Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
Registered: April 04, 2003
Posts: 173
|
Marajuana should be legal. People smoke it anyways, and they get it from questionable sources. If marajuana was legal, they could get it from places that were certified by the government as safe. Marajuana is also useful in some medical cases. It could save lives, or atleast save some people alot of pain. What's more, the United States has more people in jail than any other country. That is because of marajuana. We could quickly empty our jails by legalizing marajuana. It also is useful in making hemp. Smoking tobacco is just as bad as smoking marajuana. Why then, is tobacco legal, but not marajuana?
|
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
quote:
cigaretts seem to be more harmfull than marijuanna is from what I've heard,
NWH, don't take this as an attack - it's some friendly advice - but you really, really need to learn to get your news from reliable sources and not the likes of Mojones or some "alternative" newspaper. Pot is much worse for you than tobacco, particularly because it not only has many, many more carcinogens, but far more importantly it also has them in much higher concentrations. Besides, since society's trend is going towards banning or tightening up restrictions on tobacco, alcohol, guns and everyrhing else, I see no problem tightening up the existing laws on pot. |
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
Everyone should watch Requiem For a Dream.  |
Registered: December 20, 2002
Posts: 236
|
I think it should be legal. It has some really usefull purposes as well. I don't get why cigaretts and tobacco are legal and Marijuanna is not when cigaretts seem to be more harmfull than marijuanna is from what I've heard, I've never done either, so I don't know from expirence what they are like, but I see things about a smokers lungs, second hand smoke, lung cancer, hart cancer, ect. that happen to people when they smoke, and I also hear about the bad things that happen when people do other drugs like Heroin, Cocane, Extacy, ect., but all I hear about marijuanna is that its not really addictive and not that bad and stuff and usefull in some cases too.
|
|
Registered: December 28, 2003
Posts: 37
|
Marijuana is NO joke. It has been PROVEN to be more addictive than any other drug; more teenagers are in TREATEMENT for marijuana than any other drug. If you think one puff of "doobie" isn't going to hurt you in the long run, you're in for a desolate, destitude, deviant future of prostituting yourself and falling down the slippery slope of drug addiction until you're lying in the street DEAD from a heroin overdose. For more data on the insidious threat that drugs have begun to place on our society, you kids might want look to this informative page: http://www.notodrugs-yestolife.org/The ONLY solution to this problem is to increase the penalties of marijuana use, possesion, and manufacturing and encrease enforcment. "NuShoesAgain" hit the nail on the head; life imprisonment for drug pushers. |
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
quote:
Your last paragraph confuses me a bit. It would seem like you support personal rights, but you seem to believe that the government is acting properly regarding cannabis, if this topic is any indicator. Could you clarify this ?
We are much too far down the road of big government to justify things by "personal rights" alone, so my beliefs in personal rights mean little besides to say that I really don't care if someone wants to f-up themselve by smoking pot or anything else, ideologically speaking. The problem is that even legal pot is going to make it's way into the hands of people who shouldn't have it - namely, kids. I would be a lot more amicable if a marijuana legalization included a rider allowing some sort of drastic measure to prevent this, but there are only a handful of ways that *might* work: 1. imposing a strict federal limit on the amount of pot that can be grown; 2. automatic life imprisonment for two offenses of selling to a minor or a person who is not terminally ill; and/or 3. allowing parents or relatives to be able to kill dealers who sell to their kids without fear of prosecution. Realistically, none of these are going to happen: The first is too difficult to enforce, and there is not enough political will to enact the latter two, not to mention Eighth Amendment concerns. So I don't see a realistic way to legalize marijuana. More importantly, I dislike double-standards. So, if we are going to make it tougher and tougher to smoke, drink, own a gun, own a house, own a car, etc. then I see no reason to loosen marijuana laws. Maybe the day will come when opur soeciety says "enough" and we revese these trends, so I may change my mind. But society in the last 20-30 years has gotten progressively tougher and more intolerant of most things that are either politically incorrect or that might possibly maybe somehow be harmful to someone. |
|
Registered: April 03, 2002
Posts: 1141
|
Your last paragraph confuses me a bit. It would seem like you support personal rights, but you seem to believe that the government is acting properly regarding cannabis, if this topic is any indicator. Could you clarify this ?
|
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
quote:
Cannabis, if legalized, could be handled in a number of ways in regards to additives and quality controls. You cannot just assume that they will do this in the way that you believe they would; thats entirely baseless.
The very, very things you and the pot lobby claim to be true of tobacco can, therefore, also be true of pot. And, realistically, are very likely to be true. You're just getting bitten in the a$$ by the pot-advocates' own arguments. Remember, the ol' big bad tobacco comparisons? Again, ther eis no logical, rational reason to believe that pot is exempt from the basic rules of economics and human nature that (supposedly) guide the tobacco industry. quote:
These do not take away your right to defend yourself, merely make it harder through removal of proper tools.
That's only partly true. However, you right there demonstrated why the gvoernment can arbitrarily regulate other products as wel, and why they can regulate pot more than tobacco. They were given that right a long time ago. quote:
The government cannot just arbitrarily make you defenseless.
For practical purposes, it can. While you still have a theoretical right to self-defense enshirened in Constitutional Law, it can be arbitrarily regulated and made, for practical purposes, impossible, both by regulating the situations and means of self-defense. A comparison would be, while not banned all painkillers, regulating which ones are legal and under what circumstances they may be used. quote:
This is a tangent that doesnt apply to cannabis anyway; while firearms and such are regulated by various morons in the name of 'preventing violence', cannabis is not a weapon or harmful to those beyond its users.
Well, unless you buy into that idiotic "second-ahnd smoke" concept.  I don't. quote:
didn't miss it, and though I have mixed feelings about the descision it doesn't apply to free assembly of individuals anyway,
It regulates the primary intent of the First Amendment: To protect the political speech of all Americans. It is an explicitly-stated, fundamental right. Therefore, if the goverment can regulate even explicitly-stated, fundamental rights - the First Amendment, the Second, the Fourth, and so on - what is to stop them from regulating something not expressly protected under the Constitution, like marijuana? Like I said, Americans allowed government to get big and intrusive, and now we're paying the price. And it ain't gonna get better. quote:
Again, you add irrelevant elements to this discussion to take the focus away from cannabis consumption and skew interpretation
See the above. Government can regulate products, property, and even behavior and actions, even that which is expressly stated in the Constiution, let alone unstated and unimplied. There is nothing "irrelevant" about that: It is how the law works. Just because you or I feel it's unjust doesn't make it any less of a reality. quote:
While we're on this subject though, one may interpret that the spirt of the law in the constitution does give you the right to 'get lit'; the 9th amendmen
The reality is that the Ninth Amendment has rarely been successfully used. You cannot own a live bazooka or possess crack under the Ninth Amendment, either. Moreover, the Tenth Amendment assures states powers not held by the Federal Government. Look, I don't like the fact that the government regulates guns, speech and so on any more than you like the fact it regulates pot. And I don't like the fact that so many of these laws are of questionable Constitutionality. But our government does regulate these and so much more, and those powers have been upheld in most cases. the fact is, the big-government supports and socialists won: This is the big government they wanted, and it's the big government they got. If you don't like it, pass a Constitutional Amendment or try to change people's minds to get them to avoid the nanny-state mentality. Either one is very much an uphill battle. |
|
Registered: April 03, 2002
Posts: 1141
|
quote:
First, it absolteuly is a valid assumption.
NO ASSUMPTION IS AUTOMATICALLY VALID ! Do you not get this ? Cannabis, if legalized, could be handled in a number of ways in regards to additives and quality controls. You cannot just assume that they will do this in the way that you believe they would; thats entirely baseless. quote:
Oh, yes they can! The government can tell you how you can defend yourself, under what circumstances, and with what. And it can (and has) arbitrarily banned tools for self-defense. Therefore, there is no legally or logically valid reason it can't ban marijuana - LEGALLY - for the same reasons. There are 20,000 gun laws alone not to mention knife regulations and use-of-force codes.
These do not take away your right to defend yourself, merely make it harder through removal of proper tools. The government cannot just arbitrarily make you defenseless. This is a tangent that doesnt apply to cannabis anyway; while firearms and such are regulated by various morons in the name of 'preventing violence', cannabis is not a weapon or harmful to those beyond its users. quote:
Maybe you weren't here last week and missed the biggest news since Saddam's capture. In case you're interested, the SC decision was called McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.
I didn't miss it, and though I have mixed feelings about the descision it doesn't apply to free assembly of individuals anyway, and that situation doesn't apply to cannabis legalization either. FYI, the questions answered by the case were(according to the supreme court docket): 1. Does the "soft money" ban of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 exceed Congress's authority to regulate elections under Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution and/or violate the First Amendment's protection of the freedom to speak? 2. Do regulations of the source, content, or timing of political advertising in the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 violate the First Amendment's free speech clause? quote:
You're right to the extent that they don't compare; there is no expressly-stated "right" in the Constitution that allows you to kill yourself or to get lit.
Again, you add irrelevant elements to this discussion to take the focus away from cannabis consumption and skew interpretation. While we're on this subject though, one may interpret that the spirt of the law in the constitution does give you the right to 'get lit'; the 9th amendment: quote:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
quote:
Now you're starting to understand why so many people oppose big government.
Don't patronize me with 'now'. I'm well aware of the current state of governmental affairs and I'm disgusted that we even have to conduct arguments such as this over liberty, because that is what this boils down to. Beyond all of the back and forth regarding specifics of cannabis' effects; can I or can I not claim my 'inalienable' rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as enumerated in the Declaration of Independance, or will my private actions which are of no consequence to others be needlessly regulated ? |
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
First, it absolteuly is a valid assumption. Just because pot (supposedly) has medical applications has no effect on the commercial production quality. Furthermore, since advocates of marijuana are pushing for general legalization, there is no reason to expect or believe that makes of pot cigarettes will produce a better product than makes of tobacco cigarettes. What makes you believe that marijuana is magically exempt from the same economic forces that drive the production of every other product? Once again, don't get p.o.ed just because I'm using the pot lobby's own arguments against it. As far as what gives the government the right. quote:
No, they can't, without breaking the spirit of the law or the law itself, unless you're a felon.
Oh, yes they can! The government can tell you how you can defend yourself, under what circumstances, and with what. And it can (and has) arbitrarily banned tools for self-defense. Therefore, there is no legally or logically valid reason it can't ban marijuana - LEGALLY - for the same reasons. There are 20,000 gun laws alone not to mention knife regulations and use-of-force codes. quote:
Um, first amendment ?
Maybe you weren't here last week and missed the biggest news since Saddam's capture. In case you're interested, the SC decision was called McConnell v. Federal Election Commission. quote:
None of these apply to this situation
You're right to the extent that they don't compare; there is no expressly-stated "right" in the Constitution that allows you to kill yourself or to get lit. quote:
I do not feel morally obligated to obey a law that dictates actions taken by me that affect no-one other than myself.
Now you're starting to understand why so many people oppose big government. Too bad we're already too far down that road. |
|
Registered: April 03, 2002
Posts: 1141
|
quote:
It's a valid assumption.
It most certainly is not a valid assumption to conclude that manfuacturers of a product with medical applications will purposely contaminate it with toxins and be permitted to. As with the example of cigarettes in canada, this cannabis could be regulated to be free of contaminants or even to be grown organically. Furthermore, you can't merely look forward into time and make things up and consider them valid; when you do not have information on a situation, the null hypothesis is always taken to prevent you from accepting incorrect information. quote:
It is the same government that has the power to force you to give up part of your paycheck
A power given to the government by the constitution, though not originally in the current form and one that is absolutely nessecary to fund a government. quote:
can limit or take away your right to defend your life and those of your family
No, they can't, without breaking the spirit of the law or the law itself, unless you're a felon. quote:
your right to join an advocacy group to make your voice freely heard
Um, first amendment ? quote:
and so on
None of these apply to this situation; regulating one's actions in regards to their own consumption of anything is absurd in the sense that the American government was intended to guarantee personal freedoms while at the same time balancing this against the will of the minority. Unfortunately, mob mentality being present, such stupid things as the outlawing of cannabis without even a debate or a rebuttal to the doctor testifying before congress regarding its medicinal properties, these freedoms and the spirit of them for that matter are eroding. I do not feel morally obligated to obey a law that dictates actions taken by me that affect no-one other than myself. And don't try pulling any 'omg osama grew your herb!@!'; all I'm supporting are some nice hippie kids. quote:
However, most of the pro-pot people here are the same folks who have been arguing for socialist, big-government big-brotherism. Congratulations. You got it. And we're pretty far down that road. You seriously didn't think old Uncle Sam would stop at rgulating just the things you don't like, did you?
I don't know who you are talking about, but just because two individuals support one shared cause does not mean that those two individuals share all other views. I don't support any political candidates beyond libertarians and those who would greatly 'trim' the winding ivy of the government, so to speak. And what are you talking about, thinkgs I don't like ? I would rather that the government not bother itself with regulating anything and leave that to me or private organizations, really. And, as an aside to you personally and not the deabte, the legalization that I'm arguing for in this topic is of an ideological nature and more suited to a government less controlling, restrictive, and active than the present one. Legalization could possibly be bungled due to the situation itself and other inherent violations of individuals 'unalienable rights' or 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In that interest, were it up to me to change the cannabis situation, but nothing other than it I would support decriminalization with a one to five dollar civil citation for possession of any amount, excepting medical users. This would increase competitiveness between growers and help increase the quality of the product's genetics, etc, keep some zaibatsu type businesses out of the market, and prevent the cluster  that would be likely to result from uninformed individuals attemptiong to set up some sort of agency. I am not convinced of the governmenment's present competence.... |
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
It is absolutely with merit. Once again - and assuming the statements made by the pot advocacy lobby about tobacco have a shred of truth - there is no reason to believe that "legal" pot would be grown and processed in a healthier manner than "legal" tobacco currently is. Do not get p.o.ed at me simply because one of your own long-time arguments is not being turned against you. It's a valid assumption.
As to your second question, I missed that. However, in answer to what gives the government the right to regulate what you put into your own body can be summed up simply: It is the same government that has the power to force you to give up part of your paycheck, can limit or take away your right to defend your life and those of your family, your right to join an advocacy group to make your voice freely heard, and so on.
Don't take this as an insult, take it as constructive commentary, as I do like you, Locutus. However, most of the pro-pot people here are the same folks who have been arguing for socialist, big-government big-brotherism. Congratulations. You got it. And we're pretty far down that road. You seriously didn't think old Uncle Sam would stop at rgulating just the things you don't like, did you?
|
|
Registered: April 03, 2002
Posts: 1141
|
NuShoes: That is entirely speculatative, without any merit, and really something I would call bs. You do not know anything about what manufacturing processes might occur after a legalization situation and there is no reason that policies such as are applied to Canadian cigarettes will not be applied; cigarettes in canada do not contain additives beyond those needed for even burning of the tobbacco.
I'll ask again as you haven't answered in a straight manner yet, but why do you think the government has the duty to restrict what you take into your own body ? Why do you believe that personal accountability is to be shifted to agencies responsible for incarcerating individuals ?
|
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
That's where the comparison of tobacco versus marijuana works against the port-pot supporters. There is no reason to believe that, if pot were legalized, that manufacturers wouldn't pull the same tricks tobacco producers allegedly pull. If what much of what the pot lobby says is true, such as locutus' post about Po-210-contaminated fertilizer being used to grow tobacco, then we can expect commercial marijuana growers to use fertilizer and additives that are just as bad. What's more is that current tobacco growers will likely become marijuana producers if it is legalized, as they are in the best position to handle the growing and processing on any kind of smoking material. Which means these methods will become further entrenched.
If people grow it at home, they may be able to control quality a bit more. But with commercially-produced product, the consumer has little real control.
|
|
Registered: April 04, 2003
Posts: 173
|
Quality cannabis growers are not common. If it was legal, then they would be able to get cannabis from unquestionable sources. It has nothing to do with what is legal now.
|
|
Registered: April 03, 2002
Posts: 1141
|
nushoes: Few knowledgeable adult cannabis partakers smoke marijuana from panama and columbia...or mexico. Or terrorists for that matter.
|
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
quote:
Growers of quality ORGANIC cannabis are very common
Perhaps for folks that grow it in their basement, but I tend to doubt the stuff grown in Mexico or Panama is as lovingly prepared. Still, I can see the need to clean up tobacco. Too bad the multi-billion dollar lawsuits didn't focus on the Polonium issue. At least, not enough to convinct tobacco companies to use anything safer. |
|
Registered: April 03, 2002
Posts: 1141
|
NuShoes: The tobbacco companies have not and will not stop using those elements in their soil preparations. Growers of quality ORGANIC cannabis are very common, certainly in this area, and the resulting plants are cleaner and freer of pesticides and contaminants than most grocceries. Not everyone smokes ***-smuggled mexischwag or nasty chemmy beasters...
|
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
About the only credible anything in that lengthy post was the reference to Po-210, but there is no evidence that there is any less of an occurrance in marijuana. In fact given the unclean and often rudimentary conditions in which it is grown, there is also a greater risk of biological contamination as well as radiological. Granted, pot does not come from as uniform a source as tobacco, but the research that exists suggests - including your own citation - that even if the radiological content of tobacco is a problem, it's a problem that is easily fixed by human-controllable factors, rather than being a problem inherent to the product itself. So, if RJ Reynolds simply used safer fertilizer with a low Po-210 and other radioactivity content, then tobacco should be a fairly safe product, at least in terms of lung cancer.
|
Registered: October 22, 2002
Posts: 1068
|
quote:
As compared with smoking tobacco, smoking marijuana was associated with a nearly fivefold greater in | |
