what will happen if california legalizes marijuana in 2010?

[werepossum]

Yes, because drug enforcement is a small govt policy that costs nothing while successfully keeping people from doing illegal drugs in the first place.

WTF. What legalization means (in part) is that your tax money currently wasted on the drug prohibition while doing absolutely fucking nothing to curtail drug use can now be spent somewhere more worthwhile and productive. Ending the drug war will greatly save the taxpayers money, not cost it.

Legalizing drugs just means that the money spent on enforcement will be spent on rehabilitation for people who have neither desire nor intention of quitting but who want to avoid the legal consequences of some action. Legalizing just pot will mean that the same amount of money will be spent on enforcement, just for other drugs, and more money will be spent on rehabilitation for potheads. That's how government works, especially in California.

Oddly enough I know some people who were productive before and after taking up weed but total wastoids while smoking, and others who smoke lightly without apparent impairment. I suspect that just as there are some people highly susceptible to addiction of any kind, that susceptibility varies within each person for different intoxicants. In the end some people will have their lives ruined (most likely for some period of time, not forever) when pot is legalized. On the other hand those who get caught in a random drug test and fired, often becoming unemployable within their field, would no longer have their lives damaged by the war on drugs. I don't see any great pile of money appearing, but it's hardly the end of the world. And hopefully those fields that actually need random drug testing will develop some method of determining whether you are currently impaired rather than whether you've ever been impaired; a joint Thursday evening doesn't necessarily mean impairment Friday morning. (Or so I judge, I've never smoked it.)

 

[Vic]

Legalizing drugs just means that the money spent on enforcement will be spent on rehabilitation for people who have neither desire nor intention of quitting but who want to avoid the legal consequences of some action. Legalizing just pot will mean that the same amount of money will be spent on enforcement, just for other drugs, and more money will be spent on rehabilitation for potheads. That's how government works, especially in California.

Oddly enough I know some people who were productive before and after taking up weed but total wastoids while smoking, and others who smoke lightly without apparent impairment. I suspect that just as there are some people highly susceptible to addiction of any kind, that susceptibility varies within each person for different intoxicants. In the end some people will have their lives ruined (most likely for some period of time, not forever) when pot is legalized. On the other hand those who get caught in a random drug test and fired, often becoming unemployable within their field, would no longer have their lives damaged by the war on drugs. I don't see any great pile of money appearing, but it's hardly the end of the world. And hopefully those fields that actually need random drug testing will develop some method of determining whether you are currently impaired rather than whether you've ever been impaired; a joint Thursday evening doesn't necessarily mean impairment Friday morning. (Or so I judge, I've never smoked it.)

Large sums of taxpayer monies are ALREADY spent on drug rehabilitation, because millions and millions of people ALREADY use drugs even though they are illegal. Legalization will not change that (because prohibition did not, does not, and will not ever curtail drug use) while it will greatly reduce the amount spent on enforcement, because we'll no longer be arresting, trying, and incarcerating people whose only crime is possession and/or distribution.

Legalization also will not change employers' rights and abilities to drug screen their employees and/or prospective employees.

edit: BTW, I also know many people who have ruined their lives to cigarettes and alcohol. I've personally seen people dive right down into a bottle and never come back. But we don't outlaw alcohol because we all that know that (1) most people who drink alcohol don't become alcoholics, and (2) prohibition doesn't do anything to stop people from drinking anyway. The same 2 points also apply to marijuana and most (but not all) other currently illegal drugs.

 

[werepossum]

Large sums of taxpayer monies are ALREADY spent on drug rehabilitation, because millions and millions of people ALREADY use drugs even though they are illegal. Legalization will not change that (because prohibition did not, does not, and while not ever curtail drug use) while it will greatly reduce the amount spent on enforcement, because we'll no longer be arresting, trying, and incarcerating people whose only crime is possession and/or distribution.

Legalization also will not change employers' rights and abilities to drug screen
to drug screen their employees and/or prospective employees.

I'm not sure I agree with that last point. Right now an employer may fire you if you appear impaired from alcohol, but not because someone saw you drinking the night before. Drug tests on the other hand typically only reveal indulgence at some point in the fairly recent past. I would think California would prohibit firings from such drug screening, as they would only show that you had once used a legal product. I think the onus would be on the employer to show why such use of a legal product would impair your performance on their time. Probably a good test would be tobacco; if California allows an employer to fire you for tobacco use on your own time, they would probably allow them to fire you for pot use on your own time.

I think I read somewhere (maybe here?) that prohibition cut average alcohol consumption by roughly half. I would expect about the same for pot, since the penalties have become less severe but there's more of a societal taboo on drugs.

 

[marincounty]

The right wing California Supreme court has said that companies can fire employees that fail a drug test for marijuana even if they are patients under California Prop 215.

http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/520/california_supreme_court_medical_marijuana_employers
The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that employers may fire workers who use medical marijuana in compliance with California's Compassionate Use Act -- even if they are off duty and even if their use does not affect their job performance. The ruling came in Ross v. Raging Wire Telecommunications.

In that case, Gary Ross, whose doctor recommended medical marijuana for chronic back pain resulting from an injury incurred while serving in the Air Force, was hired by Raging Wire as a systems engineer in 2001 and was required to take a drug test as a condition of employment. He provided the company with a copy of his doctor's recommendation, but the company fired him a week later because of a positive test result.

Ross sued, alleging that the company violated the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) by not accommodating his disability. He also argued that the company fired him in violation of public policy because the Compassionate Use Act legalized medical marijuana in the state.

"All I am asking is to be a productive member of society," Ross said in a written statement. "I was not fired for poor work performance but for an antiquated policy on medical marijuana."

His case was watched with great interest by California medical marijuana users. Hundreds have complained of being fired, threatened with firing, or not being hired as a result of their medical marijuana use.

But in siding with employers, the state high court said the Compassionate Use Act protected users only from criminal prosecution. "Nothing in the text or history of the Compassionate Use Act suggests the voters intended the measure to address the respective rights and duties of employers and employees," wrote Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdeger for the majority. "Under California law, an employer may require pre-employment drug tests and take illegal drug use into consideration in making employment decisions."

Additionally, Werdeger noted, even though medical marijuana is legal under state law it remains illegal under federal law, and "the FEHA does not require employers to accommodate the use of illegal drugs
Justice Joyce Kennard was scathing in her dissent. The decision was "conspicuously lacking in compassion," she wrote. "The majority's holding disrespects the will of California's voters." The voters "surely never intended that persons who availed themselves" of the medical marijuana act "would thereby disqualify themselves from employment," Kennard said.

Reaction was rapid and only beginning on Thursday evening. The Los Angeles Times reported that Assemblyman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) announced the same day he would introduce legislation to prevent employers from discriminating against medical marijuana users. "The people of California did not intend that patients be unemployed in order to use medical marijuana," he said.

 

[ra990]

Legalizing drugs just means that the money spent on enforcement will be spent on rehabilitation for people who have neither desire nor intention of quitting but who want to avoid the legal consequences of some action. Legalizing just pot will mean that the same amount of money will be spent on enforcement, just for other drugs, and more money will be spent on rehabilitation for potheads. That's how government works, especially in California.

Do you know how many people go into rehab because they got caught with a joint and had to pick between it and jail? Those people don't need rehab, but the courts keep sending them there. Your money goes to treating these people and those that end up in jail even for a night because [gasp] they had a joint on them! This won't happen once it is legalized. Our courts and jails will be freed up to handle more worthy crimes.

 

[Tab]

I'm not sure I agree with that last point. Right now an employer may fire you if you appear impaired from alcohol, but not because someone saw you drinking the night before. Drug tests on the other hand typically only reveal indulgence at some point in the fairly recent past. I would think California would prohibit firings from such drug screening, as they would only show that you had once used a legal product. I think the onus would be on the employer to show why such use of a legal product would impair your performance on their time. Probably a good test would be tobacco; if California allows an employer to fire you for tobacco use on your own time, they would probably allow them to fire you for pot use on your own time.

I think I read somewhere (maybe here?) that prohibition cut average alcohol consumption by roughly half. I would expect about the same for pot, since the penalties have become less severe but there's more of a societal taboo on drugs.

When you fill in an application for a job, they always ask have you been convicted of a crime however there's a new fad going in California. They ask the same question but with - excluding marijuana violations.

If Marijuana were legal, I'd suspect you wouldn't be able to be fired for testing positive. Unless, of course your employer cay say your drug use effects your work performance.

Do you know how many people go into rehab because they got caught with a joint and had to pick between it and jail? Those people don't need rehab, but the courts keep sending them there. Your money goes to treating these people and those that end up in jail even for a night because [gasp] they had a joint on them! This won't happen once it is legalized. Our courts and jails will be freed up to handle more worthy crimes.

Hey, basically everyone that is caught is treated as an addict. You're forced to take and pay for drug education classes.

 

[ShawnD1]

Hey, basically everyone that is caught is treated as an addict. You're forced to take and pay for drug education classes.

What's ironic is that rehabilitation people trying to teach you about drugs know absolutely fuck all about them. Their knowledge goes as far as "it's bad" and they read from a script. They know nothing about biology, chemistry, or medicine. In their minds, all problems are due to psychological conditioning and absolutely nothing has a physical cause. If you described a bunch of red flag symptoms of something like diabetes to one of these people, they would probably tell you that it's all in your head and the problem will eventually go away.



Why do I hold such a grudge against these stupid bastards? For a long time I had a problem with relying on stimulants. I always needed a coffee or a cigarette to keep me focused. I would take nasal decongestants because they made my hands and feet warmer. I didn't get along with others unless I had a coffee or something like that. I didn't enjoy eating food because it often made me feel tired, so I would skip lunch almost every day. Eventually I had to see a councilor because my parents thought I had a caffeine addiction. I got the same tired speech about how abusing things is bad and I need to try harder. I saw several councilors and they all said the same thing. I went on to get a degree in chemistry and one of my fellow students was a former stoner who showed me a lot of things about what drugs are and how they work. I was fascinated by this so I spent some time google searching for information about caffeine, and one thing that repeatedly came up in searches was how abusing certain drugs was a sign of medical problems. Caffeine abuse is a very strong indication of low blood sugar. I looked at a few sites and a few articles on pubmed explaining what low blood sugar looked like, and the descriptions perfectly described me in every way. I'm tired all the time and sleeping never helps. My hands and feet are cold due to poor circulation. My lack of concentration and strange behavior are because the brain relies on sugar; the brain doesn't work properly when blood sugar is low. I feel tired after eating because my body responds by releasing too much insulin which then makes me feel terrible.

I went to my doctor and requested to be tested for blood sugar disorders. After a series of blood tests, the tests showed that my blood sugar was consistently low. I was given a medication to increase my blood sugar and I've felt much better since then.

The moral of the story is that councilors and rehab places are a complete waste of time and money. Not only do non-addicted people go there just to avoid jail, but the ones who go there and have a real problem with drug abuse do not receive any treatment because they are never told what the problem is. What drove these people to use drugs in the first place? For example, did you know there's a very strong correlation between hypoglycemia and alcoholism? Did you know there's a very strong correlation between schizophrenia and smoking? If you treat the underlying problems of hypoglycemia or schizophrenia, that drive to abuse drugs magically disappears. Everyone knows this.

 

[werepossum]

What's ironic is that rehabilitation people trying to teach you about drugs know absolutely fuck all about them. Their knowledge goes as far as "it's bad" and they read from a script. They know nothing about biology, chemistry, or medicine. In their minds, all problems are due to psychological conditioning and absolutely nothing has a physical cause. If you described a bunch of red flag symptoms of something like diabetes to one of these people, they would probably tell you that it's all in your head and the problem will eventually go away.



Why do I hold such a grudge against these stupid bastards? For a long time I had a problem with relying on stimulants. I always needed a coffee or a cigarette to keep me focused. I would take nasal decongestants because they made my hands and feet warmer. I didn't get along with others unless I had a coffee or something like that. I didn't enjoy eating food because it often made me feel tired, so I would skip lunch almost every day. Eventually I had to see a councilor because my parents thought I had a caffeine addiction. I got the same tired speech about how abusing things is bad and I need to try harder. I saw several councilors and they all said the same thing. I went on to get a degree in chemistry and one of my fellow students was a former stoner who showed me a lot of things about what drugs are and how they work. I was fascinated by this so I spent some time google searching for information about caffeine, and one thing that repeatedly came up in searches was how abusing certain drugs was a sign of medical problems. Caffeine abuse is a very strong indication of low blood sugar. I looked at a few sites and a few articles on pubmed explaining what low blood sugar looked like, and the descriptions perfectly described me in every way. I'm tired all the time and sleeping never helps. My hands and feet are cold due to poor circulation. My lack of concentration and strange behavior are because the brain relies on sugar; the brain doesn't work properly when blood sugar is low. I feel tired after eating because my body responds by releasing too much insulin which then makes me feel terrible.

I went to my doctor and requested to be tested for blood sugar disorders. After a series of blood tests, the tests showed that my blood sugar was consistently low. I was given a medication to increase my blood sugar and I've felt much better since then.

The moral of the story is that councilors and rehab places are a complete waste of time and money. Not only do non-addicted people go there just to avoid jail, but the ones who go there and have a real problem with drug abuse do not receive any treatment because they are never told what the problem is. What drove these people to use drugs in the first place? For example, did you know there's a very strong correlation between hypoglycemia and alcoholism? Did you know there's a very strong correlation between schizophrenia and smoking? If you treat the underlying problems of hypoglycemia or schizophrenia, that drive to abuse drugs magically disappears. Everyone knows this.

Drugs are bad, m'kay? Don't do drugs, m'kay?

I think right now if you're sentenced to rehab you have to pay for it, or at least you do in Tennessee. Pretty darned expensive, too. But the same politicians pushing for legalization of weed are the ones pushing for taxpayer-funded rehab, under the assumption that people who smoke weed don't want to smoke weed. That's just silly. If you're addicted to morphine or heroin and quit cold turkey, you'll have horrible withdrawals and might even die, but all the people I know who were addicted to weed and quit, quit cold turkey. And said it was easier than giving up cigarettes. The push for rehab is just another way of removing personal responsibility. People smoke weed because they want to get high; people go to rehab to avoid the consequences of getting high. Not too hard to figure why recidivism is so high.

Forgot about the federal part; I would assume the SCOTSOC would continue its interpretation unless and until the federal law is repealed. Which would mean employers would still screen and fire for it, and may well mean the whole law would be declared unconstitutional.

 

[kurtist]

have ya seen this maybe TN know's whats going on after all and milk is a gateway drug! Legalize it california someones has got to be on the fore front! You are the man or so to speak lol!! TN REP Steve Cohen!!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY0TQ1uOn3k

 

[ShawnD1]

Pretty darned expensive, too. But the same politicians pushing for legalization of weed are the ones pushing for taxpayer-funded rehab, under the assumption that people who smoke weed don't want to smoke weed.

It's possible the two are unrelated. Legalizing weed is mostly a personal rights issue whereas the concept of rehab is more of a social service for people who want help with things that will remain illegal. It's really not a bad idea. Crackheads often end up in jail anyway and cost us about $30,000 per year, so if a rehab program costs $20,000 per year but keeps them out of jail, that's still a net gain.

 

[ebaycj]

Yes it does and add to that it also lowers the immune system response. The only reason you do not see more cases of cancer with marijuana is because there are less people smoking it. Nothing you light on fire and inhale the burnt gases from is safe .

The other side of this is that people smoke significantly less marijuana (grams) than the typical tobacco smoker does.

One joint the size of a typical cigarette should be enough to completely stratosphere at least two people, assuming decent quality. So half of that joint is good for one person. Twice that amount would be enough to make a whole day disappear (smoke twice). How many cigarette smokers do you know that only smoke one cigarette per day?

 

[Obsoleet]

What happens? I move to California.

 

[alchemize]

In the news today, late bedtimes, short sleep, more harmful than marijuana for teenagers

Link

 

[Free to Speak]

Interestingly enough, according to several recent research studies, drug rehabilitation costs are estimated to decline if marijuana is made legal - due to the fact that virtually all marijuana related rehabilitation stays are court ordered, not voluntary. Voluntary rehabilitation costs are estimated to remain roughly the same, since almost 100% of voluntary rehabilitation costs are related to addictive drugs (not marijuana).

But let's look at what REALLY might happen if California legalizes pot. If California legalizes marijuana, it is expected that;

1) Violent gangs will make less money - an estimated 50-65% of their revenue comes from the sale of illegal marijuana
2) Fewer people will go to jail - 847,000 people arrested in the US annually for simple marijauna possession
3) Lower law enforcement costs - by not enforcing anti-pot laws - and fewer prisoners
4) New tax revenues - estimated $1.4 billion in new tax revenues if California legalizes and taxes the production, distribution and sale of marijuana

These are All Good Things

If California legalizes marijuana, it will represent a profound shift in public opinion towards marijuana use. California often leads the nation in public opinion trends.

By legalizing marijuana in California, either by referendum or legislative action, millions of voters will have validated their view that the legal growth, distribution, sale and use of marijuana is good public policy - and should be legal - without the threat of prosecution and penalty of jail.

Smart politicos in other states will recognize that, in the midst of the worst and most prolonged economic downturn since the great depression, it is simply (1) smart policy to give people what they want, and stop putting them in jail for it, especially when (2) giving them what they want means billions of dollars in new tax revenues, and (3) lower law enforcement costs.

Other states are expected to;
1)Follow California's lead - most likely - a few states are expected to legalize marijuana within 18 months after California does.
2) do nothing - likely - most states will take a wait and see attitude, to observe the social outcomes and federal responses the new state laws.
3) increase current penalties - not likely given that 65% of those surveryed support legalization of marijuana

Of course, legalization of marijuana by California, or other states, would not effect federal statutes that still make the growth, distribution, sale and use of marijuana illegal.

The Federal response to state legalization could be;
1). To allow the California experiment to proceed, by choosing not to enforce federal anti-marijuana statues when they conflict with state law - likely given the current federal policy towards state medical marijuana laws
2) To tie funding to enforcing federal anti-marijauna laws - just as likely - although this approach would prove very unpopular, by forcing an unpopular federal law over popular just-enacted state laws;
3) To take a heavy handed approach - and enforce all federal statues, regardless of state laws - again just as likely depending on who's president at the time.

Summary
If California legalizes marijuana, it represents a major shift in public opinion towards marijuana prohibition. Several states are likely to pass similar laws fairly soon afterward, and spark a debate at the federal level regarding the current federal policy of marijuana prohibition.

These new state laws, if tolerated at the federal level, would provide an important "experimental" environment, to determine the effects that might be incurred from a nation wide legalization of marijuana.

If California's experiment in legalizing marijuana proves successful, by leading to a reduction in violent crime, and billions of dollars in new tax revenue, it is not unreasonable to assume that the federal government, given current econmic conditions, could decide to change its policy towards legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana growth, distribution, sale and use for private recreational purposes within the next few years.

 

[Steeplerot]

I am curious who these people are in CA who buy MJ from gangs. I do not even hear of "black market" weed anymore. Why would someone buy crappy mexican brick weed when your buddy can get you premium stuff at a local clinic.

I havent even seen brick weed in YEARS. Being a weed dealer nowadays is about as pointless as selling asprin bought at a walgreens. Anyone know who these Californians are?

 

[Free to Speak]

Red - you're experience proves that market forces works better than law enforcement policies ever could.

Imagine the positive effects that would ensue if
1) everyone in the US could have the same access to legal weed that you 'buddy' has.
2) Gangs no longer had a a profit motive to grow or distribute weed in the US
3) there are fewer violent crimes resulting from illegal weed operations

California's experiment with limited access to medical marijuana proves that prohibition never works - it simply makes the supply and distribution of the prohibited substance more expensive and impossible for the government to regulate.

 

[ra990]

Interestingly enough, according to several recent research studies, drug rehabilitation costs are estimated to decline if marijuana is made legal - due to the fact that virtually all marijuana related rehabilitation stays are court ordered, not voluntary. Voluntary rehabilitation costs are estimated to remain roughly the same, since almost 100% of voluntary rehabilitation costs are related to addictive drugs (not marijuana).

But let's look at what REALLY might happen if California legalizes pot. If California legalizes marijuana, it is expected that;

1) Violent gangs will make less money - an estimated 50-65% of their revenue comes from the sale of illegal marijuana
2) Fewer people will go to jail - 847,000 people arrested in the US annually for simple marijauna possession
3) Lower law enforcement costs - by not enforcing anti-pot laws - and fewer prisoners
4) New tax revenues - estimated $1.4 billion in new tax revenues if California legalizes and taxes the production, distribution and sale of marijuana

These are All Good Things

If California legalizes marijuana, it will represent a profound shift in public opinion towards marijuana use. California often leads the nation in public opinion trends.

By legalizing marijuana in California, either by referendum or legislative action, millions of voters will have validated their view that the legal growth, distribution, sale and use of marijuana is good public policy - and should be legal - without the threat of prosecution and penalty of jail.

Smart politicos in other states will recognize that, in the midst of the worst and most prolonged economic downturn since the great depression, it is simply (1) smart policy to give people what they want, and stop putting them in jail for it, especially when (2) giving them what they want means billions of dollars in new tax revenues, and (3) lower law enforcement costs.

Other states are expected to;
1)Follow California's lead - most likely - a few states are expected to legalize marijuana within 18 months after California does.
2) do nothing - likely - most states will take a wait and see attitude, to observe the social outcomes and federal responses the new state laws.
3) increase current penalties - not likely given that 65% of those surveryed support legalization of marijuana

Of course, legalization of marijuana by California, or other states, would not effect federal statutes that still make the growth, distribution, sale and use of marijuana illegal.

The Federal response to state legalization could be;
1). To allow the California experiment to proceed, by choosing not to enforce federal anti-marijuana statues when they conflict with state law - likely given the current federal policy towards state medical marijuana laws
2) To tie funding to enforcing federal anti-marijauna laws - just as likely - although this approach would prove very unpopular, by forcing an unpopular federal law over popular just-enacted state laws;
3) To take a heavy handed approach - and enforce all federal statues, regardless of state laws - again just as likely depending on who's president at the time.

Summary
If California legalizes marijuana, it represents a major shift in public opinion towards marijuana prohibition. Several states are likely to pass similar laws fairly soon afterward, and spark a debate at the federal level regarding the current federal policy of marijuana prohibition.

These new state laws, if tolerated at the federal level, would provide an important "experimental" environment, to determine the effects that might be incurred from a nation wide legalization of marijuana.

If California's experiment in legalizing marijuana proves successful, by leading to a reduction in violent crime, and billions of dollars in new tax revenue, it is not unreasonable to assume that the federal government, given current econmic conditions, could decide to change its policy towards legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana growth, distribution, sale and use for private recreational purposes within the next few years.

Excellent first post! Welcome to Anandtech. I agree with you on all points. Let's hope it will happen.

 

[ebaycj]

The state of Alaska at one time legalized pot and then later they changed their mind and reversed their decision. This could also happen in California. Other things could happen also. The feds could change their position and move in and arrest everyone invlved and throw them in a federal prison and fine them the maximum fine for every pot plant they are growing. Then the land could be confiscated as a drug property. This could happen at any time and they deserve it. Pot is still an illegal drug according to the federal statutes. California is playing with fire.

Except for the fact that Obama has instructed the DEA to observe states' rights (at least during his tenure). If Cali does this now, 4 years from now there will be no stopping it.

 

[Tab]

Except for the fact that Obama has instructed the DEA to observe states' rights (at least during his tenure). If Cali does this now, 4 years from now there will be no stopping it.

Technically, that's wrong as Federal Laws supersede State Laws obliviously. The only reason this was done is because one California isn't run by a bunch of fascists and the progressives won't put up with it.

Side, note have XZeroII, Modelworks and others change their stance about marijuana?

 

[szechuanpork]

I don't understand how anyone can tell me what I can or cannot put in my body. Who cares if it causes cancer, or helps people -- it is my body and I should be able to do as I please with it.

just to be devil's advocate, and not to stray too far from the topic, could you cut yourself to death? could you chop off your penis and give it science for medical research? i think there are certain moral limits around what we have the right to do to our own bodies. and, i believe smoking marijuana falls well within those limits. it is not like cutting off limbs, it is like relaxing on the front porch drinking lemonade on a hot sweaty Georgia night.

 

[ShawnD1]

just to be devil's advocate, and not to stray too far from the topic, could you cut yourself to death? could you chop off your penis and give it science for medical research? i think there are certain moral limits around what we have the right to do to our own bodies.

By this standard it would be illegal to do any kind of dangerous unimportant activity. Doing coke would be illegal, skateboarding would be illegal, BMX biking would be illegal, trampolines would be illegal, 1000cc motorcycles would be illegal, and the list goes on.

 

[MotF Bane]

just to be devil's advocate, and not to stray too far from the topic, could you cut yourself to death? could you chop off your penis and give it science for medical research? i think there are certain moral limits around what we have the right to do to our own bodies. and, i believe smoking marijuana falls well within those limits. it is not like cutting off limbs, it is like relaxing on the front porch drinking lemonade on a hot sweaty Georgia night.

No, and the key failing to your premise is in the idea of moral limits. Morals are subjective.