Why Marijuana Should Not Be Decriminalized Right Now

branch paulinian lol

 

For the last (*)(*)(*)(*)ing time. I NEVER ONCE said that it was ok for ANYONE to murder ANYONE over making a movie. I said that people who wish to incite violence deserve to have the violence they incited visited back on them, and no once else should be harmed. I don't care who is commiting the violence, and I don't who incited it. It's a simple truth. Now, since your post has nothing to do with what was being discussed, you have been reported for posting off topic.

 

As I pointed out before- I didn't imply any such thing.

But lets deal with this issue.

Here is my position: Legalizing marijuana will produce a net gain for society- taking into account both negative and positive consequences.

From both science and from personal knowledge I know that marijuana is not physically addictive- unlike cigarettes(very addictive) or alcohol(less addictive but still addicts millions each year). So legalizing marijuana will not result in increased addictions.

However, marijuana usage would likely go up- in adults. This would be offset to an unknown degree by reduction in the use of alcohol.

Our gain in society would be from the reduction in costs spent on the criminal and justice system for marijuana interdiction and enforcement, increased taxes from the legally reported profits, a reduction in dollars flowing to criminals for black market marijuana trade, and a reduction in violence as this drug is removed from the black market.

As someone who lives in Northern California, I here enough stories about our State and National forests being turned into grow sites, with booby traps and armed guards- it can be dangerous out there because of these illegal grow sites.

These all go away once it is legal- there will no longer be a profit margin for illegal grows.

Yes there will be individuals whose lives will be harmed- there will be some who get high and drive, some who do stupid things while stoned. But more lives will be saved, and it wil be a net gain to our society.

And it will be one less thing that government tells consenting adults that they can't do.

Who says that? Really what a stupid claim to make-'they all believe'- either I am not part of the Pothead left or you are proven wrong by me.

And what addiction? We are talking marijuana- which is not physically addictive- it is addictive only in the way that sex or gambling can be considered 'addictive'.

What I say is that Prohibition hurts more people than it helps. It hurts our society more than it helps. And for every individual hurt by marijuana being legalized, there are more that are hurt right now by marijuana being illegal.

Reality? Reality is that Prohibition(Marijuana style) is as big of a failure as Prohibition on alcohol was.

We tried Prohibition before- we have the historical records to show what happens during Prohibition:
a) Increase in organized crime
b) Increase in gang activity and violence
c) Drug users tend to be drawn to using the drug because of its illicite and 'cool' image.
d) Drug users tend to over indulge since supplies are limited.
e) Drug users tend to seek stronger versions to get 'high' faster(high being a term used for drinkers before it was used for smokers)
f) Drug users end up getting poisoned by suppliers who are not regulated.

These are all happening with Marijuana Prohibition.

Frankly only someone completely ignorant of the Prohibition or so blinded by preconceived notions can look at our current prohibition on Marijuana and not realize how totally STUPID and counter productive it is.

Seriously- if you wanted to plan on a system designed to enrich criminals and cause violence, you would be hard pressed to develope a better system than we have now.

This is why I get so annoyed by this subject. The war on Marijuana is completely irrational and totally emotionally based, inspired in a large degree by our Christian Puritan heritage that thinks that people shouldn't be allowed to get intoxicated or enjoy sex.

 

I was when I first started this thread. Seeing Branch Paulinians at their worst brought me firmly back into the Republican camp, never to stray again.

 

Wow- I just pointed out where you completely mis-characterized what I said- and where i pointed out that I never said or impled any of the things you accused me of saying- and rather than deal with it- you just try to rationalize your lies about what I said.

You sir- are lying. I couldn't say it the first time but since I have pointed out quite clearly that I never said or implied that which you acuse me of- and then you repeat it again- I will just point it out again-

You are lying.

Where did I say- or imply in anyway that there wouldn't be ANY negative impact by legalizing marijuana?

Where did I encourage or suggest that people should abuse drugs or anything other than say that marijuana should be legalized.

You have chosen to misinterpret what I have said, whether by design or because of your blind prejudice in the matter I do not know.

But I didn't say or imply that which you want me to have said.

 

There is a negative impact on society when drugs are illegal as well. People are always going to use drugs. Making them illegal causes much more crime than would ever occur if they were legal. This has been proven with the rise of organized crime in the 20's following prohibition. These criminals raised their money by illegally selling alcohol, just as modern gangs get money from selling street drugs.

legalize and regulate drugs and these criminals lose their main source of revenue and you get less crime and safer streets. You would also have less dependancy on prescription drugs since pot is cheaper, and in many cases, more effective than prescription pain and anti-anxiety pills.

 

By your own admission, you think the makers of a movie should be murdered by jihaddhists. It's only your own speculation with absolutely no evidence that the movie makers intended to incite violence and, truth to tell, that accusation can be made about any provocative expression. Either way it doesn't matter. Advocating violence as a remedy for free expression makes you a bad person and one that cannot sneer at anyone else. Report me all you want, Mr. "moderate".

 

Actually I said they deserve to die for purposely inciting violence. It does not matter who would kill them. It's called poetic justice. They wanted other people to be killed in order to get their point across, so, they themselves should have been killed instead. The details of who did the killing and what the video was about are irrelevant to that fact. If you purposely and knowingly incite violence, that violence should be visited back on you. And I said it was my personal opinion that they were trying to incite violence in my initial post. You simply chose to leave that part out when you pick and choose which parts of my post to quote.

 

There's a negative impact on society when violence is visited upon those guilty of nothing more than free speech and other Americans cheer them on in their own bloodlust. Legalizing murder as a measure of reciprocity for expression increases the chance that it will happen, especially when Americans calling themselves "moderates" demonstrate support ranging from depraved indifference to aggravated advocacy. Keeping murder as a reprisal for the exercise of Constitutional rights illegal reduces the chance that it will happen, even if it means that those who dream of their ideological opponents meeting a bloody death never see that dream come to fruition.

 

Prove it.

Prohibition proved to be counterproductive in that it promoted the heavy and rapid consumption of alcohol in secretive, nonsocially regulated and controlled ways.

Marijuana- though technically still illegal is sold openly in Koffee Shops

In the Netherlands 9.5% of young adults (aged 15–34) consume soft drugs once a month, comparable to the level of Finland (8%), Latvia (9,7%) and Norway (9.6%) and less than in the UK (13.8%), Germany (11,9%), Czech Republic (19,3%), Denmark (13,3%), Spain (18.8%), France (16,7%), Slovakia (14,7%) and Italy (20,9%) but higher than in Bulgaria (4,4%), Sweden (4,8%), Poland (5,3%) or Greece (3,2%).[27][28]

What you haven't demonstrated is that the current drug laws benefit our society as a whole. And as for individuals- well shouldn't they be making those decisions themselves?

Who supports the increase of drug use?

Dream world at variance with how things really work?

I cite once again- we know Prohibition didn't work- we know that the Marijuana Prohibition doesn't work- it is easier for a high school student to get pot than it is to get alcohol.

The fantasy is the world of the Prohibitionists who can't stand the idea of adults chosing to indulge in vices that they don't approve of. The Puritans who disapprove of pleasure and fun and think that by outlawing it, that it goes away. This fantasy cost the lives of thousands during Prohibition and is ruining the lives of millions now.

 

The "purposely and knowingly incite violence" is purely your own fabrication. Saying that the film maker wanted other people to be killed is a product of your disturbed imagination only. You take any video you don't like and characterize it as intending to incite violence instead of doing what good decent people do and blaming those who react violently when they're offended. That makes you a profoundly immoral person.

 

Murder negative effects others. Smoking a joint in your house and eating some nachos and passing out only effects you. Why should anyone else be allowed to dictate whether or not I am allowed to do that? Murder and doing drugs are not the same thing, but drugs being illegal causes many murders, since the criminals it empowers killl each other, and innocent people on a daily basis.

 

I never passed it off as fact, but as my opinion, and I stated as much in my initial thread. You however, pass it off as fact that they were not trying to incite violence, when there is no solid proof that they did not.

 

Um... legalizing pot doesn't make it a right, nor does it do anything you suggested in the bold. It just means that the government doesn't have the right to prosecute people over its use.

While it is true that some potheads assume some of the bolded things, most legalization advocates don't.

Decriminalizing pot is a simpler thing to implement and pass, but your OP really doesn't say anything relevant against legalization.

 

I support full legalization of all drugs, but the only one I actually ever used at all if pot. I simply do not agree with the idea that the government should be allowed to dictate what consenting adults put into their bodies. Unless the use of a drug has direct effects on non-consenting persons, they should be completely legal.

They should, however, be heavily regulated in order to prevent behavior that causes harm to others. Driving under the influence, for example, should be punished under three strikes rules...
First Strike;
1 year in prison, manditory
1 year suspension of driver's license, manditory

Second Strike
5 years, do 2.5 years
5 year suspension of driver's license

Third Strike
10 years, do 5
Lifetime ban on driver's license.

 

Personally, I am an advocate of calculated decriminalization, regulation, and taxation. I recognize that the two extremes, legalization and criminalization, impose too many negative externalities upon a society. At the same time, it is still necessary to have effective management of the less overwhelming consequences resulting from an appropriate decriminalization policy. This includes quality control, improving dealer/supplier standards, setting suitable thresholds where criminalization and institutionalized rehabilitation is justified, improvement of the global drug trafficking regime, and imposition of a graduated tax system based upon the negative externalities of a certain drug inflicted upon society.

 

I'd be happy with decriminalization or legalization. Either one would be an improvement over the status quo.

If we took the Portugal route of decriminalization, we'd save loads of money on the War on Drugs.

 

Heavily regulated full legalization. Pass laws that prevent and/or punish behavior that effects people who do not consent to them, but allow consenting adults to use whatever drugs they want in their own homes, or, in the case of pot, and a few others, in bars and other specialized locations.

 

I think we can learn from Portugal, but we should not emulate them. Unlike Portugal, the United States cannot afford to miss any part of the spectrum of problems related to drugs. Yes, we must recognize the exorbitant negative externalities posed by legalization or criminalization, but we should not discount them outright. Doing so will limit the tools to ensure that both freedom and security are maximized.

 

The real problem I have with full legalization is the extent to which negative externalities exist with such an extreme. Yes, the supply side may no longer consist of a huge black market providing low quality substances, but the without unprecedented regulation, there are bound to be significant cracks in the foundation on the consumer side, with addiction rates increasing, and criminal offenses for other illicit activities while under the influence of drugs going through the roof. This is why decriminalization is a much better route, as it takes into account the demand and supply sides.

 

I don't see how continuing the status quo improves our freedom or security.

For example, the fact that pot is illegal in 48 states makes its value inflated thereby attracting cartel interest. If we legalized it nationally, it would plummet in value, killing a huge market for the cartels.

 

The majority of drug crimes are a result of addicts stealing to get the money for more of their drug of choice. This becomes less of a problem when the value of drugs falls.

As far as rehab concerns go, the cost of putting people in rehab is considerably less per person than putting them in jail for a few years.

Also, in cases where decriminalization has been implemented, addiction rates neither rise nor fall. Decriminalization doesn't tend to increase usage, and even legalization most likely wouldn't for the harder drugs.

Common sense is often a greater deterrent than any law. For example, if heroin was legal, I still wouldn't use it, because I'd rather not become an addict.

For the people who either lack this common sense or simply live a life bad enough to want that escape that heroin provides, the law isn't likely to stop them.

 

Legalization, however, opens up a cans of demand-side negative externalities. I favor decriminalization because of its effective handling of both sides of the coin.

 

And your conviction that this proposed seeking of a right to smoke weed is absolutely a given stems from what? Your opinion?

 

why do so many Republicans attack states rights, if they want to legalize Marijuana, should not that be up to them


.