Should marijuana be legal? Formerly: Why not ban tobacco?

[t3h n00b]

Spoiler

Yes, this is very different from the smokers' rights question. I'm pretty sure that everyone, smokers included, would agree that smoking is very harmful to the person that does it, and can even impact others exposed to a lot of second-hand smoke. So why allow companies to produce more tobacco? Illegal drugs are more harmful than tobacco, yes, but businesses aren't making a profit off of them and advertising in many forms of media. Maybe a date could be set, whether it's a month from when the law is instituted, or five years, where tobacco companies have to stop producing tobacco and it is only legal to buy it if you were 18 on or before that date. It's not like I think this will happen, but I believe it should. Is it unfair to tobacco companies? Yes. Is it unfair to 17-year olds at the time? Probably. But I think that it is far more important to likely prevent the predicted cause of 18% of deaths in the United States. Your thoughts?

Edit: This topic has moved to the issue of whether marijuana should be legal or not. From many standpoints, it seems to be less harmful than tobacco. My opinions on the implications of banning tobacco are above.

 

[:mad:]

It's fine how it is. If the United States government decided to outlaw tobacco, (or any other country for that matter) it would only become like current illegal substances, and be mass-produced by people trying to make a quick buck. They'll be illegally grown in abandoned houses, closets, and anywhere that people can find.

This is something that can only be limited. It's best to just leave it alone.

 

[rhan]

You realise that the U.S. had a prohibition alcohol before? It only resulted in riots and illegal distributions of the substance. Alcohol and cigarettes can be closely compared because they both have the same addictive effects towards people. If tobacco becomes banned then the same result will happen all over again. Since it would be illegal anyway to distribute to anyone, what wouldn't stop the spread of the drug being used to a younger audience?

My opinion just leave things the way they are. I know that it is bad but there are people who are highly addicted to cigarettes. They won't give up their drug of choice without a fight.

This is a very good article to read about how prohibition effected America.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1017

 

[t3h n00b]

I recently learned a lot about prohibition in history class, and I definetly agree that it was a bad thing. One major difference between alcohol and smoking is that alcohol, in moderation, is not harmful. If you smoke one cigarette a day, I'm sure it will be harmful. And I should have explained this better, but what I had in mind (not that it's realistic right now) was that there is a certain date that is the cutoff. Anyone 17 and under will never be able to legally purchase tobacco. Everyone else can, and within a century there would be no more people that can purchase tobacco legally. I know it sounds like some sort of nuclear half-life from how I explained it, just my own take on it.

 

[Fire!]

I recently learned a lot about prohibition in history class, and I definetly agree that it was a bad thing.

One of the effects of Prohibition was that speakeasies (Illegal bars) started to pop up everywhere. Since everyone wanted to drink, they were willing to risk themselves for going to jail in order to do so. People who never even drank that often started doing so because they weren’t allowed to and as a result, the consumption of alcohol doubled, almost tripled.

Pretty much, the rise of illegal drinking occurred because of the fact that people knew that they were not allowed to drink. They internationally wanted to break the law because they just wanted the freedom to know that they were able to do so and I think that the same thing would happen if tobacco was banned. I mean tobacco could be grown in your backyard and in the day in age when you can Google how to make a bomb, the police would never be able to track the uproar of tobacco trade.

I think the US government is on the right track on educating youth about the dangers of tobacco and eventually, remove tobacco over a course of 10-30 years. The banning of tobacco is going to take much longer than 5 years. It’s gonna take some time.

 

[t3h n00b]

I should have been more clear. What I meant is, hypothetically, there could be a provision that in "x" number of years, anyone under 17 would not be allowed to buy or use tobacco products. Five was just the arbitrary number I used to start the ban, and even that wouldn't phase out tobacco for a long time. Tobacco is not going to be banned completely for decades at least, I agree with that. And like I said, that was just my idea and I see that it's not that feasible to have a ban somewhat soon after whatever law affecting tobacco sales but then still allow anyone over 18 to smoke after it was pointed out. However, every day that the government waits, quite a few more people will get cancer, or a heart attack due to smoking. This doesn't mean that outlawing tobacco would mean no one would smoke cigarettes, but honestly, don't you think that more people would smoke marijuana if it was legal now?

 

[Crimson King]

Why not ban tobacco? Because the government does not have the right to tell you what you can or can't do with your own body. That is why drug laws are unethical.

 

[Vorguen]

Why not ban tobacco? Because the government does not have the right to tell you what you can or can't do with your own body. That is why drug laws are unethical.

Are you sure? Your statement was too vague, you are saying it is also legal and ethical to sell drugs to another individual? If anything, the only thing that should be legal (and I assume this is what you meant to say) was the possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal consumption. The decriminalization of marijuana is something I believe should be looked into. It is ridiculous how many tax payers dollars are wasted on putting teenagers and young adults away who were caught with marijuana, instead of finding and catching real criminals. Selling marijuana should remain illegal, but the possession of a small amount should be decriminalized.

 

[:mad:]

I can't say I can approve of someone selling you something that has the potential to kill you. Although, the same could be said for fast food.

If you want to harm yourself with drugs, I suggest you get them yourself. Buying them can lead to more problems than smoking.

 

[Crimson King]

Are you sure? Your statement was too vague, you are saying it is also legal and ethical to sell drugs to another individual? If anything, the only thing that should be legal (and I assume this is what you meant to say) was the possession of a small quantity of drugs for personal consumption. The decriminalization of marijuana is something I believe should be looked into. It is ridiculous how many tax payers dollars are wasted on putting teenagers and young adults away who were caught with marijuana, instead of finding and catching real criminals. Selling marijuana should remain illegal, but the possession of a small amount should be decriminalized.

What?

No, what I meant was the government cannot tell you what you can or cannot do with your body, ie. exactly what I said.

Legalizing marijuana would be the same as when alcohol was legalized - creating, distributing, and consumption of it is perfectly fine.

You will never stop people from selling, but if it's legal, there is less incentive to buy from a dealer on the streets when you can get it in a store, and you know it's pure.

The argument that since tobacco is bad for you it should be banned is ridiculous. I am an adult, if I want to smoke, I will smoke. If I want to eat food that will make me sick, can the government stop me? No. My body; my possession.

 

[:mad:]

What?

No, what I meant was the government cannot tell you what you can or cannot do with your body, ie. exactly what I said.

Legalizing marijuana would be the same as when alcohol was legalized - creating, distributing, and consumption of it is perfectly fine.

You will never stop people from selling, but if it's legal, there is less incentive to buy from a dealer on the streets when you can get it in a store, and you know it's pure.

The argument that since tobacco is bad for you it should be banned is ridiculous. I am an adult, if I want to smoke, I will smoke. If I want to eat food that will make me sick, can the government stop me? No. My body; my possession.

I agree with you on that. Although I must say, selling it in stores is potentially hazardous. It'll be easier for children to obtain, and they'll get addicted at an even younger age. After the problem with smoking, I'm guessing the government cut their loses, and decided to outlaw the other substances entirely.

 

[Crimson King]

I agree with you on that. Although I must say, selling it in stores is potentially hazardous. It'll be easier for children to obtain, and they'll get addicted at an even younger age. After the problem with smoking, I'm guessing the government cut their loses, and decided to outlaw the other substances entirely.

Selling what in stores? Your use of prepositions is confusing.

 

[Narukari]

I agree with you on that. Although I must say, selling it in stores is potentially hazardous. It'll be easier for children to obtain, and they'll get addicted at an even younger age. After the problem with smoking, I'm guessing the government cut their loses, and decided to outlaw the other substances entirely.

Kids can easily get their hands on any illegal substance they want. Just because it's not sold in stores doesn't mean it isn't readily available. I always prefer to take it in the other direction and make marijuana legal. It would allow the government to regulate the trade of it easier than trying to stop all marijuana from being grown or crossing the border.

 

[:mad:]

Selling what in stores? Your use of prepositions is confusing.

Yes, I apolgize. It was late when that was posted.

Selling illegal substances. Marijuana, Cocaine, and everything inbetween.

 

[fsdfsdgsgdf]

Why not ban tobacco? Because the government does not have the right to tell you what you can or can't do with your own body. That is why drug laws are unethical.

Your a mod, you can do it.

But by this logic, weed should be legal. I think weed should be legal actually if tobacco and alcohol is. Those actually damage the body. Weed is in no way bad compared to those. imo

 

[Vorguen]

What?

No, what I meant was the government cannot tell you what you can or cannot do with your body, ie. exactly what I said.

Legalizing marijuana would be the same as when alcohol was legalized - creating, distributing, and consumption of it is perfectly fine.

You will never stop people from selling, but if it's legal, there is less incentive to buy from a dealer on the streets when you can get it in a store, and you know it's pure.

The argument that since tobacco is bad for you it should be banned is ridiculous. I am an adult, if I want to smoke, I will smoke. If I want to eat food that will make me sick, can the government stop me? No. My body; my possession.

As much as I agree with what you are trying to say, I can't agree with selling harmful substances. I don't particularly imagine a drug dealer walking up to some young kids and telling them what he is selling them will basically melt their brains. That is why I am only for the decriminalization of marijuana but against the legalizing of it completely. It is rather pathetic how often we end up having to imprison a teenager or young adult who did exactly what you said, do something with his body that he wanted to.

 

[Narukari]

That is why I am only for the decriminalization of marijuana but against the legalizing of it completely.

How can you have it both ways? If it isn't legal its criminal. If you say its legal to sell marijuana but not in stores, how will that change anything from how it is today.

 

[Crimson King]

Your a mod, you can do it.

What are you trying to say? Also, use correct grammar for the DH. We are sticklers for that.

How can you have it both ways? If it isn't legal its criminal. If you say its legal to sell marijuana but not in stores, how will that change anything from how it is today.

Exactly. It's all or nothing. If you decriminalize possession and use, but make sales illegal, you are going to create a boom in the black market where people will unload drugs as quickly as possible. The only way to get rid of drug arrests and drug problems are to completely illegalize it. No matter what, kids will get it if they want it. Look at alcohol. In my state, I can walk into a bar at 18 (the only state that can do that), and usually, they don't even card here. When I turned 21, I bought a bottle of Vodka and wasn't carded. When I have been carded, it's a quick glance. If I needed or wnated to, I could make a nice fake ID and get alcohol and cigarettes at will. The point is, if people want it, they will get it. Illegalizing it just makes them criminals for using and buying it.

 

[FastFox]

Why not ban tobacco? Because the government does not have the right to tell you what you can or can't do with your own body. That is why drug laws are unethical.

^ This. Not to mention, the tobacco industry is, obviously, an industry, a business, annnnnd... A taxpayer. Compared to the every day person (smoker or non-smoker), businesses pay much, much more money in taxes per year. And, where do taxes go? To the Government. Banning tobacco products may be healthier for smokers/potential smokers, but then when we go back to what CK has said, the government can't control what we put in our bodies, and when the government can't control something but is making money off of it anyway, what do you think they're going to do?

Your a mod, you can do it.

But by this logic, weed should be legal. I think weed should be legal actually if tobacco and alcohol is. Those actually damage the body. Weed is in no way bad compared to those. imo

So many people throw this out, which I think is complete BS. Yeah, weed MAY be less harmful for you in some areas, however smoking a cigarette will never impare you to the extent of nullifying your motor skills. Now you might be saying, "OH WELL ALCOHOL IS LEGAL AND IT KILLS MORE PEOPLE A YEAR THAN MARIJUANA BECAUSE IT ALSO IMPARES MOTOR SKILLS", which is true, however, where is the logic in legalizing another substance (which is viewed as a narcotic) that has the potential to cause the same if not more number of deaths per year than alcohol? There is none.

 

[fsdfsdgsgdf]

you're*

>_>

 

[ArcPoint]

If people made a weed industry, wouldn't that also make the industry a taxpayer?

CK has a point, it's your own body. You can't put a ban on fast food due to the obesity problem... It's bad for you, but it's your choice.

 

[Vorguen]

There is a different point I am trying to make, it is the ridiculous amount of young people being arrested for having marijuana and the insane amount of taxpayers dollars wasted in to this.

 

[ArcPoint]

There is a different point I am trying to make, it is the ridiculous amount of young people being arrested for having marijuana and the insane amount of taxpayers dollars wasted in to this.

Two things: Sources, please?

And taxpayer dollars get wasted one way or another by government, welcome to life. You could also argue that they're getting "wasted" for the prevention of drug addiction.

 

[t3h n00b]

^ This. Not to mention, the tobacco industry is, obviously, an industry, a business, annnnnd... A taxpayer. Compared to the every day person (smoker or non-smoker), businesses pay much, much more money in taxes per year. And, where do taxes go? To the Government. Banning tobacco products may be healthier for smokers/potential smokers, but then when we go back to what CK has said, the government can't control what we put in our bodies, and when the government can't control something but is making money off of it anyway, what do you think they're going to do?

I have no idea whether this would balance out or result in a net gain/loss of money for the government, but from a financial perspective, less people using tobacco would result in less heart attacks, lung problems, and occurrences of cancer, right? Meaning less money paid for health care.

 

[Narukari]

So many people throw this out, which I think is complete BS. Yeah, weed MAY be less harmful for you in some areas, however smoking a cigarette will never impare you to the extent of nullifying your motor skills. Now you might be saying, "OH WELL ALCOHOL IS LEGAL AND IT KILLS MORE PEOPLE A YEAR THAN MARIJUANA BECAUSE IT ALSO IMPARES MOTOR SKILLS", which is true, however, where is the logic in legalizing another substance (which is viewed as a narcotic) that has the potential to cause the same if not more number of deaths per year than alcohol? There is none.

You're right, weed is not good for you. I would never tell anyone to go smoke some. The matter is whether it should be legal or not. My roommate was a guy who went and smoked weed with a group, and they try to be as responsible as possible about it. They know they can't drive a car so they don't go anywhere where that would be a problem while their high. As far as I know they go to one of their houses, get high, stay overnight, and he comes back in the morning after I locked all my food up.

The problem isn't the smoking of the marijuana, it's the actions people take when they are high. Instead of punishing people for the act that didn't do any harm, why not bust them harder if they do stupid things while high. Similar to a DUI infraction.

There is a different point I am trying to make, it is the ridiculous amount of young people being arrested for having marijuana and the insane amount of taxpayers dollars wasted in to this.

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/

Just looking at the executive summary you can see how much money is going into this "War on drugs".

For those who just want an overview.

$1.5bil: Stopping it before it starts.
$3.4bil: Healing America's users.(Rehabilitation)
$9.2bil: Disrupting the market.(Busting the "badguys")

Most of the tax money is not going towards rehabilitative efforts for people who are addicted.

 

[t3h n00b]

http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/

Just looking at the executive summary you can see how much money is going into this "War on drugs".

For those who just want an overview.

$1.5bil: Stopping it before it starts.
$3.4bil: Healing America's users.(Rehabilitation)
$9.2bil: Disrupting the market.(Busting the "badguys")

Most of the tax money is not going towards rehabilitative efforts for people who are addicted.

I'm pretty sure he meant the police that arrest people caught with marijuana, legal fees, and that sort of stuff. I don't know how much that would cost though compared to all the other aspects.

 

[Crimson King]

Y

$1.5bil: Stopping it before it starts.
$3.4bil: Healing America's users.(Rehabilitation)
$9.2bil: Disrupting the market.(Busting the "badguys")

If those facts are right, you can probably cut the first down to about $500 million and cut the last completely leaving you with $10.2 billion. Personally, I would take that, bump the rehab program to abut $5 billion+ and cut the rest from the budget. While I think some education for kids is necessary, most of it is a waste. I learned nothing in our anti-drug programs that wasn't disproven when I first went on the internet. Busting people is a waste of time, money, and resources. Drugs, like weapons, are in an unending supply; the most you can do is minorly displace some of the market. Finally, while I am all for a person right to do whatever they want with their body, if they need help, they should have a program where they can get it.

So, in my idyllic government policy on drugs, I took a budget of $14.1 billion and reduced it to $5.5 billion. With my policy, you aren't incriminating people who want their fix for the month or whatever. Some people I know who smoke weed, just do it to relax.

For tobacco, yes it kills you, but as stated, fast food can too, and fast food is worse because you start as a kid on the stuff. There comes a point in our lives when we have to say "I am taking responsibility for what goes into my body." If we can't do that, then we deserve to die.

 

[ArcPoint]

What about cases like Meth? Where the narcotic in question is HIGHLY addictive? But yeah, I agree. If we don't have enough responsibility to monitor what we put in our own body, we deserve to reap the consequences.

 

[Vorguen]

You're right, weed is not good for you. I would never tell anyone to go smoke some. The matter is whether it should be legal or not. My roommate was a guy who went and smoked weed with a group, and they try to be as responsible as possible about it. They know they can't drive a car so they don't go anywhere where that would be a problem while their high. As far as I know they go to one of their houses, get high, stay overnight, and he comes back in the morning after I locked all my food up.

The problem isn't the smoking of the marijuana, it's the actions people take when they are high. Instead of punishing people for the act that didn't do any harm, why not bust them harder if they do stupid things while high. Similar to a DUI infraction.



http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/policy/09budget/

Just looking at the executive summary you can see how much money is going into this "War on drugs".

For those who just want an overview.

$1.5bil: Stopping it before it starts.
$3.4bil: Healing America's users.(Rehabilitation)
$9.2bil: Disrupting the market.(Busting the "badguys")

Most of the tax money is not going towards rehabilitative efforts for people who are addicted.

I said there was a large amount of tax payers dollars being wasted on that. I see many billions right there. Call me crazy, but billions are a lot of money.

If we can't do that, then we deserve to die.

Those are some crude (and scary) beliefs. However, wouldn't you say it could be quite the opposite? We all deserve to live, even if we screw up our lives beyond the point of any hope. I would like to hope there is optimism left in the world. So now you also say all budget spending should be cut from trying to stop the criminals selling drugs. Then, what is the point of the government (and institutions like the police departments) that are made to protect the citizens? You know how much crime there is related to drugs and their sale, I can assume that much. If you don't want the government to protect it's citizens you might as well have anarchy, since that is the biggest role the government does for us that a cluster of people could not do on their own.

 

[ArcPoint]

The point he was trying to make: If he died because of Tobacco, it was his own fault.

But that reminds me of a point I was going to bring up: What if doing something to yourself puts others at risk? For example. covering yourself in C4 and lighting a match is merely something you're doing to your own body (And you're going to pay for it LOL) but it might put others at risk as well. Same concept with some drugs, you getting addicted can cause some irrational thoughts (Killing someone for money to buy drugs/drugs). Could you write it off as an addiction to the drug, or just say that there was rational thought behind and it have no correlation to the drug. And by drug I mean a strong Narcotic (Example: Methamphetamine, Heroine, Crack...)

I'm gonna restate that just to be sure I'm clear: When you blow yourself up with C4, there's a clear link between cause and effect (Cause: C4 + Match, effect: People die) but is this link also true with drugs? ( Cause: drugs, effect: people getting stolen from/killed over it).

But that's completely off topic and not relating to Tobacco. I don't think Tobacco is as strong, nor the urges quite so...violent. I hardly think you're putting other people at risk by smoking Tobacco (Other than second-hand smoke... but that has little effect).

 

[GwJ]

It's fine how it is. If the United States government decided to outlaw tobacco, (or any other country for that matter) it would only become like current illegal substances, and be mass-produced by people trying to make a quick buck. They'll be illegally grown in abandoned houses, closets, and anywhere that people can find.

This is something that can only be limited. It's best to just leave it alone.

I agree with the above post.

However, it's all a business. Government need money? Let's put more taxes on tobacco. Tobacco is a large source of the government's profit which keeps us tax-payers from having to pay more.

 

[FastFox]

I agree with the above post.

However, it's all a business. Government need money? Let's put more taxes on tobacco. Tobacco is a large source of the government's profit which keeps us tax-payers from having to pay more.

I can agree with this. In the US, packages of cigarettes are like, $4.00. Here in Canada we pay up to $13.00/pack! Our cheapest cigarettes are around $6.00. The cost of cigarettes here have gone up so much in the last 5 years that a lot of people I know have either quit, or simply cut down because now, in Canada, smoking is a very expensive habbit.

As far as the legalization of marijuana goes, think of it this way. For every one person that supports its legalization there's going to be roughly 4 against it, which leaves the odds of legalization slim-to-none.

 

[Crimson King]

You missed my point completely. The government isn't making me smoke, in fact, no one is. I chose to take a cigarette, a hamburger, whatever, and consume it on my own. The government isn't our parents, and they aren't there to slap us and say "that's bad for you."

Those are some crude (and scary) beliefs. However, wouldn't you say it could be quite the opposite? We all deserve to live, even if we screw up our lives beyond the point of any hope. I would like to hope there is optimism left in the world.

I never said we didn't deserve to live under any circumstance. I said if we kill ourselves over our choices, then we deserve to die from that. It's like driving a car, ever decision you are responsible for. If I speed or drive drunk, then I am responsible for what happens if there is a wreck.

So now you also say all budget spending should be cut from trying to stop the criminals selling drugs. Then, what is the point of the government (and institutions like the police departments) that are made to protect the citizens?

You have a skewed sense of how the police system works. The police are not here to stop crimes. They are here to solve crimes, or do detective work. Most of the time, when police make an arrest it's either because they have witnessed something or come in time, or because the person will fit a description for the someone they need to arrest.

The budget I slashed stops wasting money. Instead of spending nearly $10 billion on stopping "criminals," which is doing nothing anyway, I propose we help the people that want help. Also, once you legalize a few drugs, you will end the career of a drug dealer. Why would I go to the corner in a dangerous street to get weed, when I could go to the store and get some? Price, maybe, but after a while even the price wouldn't be worth the risk. Also, the more drug dealers you arrest, the higher crime is. A study was done one this. The reasoning? When you arrest 4 out of 10 drug dealers in town, you eliminate competition. The remaining drug dealers no longer need to keep their prices low to meet the demand. If you arrest 9 out of 10, then you may have drugs going for really high prices. For addictive drugs, this means people will steal for money to get their fix, which raises crime.

You know how much crime there is related to drugs and their sale, I can assume that much. If you don't want the government to protect it's citizens you might as well have anarchy, since that is the biggest role the government does for us that a cluster of people could not do on their own.

That is what you are missing. How does arresting people for carrying pot equate to safer streets? It doesn't. Drug dealers will always exist. The streets aren't safe now when drugs are illegal. You need to get over the notion that if something is illegal, nobody legitimate will do it. The fact is the government's sole role is to protect us from outside forces, such as war and violence among citizens. If I am buying drugs and using them only at home, that affects no one but me. Why does the government have the right to stop that.

Also, it comes down to why does the government even have the right to try to save you? If you are drinking and it evolves into binge drinking, that is just as bad for you as smoking a lot of cigarettes, eating a ton of food, speeding, not sleeping and driving, watching too much TV, etc. All these bad habits can evolve into dangerous habits in excess. The point is the government has no right to stop you since you own your own life.

 

[Narukari]

The point he was trying to make: If he died because of Tobacco, it was his own fault.

But that reminds me of a point I was going to bring up: What if doing something to yourself puts others at risk? For example. covering yourself in C4 and lighting a match is merely something you're doing to your own body (And you're going to pay for it LOL) but it might put others at risk as well. Same concept with some drugs, you getting addicted can cause some irrational thoughts (Killing someone for money to buy drugs/drugs). Could you write it off as an addiction to the drug, or just say that there was rational thought behind and it have no correlation to the drug. And by drug I mean a strong Narcotic (Example: Methamphetamine, Heroine, Crack...)

I'm gonna restate that just to be sure I'm clear: When you blow yourself up with C4, there's a clear link between cause and effect (Cause: C4 + Match, effect: People die) but is this link also true with drugs? ( Cause: drugs, effect: people getting stolen from/killed over it).

But that's completely off topic and not relating to Tobacco. I don't think Tobacco is as strong, nor the urges quite so...violent. I hardly think you're putting other people at risk by smoking Tobacco (Other than second-hand smoke... but that has little effect).

This is a horrible comparison to smoking/drinking/getting high. Blowing people up is illegal, that's something you are doing to other people. Where you put the bomb doesn't matter.

Just because the action may be legal doesn't mean the repercussions of the action are also legal. If you get high in your own home and don't go anywhere or do anything illegal, then why should the smoking of it be illegal. Marijuana should be as legal as alcohol. Getting high would not be illegal, but if you perform any illegal actions while high, you will be punished, usually more severely than if you were sober.

So now you also say all budget spending should be cut from trying to stop the criminals selling drugs. Then, what is the point of the government (and institutions like the police departments) that are made to protect the citizens?

The government has many responsibilities other than criminal prosecution.

You also seem to figure that immoral actions should be against the law. Just because it is bad for your body to smoke or do drugs, doesn't give the government the right to tell you not to do it.

 

[Vorguen]

You missed my point completely. The government isn't making me smoke, in fact, no one is. I chose to take a cigarette, a hamburger, whatever, and consume it on my own. The government isn't our parents, and they aren't there to slap us and say "that's bad for you."

If you read what I wrote above, I had agreed with this from the beggining (hence my thoughts on the decriminalization of marijuana). If you want to make poor choices that affect your health then by all means go ahead and do them, as long as you don't affect the health of those around you.

I never said we didn't deserve to live under any circumstance. I said if we kill ourselves over our choices, then we deserve to die from that. It's like driving a car, ever decision you are responsible for. If I speed or drive drunk, then I am responsible for what happens if there is a wreck.

My more humanitarian views kick in on this one. Yes, if you kill yourself you are responsible for your death, but you still did deserve to live. In fact, if you were bloodied and wounded for 30 minutes before you died and someone could have saved you, then you deserved that right to life. But other than that, you are responsible for the consequences of all your actions and you should be conscious of what your decisions can cause before you make them.

You have a skewed sense of how the police system works. The police are not here to stop crimes. They are here to solve crimes, or do detective work. Most of the time, when police make an arrest it's either because they have witnessed something or come in time, or because the person will fit a description for the someone they need to arrest.

Obviously, the police does not stop people before they commit crimes. However, there are many criminals who commit crimes constantly, below you state how taking out some criminals can increase crime to a certain extent. So do you suggest to let criminals run rampant? How would the citizens feel safe if their government did nothing to stop criminals? Why would any criminals have any reason to exercise restraint if anything they did would be brushed off and ignored?

The budget I slashed stops wasting money. Instead of spending nearly $10 billion on stopping "criminals," which is doing nothing anyway, I propose we help the people that want help. Also, once you legalize a few drugs, you will end the career of a drug dealer. Why would I go to the corner in a dangerous street to get weed, when I could go to the store and get some? Price, maybe, but after a while even the price wouldn't be worth the risk. Also, the more drug dealers you arrest, the higher crime is. A study was done one this. The reasoning? When you arrest 4 out of 10 drug dealers in town, you eliminate competition. The remaining drug dealers no longer need to keep their prices low to meet the demand. If you arrest 9 out of 10, then you may have drugs going for really high prices. For addictive drugs, this means people will steal for money to get their fix, which raises crime.

Like I stated above, these criminals need to be stopped regardless. Even if it can have other negative effects, criminals need to know that if they choose an unlawful life, they need to face the consequences. I would much rather live in a country with the adverse effects of less criminals with more control over competition than many criminals running lose and uninhibited.

That is what you are missing. How does arresting people for carrying pot equate to safer streets? It doesn't. Drug dealers will always exist. The streets aren't safe now when drugs are illegal. You need to get over the notion that if something is illegal, nobody legitimate will do it. The fact is the government's sole role is to protect us from outside forces, such as war and violence among citizens. If I am buying drugs and using them only at home, that affects no one but me. Why does the government have the right to stop that.

Also, it comes down to why does the government even have the right to try to save you? If you are drinking and it evolves into binge drinking, that is just as bad for you as smoking a lot of cigarettes, eating a ton of food, speeding, not sleeping and driving, watching too much TV, etc. All these bad habits can evolve into dangerous habits in excess. The point is the government has no right to stop you since you own your own life.

[/quote]

I did say I was against arresting people for carrying drugs, hence the "decriminalization" which revolves around the sheer ridiculousness of arresting people who are doing nothing but harming themselves. The government has more roles than stopping violence amongst citizens. They exercise control amongst the citizens as well. Why are there laws on fraud and minimum wage? They don't stop violence, they stop unfairness. Again, you keep forgetting I agree with the fact that the government shouldn't be stopping you from ingesting whatever you see fit.

The government also doesn't have the right or necessity to save you (unlike it likes to believe). However, it does not mean that they can't have the available help if you yourself choose to seek it. Even though it is a technicality, you are wrong when it comes to speeding. That endangers other lives around you, and that is when the government can step in. As long as you endanger nobody but yourself, then I am in agreement with most of your arguments. The government is an establishment designed to protect the citizens from more than just violence, but from accidents, unjust actions, theft, etc.

 

[Narukari]

Obviously, the police does not stop people before they commit crimes. However, there are many criminals who commit crimes constantly, below you state how taking out some criminals can increase crime to a certain extent. So do you suggest to let criminals run rampant? How would the citizens feel safe if their government did nothing to stop criminals? Why would any criminals have any reason to exercise restraint if anything they did would be brushed off and ignored?

Like I stated above, these criminals need to be stopped regardless. Even if it can have other negative effects, criminals need to know that if they choose an unlawful life, they need to face the consequences. I would much rather live in a country with the adverse effects of less criminals with more control over competition than many criminals running lose and uninhibited.

You still are using the assumption that all criminals are endangering other people. It doesn't sound like CK is looking for abolishing the prosecution of people who break the law. It is just ridiculous if you think that all criminals are doing wrong.


For example: Our local bowling alley had a 20 year old wooden sign that was rotten and needed to be replaced. To change a commercial structure you need to:

1. Apply for a permit.
2. Go to an open hearing to debate the reason for changing the structure/let the public approve or disapprove of the new sign.
3. Have an inspector approve the safety of the structure.

The cost of going through all the paperwork and setting an appointment with an inspector would have cost easily over $1000.

In the end they changed the sign without the permit and was fined $200 for it.

You are right in saying criminals should be prosecuted, but many laws are outdated and screwed up to the point where it's neigh impossible to go through life without breaking the law. Should everybody be prosecuted, or should we rethink laws that very few people actually care about. Laws are supposed to protect us, not incriminate all of us.

I did say I was against arresting people for carrying drugs, hence the "decriminalization" which revolves around the sheer ridiculousness of arresting people who are doing nothing but harming themselves. The government has more roles than stopping violence amongst citizens. They exercise control amongst the citizens as well. Why are there laws on fraud and minimum wage? They don't stop violence, they stop unfairness. Again, you keep forgetting I agree with the fact that the government shouldn't be stopping you from ingesting whatever you see fit.

There is a whole separate law book for keeping things fair among citizens. It's called tort law. You only get in trouble for breaking tort law if someone sues you, and even if they do they will only be awarded a reasonable amount of money as if the tort never occurred, plus punitive damages if the tort was intentional.

With criminal law, it doesn't matter if nobody cares if you are breaking it. You will be prosecuted if you are caught. Just because people disagree with one law, doesn't mean they think the entire justice system should be abolished.

The government also doesn't have the right or necessity to save you (unlike it likes to believe). However, it does not mean that they can't have the available help if you yourself choose to seek it. Even though it is a technicality, you are wrong when it comes to speeding. That endangers other lives around you, and that is when the government can step in. As long as you endanger nobody but yourself, then I am in agreement with most of your arguments. The government is an establishment designed to protect the citizens from more than just violence, but from accidents, unjust actions, theft, etc.

There is a ton of help out there for people who want it, and about three times as much money is spent on prosecuting criminals than helping people who are addicted get over it.

You keep saying that you don't mind if someone doesn't endanger anyone but themselves, but you also keep stating that if we don't enforce all laws, that we will fall into anarchy. Some laws are wrong, they usually don't get changed unless there is a problem with them being broken.

 

[FastFox]

Just because the action may be legal doesn't mean the repercussions of the action are also legal. If you get high in your own home and don't go anywhere or do anything illegal, then why should the smoking of it be illegal. Marijuana should be as legal as alcohol. Getting high would not be illegal, but if you perform any illegal actions while high, you will be punished, usually more severely than if you were sober.

So, let me ask you, how many people do you think are going to get blazed, and then stay at home the entire time? Probably not very many. I'm sorry, but your arguments are all completely backed by the whole, "OH WELL ALCOHOL IS LEGAL WHY CAN'T WEED BE", which, to be frank, isn't a legitimate argument at all.

 

[Narukari]

So, let me ask you, how many people do you think are going to get blazed, and then stay at home the entire time? Probably not very many. I'm sorry, but your arguments are all completely backed by the whole, "OH WELL ALCOHOL IS LEGAL WHY CAN'T WEED BE", which, to be frank, isn't a legitimate argument at all.

I'm not saying marijuana should be legal because alcohol is legal. I'm saying the law for punishing misbehavior while intoxicated should be similar, where you would be punished more severely if you do something illegal while high.

Where have I ever said that marijuana should be legal because alcohol is legal?

 

[:mad:]

I imagine there'll be plenty of conflict when students get caught with drugs during school, it'll be beyond easy to obtain. If they did legalize marijuana, they'd have to put an age limit on it anyway. If not, someone will sue.

 

[Narukari]

I imagine there'll be plenty of conflict when students get caught with drugs during school, it'll be beyond easy to obtain. If they did legalize marijuana, they'd have to put an age limit on it anyway. If not, someone will sue.

It is easy to get marijuana as it is. There will be no more of a problem with drugs in school than the problems we have right now with other substances. It isn't like kids take alcohol to school because its legal when they're 21. We always had much more of a marijuana problem in our schools than an alcohol problem because marijuana is much easier to hide. Legality doesn't have anything to do with it.

Of course there would be an age limit.

Someone will sue? If there wasn't an age limit then people could NOT sue. The reason people can sue is because a store is responsible if they sell substances to anyone underage.