All right, I think it's time we gave this another try. I don't wish to belabor the point, but before posting, do review the Debate rules concerning the discussion of illegal activity. They haven't changed, and they warrant an automatic suspension if broken.
What is the proper legal status of marijuana?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Legal as a regulated medicine. Illegal for recreational use. I believe that it is a valid argument to say that we as a society can limit the certain rights (i.e. the right to get high) in order to shape a specific societal outcome. I would also be for making cigarettes illegal if possible.
Just because it comes from a plant and has historical ties to recreational usage doesn't mean it should be legal for anyone to use. I don't see a huge lobby of people trying to allow the recreational use of Vicodin. Why is pot different? Should any opiate be legal? Meth? Before you point out the differences between pot and meth, consider that I will probably be able to use your arguments for legalizing pot against your argument for maintaining the illegality of meth.
I concur with LogicX in that it should be regulated to be only used for medicinal purposes but I would go one step further and also require you to have health insurance that covers the fact that you smoke marijuana to be able to obtain it. The health insurance idea I also believe should apply to regular tobacco products as well.
Legal. It doesn't hurt anyone more so than what cigarettes and alcohol already do anyways, as far as my own personal experiences with people who smoke pot, so why make it illegal?
Legalize and tax it, the amount we pay out in taxes and corrections keep going up with the prison-industrial complex and people keep toking up. We're exporting terrorism to Mexico, one of our largest trade partners, and helping to bring an Afghanistan like scenario to our border. I've been following the Drug War for years and originally I was a very avid supporter, but after all these decades I'm just not seeing "it." Kids still do drugs, and now it's becoming sexy with adults more and more. It's just like alcohol Prohibition.
Marijuana for medicine should be covered by insurance, consider it's used by dying people, the elderly, and ect. there's not much else to say about Mary Jane befriending someone on the way out of life. The problem is mostly the youth, but frankly young people just do stupid **** like an Energizer Bunny; see Jackass VIIIIVXMXCCQWERTY/umpteenth sequel with various sites around the net. So after a while, we may as well tax the hell out of people.
1. Licensing fees for growing marijuana plants and ect.
2. Sin taxes
3. Fewer dollars on narco enforcement
4. Money out of the black market and injected into the real economy
5. Plant can now be exploited for other usages and researched without inhibitions by government
We're finally recovering the number of breweries we had pre Prohibition in the US, which helps the economy. Allowing for marijuana growers to become widespread with various products beats violence and warfare.
We need jobs in this country, and since people like to get doped up and consume food it seems to help other industries as well. Equally considering how hypocritical Boomers are on morality, see increasing geriatric STD rate, the hippies will flock back to their good old friend.
Overall, we should have a drug tiering system corresponding to ages up to 18 to be able to use specific drugs freely. 18 you can do whatever you want under controlled circumstances. We already have a despondent class with rampant consumerism trying to throw away their miserable lives buying stuff they can't afford. Perhaps growing and inhaling weed might increase the savings rate. I'm willing to have society experiment with ganja, at worst we can always just ban it again. Hell, we banned the Lottery in the 1890's, numbers were rampant in most communities, and then when the lottery was brought back in the 60's it killed off the numbers games. So there's more evidence about liberalizing markets and weakening criminals than just oft cited Prohibition.
Legal as a regulated medicine. Illegal for recreational use. I believe that it is a valid argument to say that we as a society can limit the certain rights (i.e. the right to get high) in order to shape a specific societal outcome. I would also be for making cigarettes illegal if possible.
Just because it comes from a plant and has historical ties to recreational usage doesn't mean it should be legal for anyone to use. I don't see a huge lobby of people trying to allow the recreational use of Vicodin. Why is pot different? Should any opiate be legal? Meth? Before you point out the differences between pot and meth, consider that I will probably be able to use your arguments for legalizing pot against your argument for maintaining the illegality of meth.
And what about American Rastafarians and their religious freedom, as well as Peyote and your neighborhood friendly American Indian for use in ritual?
Legal as a regulated medicine. Illegal for recreational use.
Agreed.
Regardless of whether or not it should be legalized for recreational usage, I know of zero reasons not to legalize it for pharmaceutical purposes. Marijuana is one of the best painkillers we know of.
18 you can do whatever you want under controlled circumstances.
We currently restrict prescription medicines, and it's also gotten to the point where we restrict over-the-counter meds. Should we deregulate those too?
We currently restrict prescription medicines, and it's also gotten to the point where we restrict over-the-counter meds. Should we deregulate those too?
What about heroin? Go nuts?
"Controlled circumstances" with sin taxes forcing specific products to sky high relative to their social costs. If Lindsey Lohan and friends want to get high on heroine, have fun, but we get the tax money to incarcerate and prosecute them. For others, they get priced out of the market and licensed distributors can only sell a high class product.
For prescription drugs, I'd be willing to try out experimental programs that use pricing mechanisms and keep the drug rates at a specific point. Recreational drugs sold at a premium the money would also allow for new premiere drugs to be created for top end clients to which the profit could be reinvested into research and development for orphan diseases that yield little profit. Sort of "Googlizing" Big Pharma with cheap profits to play with in other areas that may not yield any profit for more blue skies research.
People sniff open gas lines, choke themselves, and several other "cheaper" activities that are equally if not more dangerous as heroine. As pathetic as it sounds, a young man can take his tie and turn it into a "drug of choice" and eventually die of asphyxiation. Should we control material that can bind someone's throat? At best for stupid people we can only limit their options and educate them, not protect them from themselves at all times.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
"Controlled circumstances" with sin taxes forcing specific products to sky high relative to their social costs. If Lindsey Lohan and friends want to get high on heroine, have fun, but we get the tax money to incarcerate and prosecute them. For others, they get priced out of the market and licensed distributors can only sell a high class product.
For prescription drugs, I'd be willing to try out experimental programs that use pricing mechanisms and keep the drug rates at a specific point. Recreational drugs sold at a premium the money would also allow for new premiere drugs to be created for top end clients to which the profit could be reinvested into research and development for orphan diseases that yield little profit. Sort of "Googlizing" Big Pharma with cheap profits to play with in other areas that may not yield any profit for more blue skies research.
People sniff open gas lines, choke themselves, and several other "cheaper" activities that are equally if not more dangerous as heroine. As pathetic as it sounds, a young man can take his tie and turn it into a "drug of choice" and eventually die of asphyxiation. Should we control material that can bind someone's throat?
Also consider treatment. If/When a herion user decides to quit there are non-incarceration options available. But junkie paranoia doesn't exactly let them trust people when thoughts of admission are tied to thoughts of jail. Legality eliminates the external fear part of that process, then it just comes down to the person being willing to reach out.
And what about American Rastafarians and their religious freedom, as well as Peyote and your neighborhood friendly American Indian for use in ritual?
They have to follow the law too. Religious institutions should not get to break the law. "Culture" is not a valid reason for committing an illegal act.
They have to follow the law too. Religious institutions should not get to break the law. "Culture" is not a valid reason for committing an illegal act.
I honestly think it depends on the act. If they were killing people, I would agree with you here, but why is pot such a big deal, other than the fact that "it's illegal"? Don't churches let you drink a small bit of wine as a kid during...well, I don't know the name of it, but I think someone here can name this thing that they do.
Legal for adults. Regulated and taxed like alcohol. As tired and belabored the arguments for legalization are, they're generally correct.
This is not a stance I religiously adhere to; I am sincerely confused by those who disagree. Why should it be illegal? Maybe I'm just naive for thinking this, but it seems like something should pose a serious, demonstrable risk to society before the government considers putting people in jail over it. Marijuana simply doesn't.
But in my mind, a more urgent issue is: why should punishments be so harsh? Does anyone believe the punishment (as it currently stands) fits the crime?
People sniff open gas lines, choke themselves, and several other "cheaper" activities that are equally if not more dangerous as heroine. As pathetic as it sounds, a young man can take his tie and turn it into a "drug of choice" and eventually die of asphyxiation. Should we control material that can bind someone's throat? At best for stupid people we can only limit their options and educate them, not protect them from themselves at all times.
It would be wildly intrusive to shield stupid people from everyday household objects that can give them a buzz. It is not so intrusive to shield them from special substances that are sold specifically to get them high. (I was going to say "difficult" instead of "intrusive", but reality of course has shown that even the latter is extremely difficult.) It's the same as the difference between trying to ban guns and trying to ban cars. I am not especially impressed by such "We ban X, so we ought to ban Y" arguments. Evaluate a thing on its own flaws and merits.
I honestly think it depends on the act. If they were killing people, I would agree with you here, but why is pot such a big deal, other than the fact that "it's illegal"? Don't churches let you drink a small bit of wine as a kid during...well, I don't know the name of it, but I think someone here can name this thing that they do.
The thing you have to keep in mind about religious rituals is that by their very nature they are performed under regular and controlled circumstances. Thus, they may not be the very best lens through which to look at drug laws, when the explicit purpose of those laws is to prevent uncontrolled use - i.e., addiction and abuse.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Legal as a regulated medicine. Illegal for recreational use. I believe that it is a valid argument to say that we as a society can limit the certain rights (i.e. the right to get high) in order to shape a specific societal outcome. I would also be for making cigarettes illegal if possible.
Not everyone in society has the same view of society and the same desires for the same outcomes; it seems ludicrious to shape and alter society to the exclusive vision of the status quo.
Just because it comes from a plant and has historical ties to recreational usage doesn't mean it should be legal for anyone to use. I don't see a huge lobby of people trying to allow the recreational use of Vicodin. Why is pot different? Should any opiate be legal? Meth? Before you point out the differences between pot and meth, consider that I will probably be able to use your arguments for legalizing pot against your argument for maintaining the illegality of meth.
The first sentence here is a pretty large strawman, I don't think I've seen any competent debater argue for weed legalization on these grounds.
They have to follow the law too. Religious institutions should not get to break the law. "Culture" is not a valid reason for committing an illegal act.
Contentious claim. Perhaps the law should better accept societal differences rather than outlaw fringe ways of life, yes? Weed wasn't always illegal.
For those of you unfamiliar with Canada's politics, there are 5 major parties. The Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP (right, centre, and left respectively), plus the Greens (green/libertarian) and the Bloc Quebecois (Quebec nationalists/seperatists). Traditionally the Tories and the Liberals were the two large parties, but now the NDP forms the Opposition (2nd largest party) in the Tory majority government.
Interesting news: The Liberal party of Canada now stands for pot decriminalization/legalization. The conservatives (in power) are now the only major party in Canadian politics (though I dunno about the Bloc) that are against pot legalization. The tories won't be in power forever, so next election you could very well see weed legal in Canada.
Something to think about for my American friends. How do you think this will effect policy in the US, with legal weed and freedom to smoke north of the border?
Something to think about for my American friends. How do you think this will effect policy in the US, with legal weed and freedom to smoke north of the border?
Interesting question. I don't think it will affect it that much, honestly; as you may have noticed already, we just don't pay that much attention to you guys. Legal marijuana wouldn't affect any legitimate American businesses the way cheap Canadian generic drugs do, so there wouldn't be anybody to raise a stink about it.
Certainly there'd be tightened border security, though. Nobody likes a smuggler. And I can also see idiots driving right across the border, getting high, and then trying to drive right back; that might be a problem.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Certainly there'd be tightened border security, though. Nobody likes a smuggler. And I can also see idiots driving right across the border, getting high, and then trying to drive right back; that might be a problem.
One thing that bugs me about the illegal status of marijuana is that because it is illegal but still part of our society (especially in BC) some people are quite ignorant about the effects because it is taboo. In the pro-weed platforms of these Canadian parties they stress education about the effects of weed, where it isn't as prevalent in a society where it is illegal (in my experience.)
In elementary and high school, I certainly wasn't made privy to the knowledge of what weed does to you like what alchohol does to you, specifically in relation to driving as you mentioned. Though fortunately for where I live, most of everyone knows second-hand anyways. I worry for american drivers!
By the way, I appreciate you opening up this topic again. To clarify for the benefit of all, the rule about discussion of illegal activity is still enforced here for the purposes of anyone sharing first-hand experience (as anecdotal evidence or otherwise) with weed, yes? (Perhaps that should be re-stated in the OP?)
The thing you have to keep in mind about religious rituals is that by their very nature they are performed under regular and controlled circumstances. Thus, they may not be the very best lens through which to look at drug laws, when the explicit purpose of those laws is to prevent uncontrolled use - i.e., addiction and abuse
Maybe, but I still would like to raise the question: What is so bad about marijuana that it should be illegal? I think if we want to have a discussion about whether or not it should be legalized, we need to see why there are laws against it in the first place, or why there should be. What about Marijuana is so bad that it should be illegal? I don't recall someone in this thread posting anything that says why it should be.
Maybe, but I still would like to raise the question: What is so bad about marijuana that it should be illegal? I think if we want to have a discussion about whether or not it should be legalized, we need to see why there are laws against it in the first place, or why there should be. What about Marijuana is so bad that it should be illegal? I don't recall someone in this thread posting anything that says why it should be.
Hard mode: only list the reasons for criminalization that are inapplicable to alcohol.
John Doe needs a Wurmcoil. The store owner is selling them for $15. But John Smith has one for trade. He trades his Wurmcoil for a Bladehold that the store owner sells for $20. That's $35 in income that the store owner lost. Now, multiply that by the 30 or so people that play at the LGS and you can see how much money he loses in an evening.
While the effects of being high and being drunk are certainly different, I wouldn't want either high or drunk people operating machinery. Best solution there would be to throw all public intoxication laws into a state of dual application for cannabis usage.
coming from someone who's never used cannabis, ever.
This thread need one rule I am aware I am not the OP but I feel that I should make this.
1.) The words to describe any type of effect should be called intoxication,
Instead of saying "I went and got drunk" it should be "I I went and got intoxicated by alcohol" Or "I smoked a blunt and got intoxicated".
We each have a personal history about what each slang word means and these feeling influence our feelings towards the drugs themselves. By using a word that means the same and still accurately describes the the effects.
It's an extremely effective painkiller and gets people stoned. That's certainly enough to regulate it's usage.
As is aspirin in high enough doses. Mouth wash oftentimes has higher alcoholic content then most beers and wine, but we encourage its use with in minors.
(On a somewhat related note I live in an apartment with very thin walls and the internet meme "Surprise buttsecks!!" isn't just on the internet anymore. Man that girl sounded pissed off.)
Currently playing Standard
:symr::symu::symg::symw:Mid-range:symr::symu::symg::symw: Modern
:symu::symb::symw::symr:AdNauseam:symu::symb::symw::symr:
As is aspirin in high enough doses. Mouth wash oftentimes has higher alcoholic content then most beers and wine, but we encourage its use with in minors.
To refine this point, there are many unconventional methods which people use to achieve intoxification and/or altered states of conscience. Some of which are accepted (alchohol, meditation) while others are not (cough syrup, glue, fumes/smoke from myriad burning substances).
To cite the potential for a substance or technique merely to achieve intoxification and/or altered states of conscience as a reason itself for regulation/criminalization is insufficient.
To refine this point, there are many unconventional methods which people use to achieve intoxification and/or altered states of conscience. Some of which are accepted (alchohol, meditation) while others are not (cough syrup, glue, fumes/smoke from myriad burning substances).
To cite the potential for a substance or technique merely to achieve intoxification and/or altered states of conscience as a reason itself for regulation/criminalization is insufficient.
So, kids are gettin' high off of paint thinner so we should legalize marijuana? I don't follow. What I do see in your examples above is a marked difference in how effective determining a controlled dose is: while it is relatively easy to control how much alcohol is in a bottle of Captain Morgan, it becomes much more difficult to determine both the quality and the quantity of the, well, I'll just say "hallucinagen" in everything from your "unacceptable" list; the only one there that is a controlled dose is cough syrup, and using that for anything other than its intended purpose of suppressing coughs is illegal for entirely different reasons.
To refine this point, there are many unconventional methods which people use to achieve intoxification and/or altered states of conscience. Some of which are accepted (alchohol, meditation) while others are not (cough syrup,
And indeed we regulate cough syrup, and codeine, and opiates.
So, kids are gettin' high off of paint thinner so we should legalize marijuana? I don't follow. What I do see in your examples above is a marked difference in how effective determining a controlled dose is: while it is relatively easy to control how much alcohol is in a bottle of Captain Morgan, it becomes much more difficult to determine both the quality and the quantity of the, well, I'll just say "hallucinagen" in everything from your "unacceptable" list; the only one there that is a controlled dose is cough syrup, and using that for anything other than its intended purpose of suppressing coughs is illegal for entirely different reasons.
You'll notice that I specifically made no assertion that these are reasons to legalize marijuana. In that post what I was making clear that the ability for something to simply make someone intoxicated is not a sufficient reason in of itself, because there are myriad alternatives.
-_- basically what Highroller said.
To be clear, I do favour the legalization of marijuana, but I am quite careful where I pick my arguments. Seeing as how most canadians have accepted it* anyways, I don't really need to practically argue it because it's going to happen up here sooner or later.
*by virtue of most parties accepting it, and a higher approval rating than disapproval rating
What is the proper legal status of marijuana?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Pretty sure that the legal status is that it is illegal, with a few exceptions for medical marijuana.
That said, I think it should be legal. Alcohol is more dangerous and allowed.
(...also I think we should legalize all drugs and regulate them...)
Just because it comes from a plant and has historical ties to recreational usage doesn't mean it should be legal for anyone to use. I don't see a huge lobby of people trying to allow the recreational use of Vicodin. Why is pot different? Should any opiate be legal? Meth? Before you point out the differences between pot and meth, consider that I will probably be able to use your arguments for legalizing pot against your argument for maintaining the illegality of meth.
Marijuana for medicine should be covered by insurance, consider it's used by dying people, the elderly, and ect. there's not much else to say about Mary Jane befriending someone on the way out of life. The problem is mostly the youth, but frankly young people just do stupid **** like an Energizer Bunny; see Jackass VIIIIVXMXCCQWERTY/umpteenth sequel with various sites around the net. So after a while, we may as well tax the hell out of people.
1. Licensing fees for growing marijuana plants and ect.
2. Sin taxes
3. Fewer dollars on narco enforcement
4. Money out of the black market and injected into the real economy
5. Plant can now be exploited for other usages and researched without inhibitions by government
We're finally recovering the number of breweries we had pre Prohibition in the US, which helps the economy. Allowing for marijuana growers to become widespread with various products beats violence and warfare.
We need jobs in this country, and since people like to get doped up and consume food it seems to help other industries as well. Equally considering how hypocritical Boomers are on morality, see increasing geriatric STD rate, the hippies will flock back to their good old friend.
Overall, we should have a drug tiering system corresponding to ages up to 18 to be able to use specific drugs freely. 18 you can do whatever you want under controlled circumstances. We already have a despondent class with rampant consumerism trying to throw away their miserable lives buying stuff they can't afford. Perhaps growing and inhaling weed might increase the savings rate. I'm willing to have society experiment with ganja, at worst we can always just ban it again. Hell, we banned the Lottery in the 1890's, numbers were rampant in most communities, and then when the lottery was brought back in the 60's it killed off the numbers games. So there's more evidence about liberalizing markets and weakening criminals than just oft cited Prohibition.
And what about American Rastafarians and their religious freedom, as well as Peyote and your neighborhood friendly American Indian for use in ritual?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Agreed.
Regardless of whether or not it should be legalized for recreational usage, I know of zero reasons not to legalize it for pharmaceutical purposes. Marijuana is one of the best painkillers we know of.
We currently restrict prescription medicines, and it's also gotten to the point where we restrict over-the-counter meds. Should we deregulate those too?
What about heroin? Go nuts?
"Controlled circumstances" with sin taxes forcing specific products to sky high relative to their social costs. If Lindsey Lohan and friends want to get high on heroine, have fun, but we get the tax money to incarcerate and prosecute them. For others, they get priced out of the market and licensed distributors can only sell a high class product.
For prescription drugs, I'd be willing to try out experimental programs that use pricing mechanisms and keep the drug rates at a specific point. Recreational drugs sold at a premium the money would also allow for new premiere drugs to be created for top end clients to which the profit could be reinvested into research and development for orphan diseases that yield little profit. Sort of "Googlizing" Big Pharma with cheap profits to play with in other areas that may not yield any profit for more blue skies research.
People sniff open gas lines, choke themselves, and several other "cheaper" activities that are equally if not more dangerous as heroine. As pathetic as it sounds, a young man can take his tie and turn it into a "drug of choice" and eventually die of asphyxiation. Should we control material that can bind someone's throat? At best for stupid people we can only limit their options and educate them, not protect them from themselves at all times.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Moderator Help Desk
Sales Thread
They have to follow the law too. Religious institutions should not get to break the law. "Culture" is not a valid reason for committing an illegal act.
I honestly think it depends on the act. If they were killing people, I would agree with you here, but why is pot such a big deal, other than the fact that "it's illegal"? Don't churches let you drink a small bit of wine as a kid during...well, I don't know the name of it, but I think someone here can name this thing that they do.
This is not a stance I religiously adhere to; I am sincerely confused by those who disagree. Why should it be illegal? Maybe I'm just naive for thinking this, but it seems like something should pose a serious, demonstrable risk to society before the government considers putting people in jail over it. Marijuana simply doesn't.
But in my mind, a more urgent issue is: why should punishments be so harsh? Does anyone believe the punishment (as it currently stands) fits the crime?
It would be wildly intrusive to shield stupid people from everyday household objects that can give them a buzz. It is not so intrusive to shield them from special substances that are sold specifically to get them high. (I was going to say "difficult" instead of "intrusive", but reality of course has shown that even the latter is extremely difficult.) It's the same as the difference between trying to ban guns and trying to ban cars. I am not especially impressed by such "We ban X, so we ought to ban Y" arguments. Evaluate a thing on its own flaws and merits.
The thing you have to keep in mind about religious rituals is that by their very nature they are performed under regular and controlled circumstances. Thus, they may not be the very best lens through which to look at drug laws, when the explicit purpose of those laws is to prevent uncontrolled use - i.e., addiction and abuse.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not everyone in society has the same view of society and the same desires for the same outcomes; it seems ludicrious to shape and alter society to the exclusive vision of the status quo.
The first sentence here is a pretty large strawman, I don't think I've seen any competent debater argue for weed legalization on these grounds.
Contentious claim. Perhaps the law should better accept societal differences rather than outlaw fringe ways of life, yes? Weed wasn't always illegal.
Something to think about for my American friends. How do you think this will effect policy in the US, with legal weed and freedom to smoke north of the border?
Interesting question. I don't think it will affect it that much, honestly; as you may have noticed already, we just don't pay that much attention to you guys. Legal marijuana wouldn't affect any legitimate American businesses the way cheap Canadian generic drugs do, so there wouldn't be anybody to raise a stink about it.
Certainly there'd be tightened border security, though. Nobody likes a smuggler. And I can also see idiots driving right across the border, getting high, and then trying to drive right back; that might be a problem.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
One thing that bugs me about the illegal status of marijuana is that because it is illegal but still part of our society (especially in BC) some people are quite ignorant about the effects because it is taboo. In the pro-weed platforms of these Canadian parties they stress education about the effects of weed, where it isn't as prevalent in a society where it is illegal (in my experience.)
In elementary and high school, I certainly wasn't made privy to the knowledge of what weed does to you like what alchohol does to you, specifically in relation to driving as you mentioned. Though fortunately for where I live, most of everyone knows second-hand anyways. I worry for american drivers!
By the way, I appreciate you opening up this topic again. To clarify for the benefit of all, the rule about discussion of illegal activity is still enforced here for the purposes of anyone sharing first-hand experience (as anecdotal evidence or otherwise) with weed, yes? (Perhaps that should be re-stated in the OP?)
Maybe, but I still would like to raise the question: What is so bad about marijuana that it should be illegal? I think if we want to have a discussion about whether or not it should be legalized, we need to see why there are laws against it in the first place, or why there should be. What about Marijuana is so bad that it should be illegal? I don't recall someone in this thread posting anything that says why it should be.
Hard mode: only list the reasons for criminalization that are inapplicable to alcohol.
It's an extremely effective painkiller and gets people stoned. That's certainly enough to regulate it's usage.
coming from someone who's never used cannabis, ever.
1.) The words to describe any type of effect should be called intoxication,
Instead of saying "I went and got drunk" it should be "I I went and got intoxicated by alcohol" Or "I smoked a blunt and got intoxicated".
We each have a personal history about what each slang word means and these feeling influence our feelings towards the drugs themselves. By using a word that means the same and still accurately describes the the effects.
As is aspirin in high enough doses. Mouth wash oftentimes has higher alcoholic content then most beers and wine, but we encourage its use with in minors.
Currently playing
Standard
:symr::symu::symg::symw:Mid-range:symr::symu::symg::symw:
Modern
:symu::symb::symw::symr:AdNauseam:symu::symb::symw::symr:
To refine this point, there are many unconventional methods which people use to achieve intoxification and/or altered states of conscience. Some of which are accepted (alchohol, meditation) while others are not (cough syrup, glue, fumes/smoke from myriad burning substances).
To cite the potential for a substance or technique merely to achieve intoxification and/or altered states of conscience as a reason itself for regulation/criminalization is insufficient.
So, kids are gettin' high off of paint thinner so we should legalize marijuana? I don't follow. What I do see in your examples above is a marked difference in how effective determining a controlled dose is: while it is relatively easy to control how much alcohol is in a bottle of Captain Morgan, it becomes much more difficult to determine both the quality and the quantity of the, well, I'll just say "hallucinagen" in everything from your "unacceptable" list; the only one there that is a controlled dose is cough syrup, and using that for anything other than its intended purpose of suppressing coughs is illegal for entirely different reasons.
Because its proper usage involves no ingestion of the alcohol.
And indeed we regulate cough syrup, and codeine, and opiates.
No no, Misclick, he wasn't making the "X is legal therefore Y should be" argument, Deruku was.
You'll notice that I specifically made no assertion that these are reasons to legalize marijuana. In that post what I was making clear that the ability for something to simply make someone intoxicated is not a sufficient reason in of itself, because there are myriad alternatives.
-_- basically what Highroller said.
To be clear, I do favour the legalization of marijuana, but I am quite careful where I pick my arguments. Seeing as how most canadians have accepted it* anyways, I don't really need to practically argue it because it's going to happen up here sooner or later.
*by virtue of most parties accepting it, and a higher approval rating than disapproval rating