In fact, I would dare say that potato chips and fast food pose a much higher societal risk to our nation than marijuana ever has.

You also work your way into a "slippery slope" logical fallacy-- just because you smoke won't make you play music loud or forget where you put things. Pot may make you forgetful and cause a lack of coordination, but it doesn't make you inconsiderate of others. Besides, an increased risk of noise violations hardly constitutes grounds for the illegality of a substance. Also, if you forget where you put a ticket, then it serves you right to have to pay more. Again, not so great a risk as to constitute legitimate grounds for outlawing marijuana.

On a side note, look into the 1938 marijuana murder trials. Some funny stuff there.

←

Dude, don't debate when you're high.

[marksound]

...The "Herberts" (ten points for naming the reference) are against it...

Star Trek® - "The Road to Eden". Oops, -5 points for conspicuous Trekkie geekery!

←

It's "The Way to Eden." Subtract 2 more points. And add 2 for being less a geek than me.

[lovekraft]

Sorry!! I must have been stoned or something!

[skibum5545]

Herbert-- any relation to Herbert Hoover, who appointed Harry Anslinger, major opponent of marijuana, supporter of the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act, propaganda artiste extraordinaire, and (oh yeah!) lying scumbag?

Curtis-- bagged rolling tobacco is legal, unfiltered cigarettes are legal, and then there's always bongs.

Any way you cut it, a pack a day is still worse than a joint a week, filters or no filters.

Pot is not illegal because it is a carcinogen. Nothing should be -illegal- because it is bad for you. The nation has a much bigger obesity problem than it does a marijuana problem, but the government has yet to outlaw Lays, pork rinds, or Twinkies.

If something poses a major societal risk, like heroin or crack cocaine, then that is grounds for keeping it illegal. Marijuana does not pose such a risk. In fact, I would dare say that potato chips and fast food pose a much higher societal risk to our nation than marijuana ever has.

You also work your way into a "slippery slope" logical fallacy-- just because you smoke won't make you play music loud or forget where you put things. Pot may make you forgetful and cause a lack of coordination, but it doesn't make you inconsiderate of others. Besides, an increased risk of noise violations hardly constitutes grounds for the illegality of a substance. Also, if you forget where you put a ticket, then it serves you right to have to pay more. Again, not so great a risk as to constitute legitimate grounds for outlawing marijuana.

On a side note, look into the 1938 marijuana murder trials. Some funny stuff there.

←

Dude, don't debate when you're high.

←

I resent that.

What about that post, exactly, gave you the idea that I was high?

Okay, maybe the Herbert Hoover theory was a touch farfetched, but it makes sense in a way.

[marksound]

I was kidding. Ease up.

See? That's the other thing. Nobody seems to be able to take a friggin' joke.

Man, am I hungry.

[El Dangerouso]

Appearently, this issue is a tough one. I'm seeing good points on both sides. I very much agree with Lovecraft when he said:

"Legislating morality has never worked"

It doesn't work. I know this for a fact, and for whatever reason, I still have a very hard time condoning legalization. Maybe it's because I don't know who to believe on what study, I don't know what I don't know, etc. Anyway, I was thinking about the long term health costs...I don't know where that puts us, but maybe there is no change. Folks just might trade one poison for another. It's funny folks bring up obescity. I was thinking about that when I hit on the long term health cost deal for drug legalization. What the hell do you do about obescity? Now that's a tough question.

Skibum, good point about pre-legalization Netherlands, but was there already a de-facto legalization before the legislation was passed? Whatever the answer, I guess I would be strongly against any socialist-style program where the government houses addicts and pays to feed their addiction, unless they fed it to overdose levels so the addicts could die very quickly, and stop costing me any tax money. Harsh, but the way I feel.

I guess the bottom line is this. We don't really know the full effects of legalization. Sure, we can know some, maybe even most, but there may be something hidden. The only way to know for sure is to take the step and legalize it. I'm just not willing to take that risk today. I guess it's the fear of change. The same reason beaten women stay with a beater. The fear of the unknown is worse than the devil they know. Maybe something will push me across the line someday. Like I said...I can agree to some things said by the other side.

[ToneMonkey]

Never tried drugs, don't know why, just didn't see it appealing

←

I'm certainly not picking a fight here, but youseem very oppinionated for someone that hasn't smoked. I thing the saying goes....

.....Drugs make people irrational, especially those people who don't take them

There has been some good points both for and againt here, so I thought I'd add my piece.

First off my background:

I smoke weed, infact I smoke every day when I get home from work and have done for about 8 years. I don't think that I've actually run out for about 5 years now. I used to smoke so much I decided that it would actually be cheaper to grow it myself (which it was). I used to harvest about 4 oz of very strong weed a month and smoked the lot of it every month and just for the record - I never sold any, I gave a bud to my mates every now and again but never sold it. I've also put a variety of pills down my throat and powders up my nose but I've never injected as that's just a dumbass idea. I now only drink beer and smoke dope.

OK then - on the driving debate. Driving stoned isn't AS bad as driving drunk, but they are both bad, don't do it. You're not in full control no matter what you think.

GATEWAY DRUG - MY ARSE. Legalise it so that you're kiddies wont have to visit a drug dealer to buy it. That's where the gateway is...the dealers front door.

Is Weed Safe? - Yes and no, it's certainly no worse than beer or smoking. Weed does contain carconogens so do yourself a favour and buy a vaporiser. Smoking weed with tobacco is bad (as you generally don't have a filter), but I do it, so who am I to preach.

Does weed make you bone idle? - kind of, I'd get a lot more done if I didn't smoke. But on the flip side, I got through a very hard degree and I was off my tit's for about 95% of it (the other 5% I slept)

Should it be legalised? - Hell yes. Look at Holland as a prime example (just look past the tourists). Pesides, it's illegal over here and it's never stopped me so sod it, doesn't really matter when you look at it like that. The problem is, should I get a crimnal record if I get caught with my monthly weed allowance? I pay my tax, I work hard, I don't mug grannies on pension day to get a fix and on top of that I'm a nice bloke that goes out of my way not to piss people off. If I got caught, I would be thrown out of my proffesional institution, probably sacked and I'd be right in it, is that fair?

Finally I thought that I would add that I smoke for two reasons. The first is because it is an excellent pain killer for my constatntly in pain knee. The other option is taking prescription pain killers that were either codine or Tramadol (Tramadol is an opiute, so just think it as legal heroine), which I don't fancy. Anyone care to argue that I should take the prescroption drugs rather than the illegal ones? The second reason that I smoke is because I like getting stoned, simple as that.

Sorry about the very long post, I've just scrolled up the scren and seen how much I've wrote. I think I'll go now

EDIT - Yeah, excuse the spelling too. Typiing in a rush.

Edited February 11, 2005 by ToneMonkey

[Maiden69]

I'm certainly not picking a fight here, but youseem very oppinionated for someone that hasn't smoked.  I thing the saying goes....

.....Drugs make people irrational, especially those people who don't take them

You don't need to do somenthing to know anything about it, you just need to educate yourself.

But, whatever,

[smitty]

Why not legalize it? How many times do you hear that such and such was killed by a driver that was stoned? You hear about people being killed by drunk drivers more then anything, or meth labs that blow up.

I used to smoke pot, hell I've tried just about everything there is to try, but I haven't touched any controlled substance in a little over 3 years now, and I haven't drank alcohol in over 6 months.

Now there are pros and cons that go along with everything. Some people think it shouldn't be legalized others think the opposite. To each his own in my opinion. But if it's going to happen it's going to happen. Right?

In my opinion if it is legalized they should at least put an age limit on it much like that of alcohol. Granted it's not going to stop underaged people from doing it, but they haven't managed to stop minors from drinking either have they?

I think it's eventually going to happen, but I also think it's going to be highly controlled, or at least it should be for that matter.

I won't go into much detail, but I say NO! Last thing you want is a freaking high asswipe at the wheel of a car running in the streets, is bad enough with the idiots that drink and drive to have more idiots driving high, and then what, are they going to "blow" to see if they are legaly intoxicated, pplleeaassee!!!

Alright, people driving stoned would be alot better then people driving drunk. Have you ever been around someone that was stoned? How about rode with someone stoned? I can honestly say that I would rather someone drive stoned then drunk. At least when you're stoned you have more control over your actions. This is just my opinion, and I'm going to stop right now, because if I don't I'll be typing all night.

←

have you actually ever heard of drug driving?

it's getting to be a big problem in the UK, so it's no joke.

and i voted no. for many reasons, including the fact that's it's not fun anymore if it's legal

[ToneMonkey]

I have educated myself. Which is why I feel in a position to comment. Please, as a non smoker and someone who put me in prison just for smoking dope, please tell me why you feel that you are educated about such matters.

I think that your first post in this thread showed your lack of education on the subject. Infact it reminded me alot of my bro when he was in the armed forces (as I know you were), he would rather have seen me shot than smoke dope.

However, he now smokes and is actually quite ashamed of his behavior towards me because I smoked.

But like I said, I'm not trying to pick a fight, your just as intitled to your view as I am mine.