In your Opinion, Should pot be legalized

[Rifter]

Of course, biggest waste of money ever fighting it when they could be making as much as they are spending by taxing it. Goverment is FUCKING STUPID.

 

[surfsatwerk]

That really doesnt solve the problem of the cartels. It may make it worse as there may be a slight uptick in demand.

Cartels are a problem for people trying to sell the stuff. Sensible people would just set up a nice little grow in their basement.

 

[40Hands]

Replace pot with alcohol. Where's your argument now?

Better yet, replace it with any other reason. Legal prescription drug side effects? Too much turkey for lunch? Up all night with your new born? Lack of exercise? etc, etc, etc.

 

[Genx87]

Cartels are a problem for people trying to sell the stuff. Sensible people would just set up a nice little grow in their basement.

Most people wont bother doing that and how do you address Cocaine? People going to setup a coacine factory in their basement as well?

And people who are growing it now will be the same people growing it then. You wont see an uptick in that because it is suddenly legal.

And decriminalizing it does little to adress the regulation in the quality and safety of the product.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yes and i dont smoke it.

 

[TridenT]

Legal but should have the similar regulations when driving/operating automobiles/planes/whatever... Never done it, never will. I've never had alcohol either and won't drink it either. :| Same for any other illegal drug. I don't know when I have ever used anything stronger than ibuprofen for a pain killer either.

but, yeah, government should regulate it and tax it to hell and back. Then of course use that money to fund education. 🙂

 

[surfsatwerk]

Most people wont bother doing that and how do you address Cocaine? People going to setup a coacine factory in their basement as well?

And people who are growing it now will be the same people growing it then. You wont see an uptick in that because it is suddenly legal.

And decriminalizing it does little to adress the regulation in the quality and safety of the product.

Decriminalizing pot has nothing to do with Cocaine. Pot is another creature entirely. The people currently using pot will just continue as always, they just don't have to worry about going to jail.

Edit: The idea that we need to regulate pot for safety issues is laughable. Normal people have been growing and using pot for centuries, we do not need the gov fucking it up.

 

[slackerinabox]

I disagree. I can drink a half gallon of Crown and still be GtG next day. One joint totally puts me to sleep and out of it for 24 hours.

Still think all should be legal - it's a individual liberty issue.

Wuss.. Just kidding, but I'm the opposite - one drink is fine.. 2 drinks.. Sure.. 3 often leads to 5, which means I'm useless the next day. Which is why I don't drink, at all. But what happens if I smoke too much pot? "Honey, we have so much to do tomorrow, let's just go to bed!" Followed by a funktastic/wonderful sleep, no hangover.. Sometimes a bit of a fog that coffee cures.

Also, I'm aware of my limitations when high vs drunk. You know "Drive to the 7-11 for more nacho?" = "You're insane, let's order dominos!" (when high) "Maybe if I drive really slowly?" (when drunk). I don't drink anymore because I've seen just how dark things can get under the influence of alcohol. Pot? it just makes me eat a lot of kashi.

 

[Glitchny]

I didn't say a company had to, but I say they must still have the right to discriminate based upon this.

And my counterpoint: I work in manufacturing. It takes only a moment of not paying attention to lead to a disaster. Do you want your potheads here?

OF course not, would be dumb as hell to be high next to large machinery. But so would being drunk.

Nobody is arguing that it should be legal and used without any consequences. Hell treat it like alcohol and oh look, can't drive with it, cant operate machinery, not allowed to show up at work stoned, cant smoke in public, etc. The same laws apply.

Most people aren't saying make it legal and then have no regulations on it.

 

[cheezy321]

Spotting someone who comes into work drunk is far easier than spotting somebody who comes in high.

Once again, if the company decided not to hire anybody who drank alcohol, then so be it! However, alcohol has become acceptable in a public setting. Will pot eventually? I don't know.

I dont agree with that. You can spot someone that is stoned pretty easily. Much like a 'gaydar', some people come naturally equipped with a 'stonedar'

 

[surfsatwerk]

Legal but should have the similar regulations when driving/operating automobiles/planes/whatever... Never done it, never will. I've never had alcohol either and won't drink it either. :| Same for any other illegal drug. I don't know when I have ever used anything stronger than ibuprofen for a pain killer either.

but, yeah, government should regulate it and tax it to hell and back. Then of course use that money to fund education. 🙂

Seriously, having fun won't kill you dude.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Every drug should be legalized and regulated. It would be a sure way to completely destroy the drug cartels and drug trafficking business as a whole.

 

[crownjules]

Pot should never be legal because they'll ruin it with taxes and laws. What they need to do is decriminalize it.

You do realize that even taxed the same amount as tobacco is in the states with the higher tobacco taxes, it'll be far less than what you pay now? Those who buy marijuana are doing so from a black market that assumes and therefore prices in an enormous risk factor.

Marijuana is called weed for a reason. It is a weed and will grow almost anywhere with little care necessary. In comparison, tobacco requires constant attention and specific conditions to grow into something worthy of consumption. I'd therefore expect a pack of Marlboro Greens to sell for a little less, maybe even the same as, a pack of regular Marlboros.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Agreed, with the condition that employers should be able to test for it whenever they want.

I dont want pot heads in the military/police, or operating heavy machinery, flying planes, etc.

mmmm, no. I can accept testing for anything which is currently active in the system in such a way as to cause DEFINITE impairment...but not merely traces in the system from off-work use.

You can't (or rather, shouldn't be able to) fire someone when they come to work monday because they choose to have a drink or in our example a joint on friday night. Feel free to can them if they're drunk or stoned while at work however.

 

[Toastedlightly]

OF course not, would be dumb as hell to be high next to large machinery. But so would being drunk.

Nobody is arguing that it should be legal and used without any consequences. Hell treat it like alcohol and oh look, can't drive with it, cant operate machinery, not allowed to show up at work stoned, cant smoke in public, etc. The same laws apply.

Most people aren't saying make it legal and then have no regulations on it.

This comes down to detection. How do I know if you are drunk? I smell it on your breath (most of the time) or notice it in your gait. How do I know if you are high on THC?

I don't! It isn't easy to tell if someone is under the influence. I know my friends who were completely capable of being high (brownies, nonetheless) and were able to operate normally during highschool. What happens if they thing they can then operate machinery?

If we were to get a solid test to detect actually being high (and not leftover THC from previous smokings), that would be a good start.

See my earlier post too. I feel that a companies rights to who it hires and who it fires should not be infringed upon.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

I didn't say a company had to, but I say they must still have the right to discriminate based upon this.

And my counterpoint: I work in manufacturing. It takes only a moment of not paying attention to lead to a disaster. Do you want your potheads here?

Surely alcohol is not tolerated at your work place. What makes you think that pot would be an exception to this? Legal or not, you can bet your ass that most employers will still hire and discriminate based on drug tests.

 

[Toastedlightly]

Surely alcohol is not tolerated at your work place. What makes you think that pot would be an exception to this? Legal or not, you can bet your ass that most employers will still hire and discriminate based on drug tests.

I am merely looking at the possibility of "wrongful termination" for using a legal substance outside of work (which I could see being a rather large issue). I want to defend the rights of a company to continue current drug policies.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

I am all for the legalization as long as companies are still allowed to pick and chose who they hire and retain based upon the results of drug tests (which would still be able to include the legal substance MJ).

I have no problem with this as long as companies also have the right to test for tobacco, alcohol, saturated fats, aids, stds, genetic defects, and anything else they choose to deny employment for. I'm not a fan of employment drug testing as it usually amounts to a morality check vs. an ability to do the job, but I respect companies right to exclude whomever they wish.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I've been sober for some 15 years and I cannot see a reason it's illegal, it's no more harmful than alcohol, and could be used as tax revenue for state and feds. It's stupid to not legalize it.

 

[nerp]

legalize it and tax it.

 

[Juddog]

Tax it and legalize:

* Take a huge amount of money out of the pockets of the violent drug lords and gangs making a living by it
* That money goes from the gangstas, mobsters and drug lords into the states income
* States save money from preventing all the people in jail from it
* The people that were cluttering up the jail then add to society, increasing country's capabilities as a whole

It's a win / win, pretty blatantly obvious.

 

[Juddog]

This comes down to detection. How do I know if you are drunk? I smell it on your breath (most of the time) or notice it in your gait. How do I know if you are high on THC?

I don't! It isn't easy to tell if someone is under the influence. I know my friends who were completely capable of being high (brownies, nonetheless) and were able to operate normally during highschool. What happens if they thing they can then operate machinery?

If we were to get a solid test to detect actually being high (and not leftover THC from previous smokings), that would be a good start.

See my earlier post too. I feel that a companies rights to who it hires and who it fires should not be infringed upon.

The exact same thing can be said of using over the counter medication though, which isn't illegal. There is still some degree of responsibility of the individual, that will never change.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

people should be able to do any drugs they wish

 

[Toastedlightly]

The exact same thing can be said of using over the counter medication though, which isn't illegal. There is still some degree of responsibility of the individual, that will never change.

Yes it does come down to individual discretion.

Not to redirect, but I am also concerned about driving (another piece of machinery that isn't a work related object). Many people drive cars while high and never have a problem. However, driving under the influence of anything that alters your state of mind (legal prescriptions, cocaine, alcohol) is illegal. Now illegal substances are relatively easy to enforce (find the evidence of the contriband). Prescription drugs and pot, however, are much harder.

How do you detect (with almost certainty) that they are under the influence? Many people deflect here saying prescpription drugs are driven on, why is pot different? The main differene I see is that pot would become much more highly accessable than a legal RX from a doctor.

So I would like a way to test curbside if someone is currently high on pot before we consider legalization or even decriminalization.

 

[Vic]

Yes it does come down to individual discretion.

Not to redirect, but I am also concerned about driving (another piece of machinery that isn't a work related object). Many people drive cars while high and never have a problem. However, driving under the influence of anything that alters your state of mind (legal prescriptions, cocaine, alcohol) is illegal. Now illegal substances are relatively easy to enforce (find the evidence of the contriband). Prescription drugs and pot, however, are much harder.

How do you detect (with almost certainty) that they are under the influence? Many people deflect here saying prescpription drugs are driven on, why is pot different? The main differene I see is that pot would become much more highly accessable than a legal RX from a doctor.

So I would like a way to test curbside if someone is currently high on pot before we consider legalization or even decriminalization.

Pot already is more accessible than a legal RX from a doctor. I don't know where this magical world is where prohibition has made it hard to score a bag of weed, but in the real world, that's not the case. Those that want it and know where to get it can usually do so with just a phone call, and drug dealers don't card or ask for a doctor's RX.

To me, this is the biggest issue I have when discussing legalization with prohibitionists. That prohibitionists begin all their arguments with the assumption that prohibition has somehow worked, and legalization would require some kind of concession of some imaginary solution that prohibition is supposed to have brought us. And that is utter nonsense, because drug prohibition has been a complete and utter failure. Illegal drugs of all kinds are readily available throughout the country and millions of people are using them every day, and using them in front of their children and driving their cars while high. Right now. Everywhere. While pot is still illegal. Millions of them. Every day. Prohibition has not stopped them in the slightest.
It is IMO only by ignoring this obvious fact, that prohibition has failed in every conceivable way to curtail drug use, that people can make themselves believe that legalization will lead to an increase in problems related to drug usage.
Now... I'm not saying that legalization will improve those problems. Nor do I need to (or even believe that it will). What I am saying is that prohibition has done NOTHING to improve those problems, and is ridiculously costly and undeniably unjust to boot. That we have all the costly problems that we would if drugs were legal, along with all the costly problems associated with prohibition.
At least with legalization we will finally be able to deal with the problems associated with usage without the prohibitionist approach of pretending those problems don't already exist.