Why Marijuana Should Not Be Decriminalized Right Now

On the whole 'gateway' drug thing. Keeping pot illegal actually furthers drug use. How so? Well, say you want a bag of weed. Where do you go to get it? To a dealer's house. What else might said dealer have? Ummm, maybe some coke or crack, a little meth or how about some acid? Okay, I've got a few extra bucks, why not?

This scene would not happen if pot was legal. You want some weed, you go to the store, get some and that's it. Not saying that someone might not also stop off at a dealer's place to get something else, but it would be a separate effort to do so. Most people wouldn't bother. They've got their buzz the easy way. Just like if alcohol was illegal. No telling what you might run across going out to get some. Ole Cooter may have a little sumpin else for ya' or he may have made a batch of 'shine that will kill you.

Also, people die from drug deals gone bad. Make weed legal and protect the people from the criminal element. That would be the 'right' I would be most concerned about.

 

It's a load of crap alright... a clear failure of government to referee capitalism and protect the consumer. This was set up methodically for several years by changing the system. Once upon a time those who loaned money were responsible to their depositors and they PERSONALLY had "skin in the game" and were responsible to collect those loans. Once they got the system changed so that they were not responsible for their decisions they didn't even bother to check to see if people could repay those loans. They simply wrote them up, collected THEIR commission and dumped the consequences on the taxpayers. There is no way any country can survive when access to governmental laws and decisions are sold to campaign contributors. Countries that operate this way, through bribes and kickbacks are on the bottom of the economic power list.. like Cuba, North Korea, Bolivia, Yemen, Afghanistan... even though those same countries rank high on the list of countries with rich natural resources.

 

There is no valid argument for keeping cannabis criminalized. (neither social, economical or constitutional)

But there are valid reasons based on the Free Market for decriminalizing. Imagine adding jobs to every State.

 

Greetings Woogs. I think the problem would be worse if pot was decriminalized. When something is legal, it becomes more probable that people will try it. Some like to point out that during the prohibition era people still drank, and to that I respond that most people didn't. Though Prohibition was a disaster, it did reduce drinking and drinking increased again when it was reversed.

I would like you to have the opportunity to run that experiment in your state which is why I propose rescinding all federal laws regulating marijuana and allowing states to decide for themselves. When your state's GDP drops dramatically and my state doesn't, I'll draw my own conclusions.

Marijuana isn't a safe drug any more than cigarettes. It just kills you more slowly and puts you at a heightened risk for various cancers. But like I said, I'd like to give states the opportunity to find all this out for themselves.

 

Here is a great reason...

Potheads drink FAR LESS alcohol and don't kill people on the highways or run up the health cost related to heart and liver failure from drinking. Potheads just suffer brain damage ...which there is no treatment or cure for... except more medical marijuana.

 

And all this points to the federal reserve. Ron Paul isn't the kook people make him out to be. He's just 2 steps ahead of the crowd which makes him seem like a kook. Because the federal reserve controls the pursestrings of this nation, there was no way a bailout wouldn't have happened. Ultimately all politicians serve the fed.

 

Don't bogart that pill bottle!

 

The Federal Reserve is the greatest threat to the security and prosperity of this country there is. The quickest and most severe and most effectively way to destroy any nation is to counterfeit it's currency. That is exactly what the fed has done by buying up 5 TRILLION dollars in loans to the government simply by printing money... when China and Japan stopped buying our debt. That will lead to hyperinflation and do more harm to the citizens than a thousand Ben Laden's.

If you doubt this... find out what happened to the confederate dollar after it was counterfeited, google Sam Upham and read up. The US has used this tatic to destroy foreign enemies in the past.

 

.................

 

We don't yet have the statistics for how many deaths will be attributed to marijuana when society is able to have unrestricted access to it. Alcohol simply retards motor controls, marijuana queers them. I suspect the facts will bear out that marijuana, per capita, is more dangerous when people get behind the wheel under its influence.

Just don't bring your weed into Idaho. I can virtually guarantee you that we will ban it.

 

Yes, we do, as access was unrestricted before it was prohibited.

That is a blatant fabrication. Alcohol is a depressant, meaning a drunk driver's attention wanders and he is likely to pass out. Marijuana has only modest effects on driving ability in the amounts typically used by recreational users.

It has already been determined that alcohol is far more dangerous.

 

Maybe because it would be patented/licensed, and cost 50 times as much:

"Oral colchicine has been used for many years as an unapproved drug with no FDA-approved prescribing information, dosage recommendations, or drug interaction warnings.[2] On July 29, 2009 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved colchicine as a monotherapy for the treatment of familial Mediterranean fever and acute gout flares,[2] and gave 7-year marketing exclusivity[3] to URL Pharma, in exchange for URL Pharma doing 2 new studies. URL Pharma raised the price from $0.09 per pill to $4.85, and sued to remove other versions from market.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colchicine

 

Better parallels would be with alcohol and tobacco, both of which prove you wrong.

OTC, you are objectively wrong, and you don't care how often or how conclusively that is proved to you.

 

What concerns me about legalization is that from what I understand, pot has about a 10% addiction rate. That's not something to play with, even if it's lower than Tobacco. The other thing to think about is that usage would increase and at the same time, you'd have people start using pot at younger ages. Alcohol is much the same -- it can be addictive, and kids honestly have very little problems getting a sample from their own home, and since teens have access to money and a car, they could easily buy their own. Addiction is far more likely in teens then adults because their brains are still developing. I don't know for sure what the effect of pot on ten year olds would be, but I see no value in finding out.

 

Marijuana is not physically addictive so the 10% statistic is bogus. Of course you could be talking about people with a psychological addiction, but anything can be psychologically addictive. If you handled marijuana the same way as alcohol and tobacco, it would actually be harder for kids to get since they would have to go through a regulated establishment that checks ID. You can ask almost any teenager today and they can tell you it is easier to purchase illegal drugs than alcohol/tobacco.

 

The point the OP is making is that once something is legal, other people are required to accomodate it even if they don't want to.

I am a landlord, and if I want to put in a clause in a lease that allows me to evict a tenant for use of marijuana, I can do that. But if it's legal, I would lose that right.

And I don't want my tenants using marijuana and really why should I be forced to allow it.

The same goes if I'm an employer. I don't want people who smoke marijuana to work for me. If marijuana was legal, I would lose the right to fire people who show up to work under the influence.

I also don't want people who are stoned driving automobiles because they may kill me. If marijuana was legal, there would be more stoned drivers and I'm more likely to be killed.

 

Why? Don't hotels and motels have no smoking rooms? Aren't all state and federal buildings non smoking?

I don't know the answer but it seems if they can have this policy, you should be afforded the same rights?

Humm.... less drunk drivers... who can drive better ... the stoners or the drunkards?

 

At a time when fewer people were driving and the technology for detecting drugs and attributing drug use to accidents was primitive. I don't believe I actually have to explain this to a grown person.

Sounds to me like you're working diligently to prove my point by pushing for the "right" to drive stoned by pushing all the misinformation about how harmless marijuana is.

Really? How? When? Now I'm sure you want the "right" to drive stoned.

Not in my state.

 

Wow... it must've took you quite a bit to excuse what must have been an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance to come to a paradoxical conclusion such as the one that you just subjected us to.

Basic summary:
"As a libertarian, I support the decriminalization of marijuana except I don't really support the decriminalization of marijuana."

Your post is just a soliloquy that you are using to extinguish your obviously deep-seated hypocrisy.

 

That's a good point. Right now there has been a huge effort to educate families on the effects of alcohol on developing brains. Teens that drink often get in at home or at a friend's home which has prompted a public awareness campaign urging parents to lock up their alcohol. While the pot crowd would like everyone to believe that if pot were legalized, there would be neat, unbreachable lines between adults and children when it comes to smoking pot, but the reality is that if pot were legal and far more available, children would get ahold of it much more.

This is why I'm eager to repeal federal marijuana laws so that each state can decide this issue for themselves. We can compare usage among minors between the pothead states and those states that see the wisdom in keeping it illegal.

 

That's because you understand neither the Constitution nor Libertarians. The Constitution limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers and every other issue belongs to the state to decide. Federal drug laws are constitutionally repugnant. But once that decision has been returned to the states where it belongs, my opinion is no less "libertarian" than those who want to decriminalize marijuana in their state. Both positions are perfectly valid from a Constitutional standpoint. And among Libertarians, the Constitution trumps all.

 

That must be a local thing because I have been a landlord, and have had no trouble with my no smoking rule.

That's doubtful. Are employers allowed to fire people who show up drunk? I think they are.

Alcohol is far more dangerous to road safety than marijuana, and if people had good, cheap, legal weed, they might be less likely to drink.

 

The fact is, no one noticed any such relationship, which was OBVIOUS in the case of alcohol, so it can't have been significant. I don't believe I actually have to explain this to a grown person.

Compared to alcohol, marijuana is harmless. But I don't think people should be allowed to drive when they are impaired by ANY drug.

By competent and objective scientists, and often decades ago:

http://www.druglibrary.org/Schaffer/Misc/s16p6.htm

http://www.saferchoice.org/content/view/24/53/

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=5450

Wrong again. I'm the one who doesn't use any drugs at all, remember?

 

I'm no fan of religion.. a crutch for the weak in my eyes.... but you being a christian and all... didnt god make everything on earth in like 7 days or some hogwash like that? If so, then cannibis was his creation was it not? If its a creation of god how can it be inherently destructive and evil?

Your judgemental hypocrite. One of the first things your religion tells you is not to judge others or you too shall be judged.

I dont smoke weed or drink because I do not like to feel less aware of my surroundings at any given point in time. I do not begrudge others the choice of drinking or smoking what ever they want as long as they dont do it on my property or endager anybody else when they do it.

I do not subscribe to your religion.. but I am closer to being a good christian than your hypocritical self will ever be ( unless you change your sinful ways of course)

 

God also made the sun... but that doesn't mean we are supposed to stare into it till we are blind. Use some common sense.

You weren't talking to me but I thought I would let you know that you aren't coming across as being very humble.

...anyway, by your statement to compare your self evaluated level of spiritually to someone else is a pretty obvious indication that you believe God grades on a curve. Maybe God has a "quota" He has to fill in heaven ...but my guess is that there won't be any "rejects" accepted just to fill empty seats.