Drug Legalization

What do you all think? I say pot should be legalized immediately.  About one person every 40 seconds gets arrested for smoking marijuana - an activity which, in and of itself, doesn't hurt anyone but the health of the user.  Making marijuana legal would strengthen and reaffirm the notion that an individual has the liberty to do with his property and his body as he pleases - so long as he does not harm another human in the process.

Furthermore, I think police resources would be far better used hunting down REAL violent criminals, such as murderers, robbers, rapists, etc, rather than harassing and imprisoning people for peacefully enjoying a joint while sitting in their home.

Of those arrested in 2005 for marijuana use/possession, 88% were charged with possession only - indicating that the vast majority of marijuana users are not harming anyone and should be free to pursue their happiness by smoking a joint, if that does it for them. 

Almost 94 million americans have admitted to having used marijuana at some point or other in their lives, including presidents, congressman, and even supreme court justices. 

Say no to drugs.

>>1

I agree. But cops must arrest drug dealers for "legally" obtaining their cash. That is huge in the East coast of the States

Bill Hicks has a good bit about pot and how alcohol is  much worse drug. Marijuana: yes, definitely. Other soft drugs like mushrooms: pretty much yes. Hard stuff like cocaine, heroine and meth: no, that seriously harms the user and mroe importantly makes them dangerous.

>>4
Thread over.

>>1

No. People don't have the right to harm themselves. If we just say, 'lolz they're only hurting themselves' then suicide is all well and good also, as long as they don't hurt anyone else while carrying it out. Also, harming yourself does harm other people. There is a car speeding by about to hit a little kid that is unaware of it. You have the means to stop it from hitting him, but whoops, you were too faded to have a good reaction time. But it's your body and your business, right?

>>6


more like too faded to throw yourself in front of speeding car.

>>6 Yes, suicide IS all well and good also.  There's too many god damn people in the world already - if a few people decide to kill themselves, it isn't the end of the world, and it is entirely within their right to do this.  Furthermore, you can't stop them from doing it if they want to either, so tough shit.

It isn't worth spending billions of tax dollars a year to send teenagers who smoke pot in their basements to jail.

>>9
Seconded.

>>8

It is entirely within their right because it does not harm anyone else, right? So, can doing something bad for yourself be good for other people? I think not. A person indulging in overeating and becoming morbidly obese does not help other people.

Even in a case that could be potentially construed as bad for me and good for others, the person is not hurting himself if he is helping others. A person starves himself so other people can eat and continue living. He is not hurting himself, as he is becoming just and heroic through his self sacrifice.

Therefore we only have the possibility of doing something bad for yourself being independent of affecting other people, or harming other people. And I think it is obvious that every little thing that we do affects others, whether it be overt, like the pothead not being able to save the kid from the speeding car, or whether it is very subtle, like just giving off an impression that may affect a person's future thoughts and opinions, and influence them negatively.

So, I think anything you do that harms yourself harms other people as well. If this is true, then people have the responsibility to be as good as they can possibly be.

>>6
It's not my responsiblity to stop a car trying to hit a little kid.  Fucker's parent's need to do their job and quit shirking the responsiblity on me.

Marijuana should be treated like alcohol.  Don't drive high, don't go to work high, etc.

>>12

Then do you hold any responsibility to anyone? Would you have any responsibility to try to prevent say, the Holocaust from happening? Or should you just let other people worry about it? Perhaps you should just place all the blame on Hitler's parents?

>>11
Truth. Although this probably doesn't apply to anonymous since he lives alone in a basement and nobody gives a shit about him.

We have to think about what happens when you do certain things. Externalities is the term I think. More crime and accidents happen when people get drunk, especially in bars. However, not everybody who gets drunk at home or outside fucks up, so should we impose taxation on alcohol? Won't this lead to more smuggling and moonshining, creating more deaths and medical costs? Wouldn't it be better to change the cultural setting so that people were shaped to drink less (you don't get happier by drinking more anyway)? I mean, while many states go after marijuana like a bunch of retards possessed, their kids are dying of alcohol poisoning.
On the other hand, people who drive SUVs should pay more, since they get a better chance of survival at the expense of everyone else in traffic.

We should legalise child rape aswell, because not every time a person rapes a child it does damage.

>>13
This is >>12

Fuck no.  If a people can't defend themselves, they don't deserve to exist.

>>15
VOLSTEAD ACT MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU REMEMBER HOW IT DIDN'T WORK!

>>13
>>12 again.

Although messing with the Jews is a bad idea.  They're invincible.  Anyone else though.

>>11
I've never heard such bullshit in my life.  If I sit in my basement and smoke pot, it doesn't harm anyone but myself.  Furthermore, as for your story about the guy eating a lot and getting ridiculously obese, again, that doesn't harm anyone but the guy who is doing it. 

>>15
"On the other hand, people who drive SUVs should pay more, since they get a better chance ofgoo survival at the expense of everyone else in traffic."

Don't SUVs roll over pretty easilly and are thus not safer? Yeah they are kindof a hazard to other people, but I would say only if you actually get in a crash with one.  I think there shouldn't be special penalties for driving an SUV unless you actually get in a crash in which you were at fault.  I know what you mean though, you should see all the bitches driving SUVS around where I live.  I like my solution because it doesn't infringe upon the freedom to choose the vehicle you want, while simultaneously punishing people who drive recklessly/like assholes.

>>11
"So, can doing something bad for yourself be good for other people? I think not."

You don't HAVE to do GOOD things for other people - you just can't HARM them.  You don't need to care for others, you just need to live and let live.  Simple as that.  The law and the government are there to protect people from the actions of other people (i.e. criminals).  It is not there to arbitrarilly infringe upon other people's natural liberties.

"I like my solution because it doesn't infringe upon the freedom to choose the vehicle you want, while simultaneously punishing people who drive recklessly/like assholes." True, but I still feel there should be some penalty for endangering others and making roads less safe... Maybe I am just being a pussy, but I feel the issue is unresolved.

I licked a jewish tolet bowl clean once.

Marijuana is one of the few drugs that, when considered from a purely pragmatic perspective, would be less costly to society as a legal substance than it is as an illegal one.  This rational, practical assessment should be the one we use to decide the legality of any substance.

Alcohol is legal because its prohibition was found to be exorbitantly costly--more costly even than the heatlh problems and accidents it causes yearly.  Cocaine and opiates, on the other hand are NOT legal because their prohibition is generally viewed as solving more problems than it causes.

Enforcement of marijuana prohibition, on the other hand, is almost certainly more costly than the danger to public health and safety marijuana poses as a legal substance.  Furthermore, the increase in marijuana use after legalization would likely not increase substantially (in the long-term).

In other words, decriminalization makes sound economic and social sense.

>>20

Did you read the post? It established that obviously it cannot help other people, and it cannot be independent of an effect on other people, so that only leaves one option. So you either choose to do good for others, or you choose to harm others. And since, 'you just can't HARM them.' the only logical choice would be to help others.

>>16
What? This is a completely retarded comparison. Hogwash.


Christ 4chan, I thought you guys were Libertarian at least enough to want marijuana legalized. I am dissapointed. Pot is a way safer drug than alcohol, when you are high things are hardly that different, and you know you are high so you won't get in a car and crash into a stop sign. It's also only psychologically addictive instead of physically addictive. If it's legalized we will be able to spend way less on throwing harmless people in jail and filling them up. And it would help the econonmy once a marijuana drug company starts up, the government can even tax the shit out of it for all I care. I see no downsides to legalizing pot.

>>24
Fallacious. There are more than the options of "help" and "harm". Such as, oh I dunno, not effect other people. That seems logical to me, don't help or harm people, just stay out of it. And the assertion that everything we do to harm ourselves affects other people is bullshit. There is no way you can ever prove that. Look, I just ate a chip full of salt and fat. It is bad for me, yet it will never affect anyone else ever. Look, and emo kid cuts himself. Nope, not affecting anyone. The assertion that everything we do to harm ourselves affects other people is bullshit. There is no way you can ever prove that. If you truly believe that harming ourselves always affects other people AND if it doesn't help them than it is hurting them and that that should be illegal than you would be for banning alcohol, tobacco, and all unhealthy foods. That is facist. People are allowed to harm themselves, and it is not people's responsibilty to help people.

>>25

You just got a clogged artery from eating too many chips. You are rushed to the hospital. You die. A nurse loses hope at seeing yet another death and kills herself. That chip just killed someone else. Extreme example? Yes, but possible.

You just ate too many chips. You lose a bit of self control. I mean, it's just a few chips, what is lost? Next time, your craving becomes stronger, and you are more likely to indulge. But it isn't just overeating you start to indulge in, it's kiddie porn, and verbal abuse, and physical abuse. It is a slippery slope.

Have you ever heard of the Butterfly Effect? I'm sure you have, as EVERYONE has. Every flap of a butterfly's wing can potentially create a typhoon on the other side of the globe. But wait, a butterfly's flap of the wings doesn't affect anyone, right? I mean, because I say so, right?

There is absolutely no way that you can keep your actions from affecting someone else. You could off yourself, but the lack of you existing, consuming materials, an idle conversation you may have had if you continued to live would be lost, and you affected others by doing nothing.

>>26
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/slippery-slope.html

Slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Someone loses a little bit of self control from eating some chips and starts being attracted to children and starts being abusive? Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound??

Fine, assume that everything you do has an affect on someone. So, what are you going to do about it? If it's inevitable then, oh well, let it happen.

>>26
To add, just because something is possible doesn't mean it is even remotely likely. Ever heard of quantum mechanics? There is a chance for anything to happen always. Everytime someone says "fart" there's a chance that a nuclear bomb will go off in the oval office and wipe out the federal government. Does this mean we should outlaw the word "fart"? No, that's ridiculous and arbitrary.

>>27

It is not inevitable, but it is possible. I did not know that there was some strict definition of 'slippery slope' that a whole site was dedicated to explaining. I simply meant that since you are not faithful in small things, then how can you be relied upon to be faithful in large things?

...Okay, so if everything has an affect on others, then there are two options, it affecting them positively or negatively. Since overindulgence obviously does not affect others positively, that leaves one other option. NEGATIVELY. And everyone has repeatedly said that as long as it does not affect others negatively, it is okay. But since it does, it cannot be okay. We can't just become prostrate in controling ourselves just because your actions have a consequence. Instead, we must be vigilant in guarding ourselves from such things, as every little decision we make is so important.

It seems I am repeating myself. Others are as well. "lol it doesn't affect other people. Okay, fine it affects other people, but it isn't negative. Okay, fine, it can be negative but it doesn't affect other people." What?

>>29

You must have just got off the small bus. To any logical, truly compassionate human being your argument sounds like: "Anything is possible, so make Everything illegal (or an immoral act)"

So since Christianity and Judism could hypothetically take over the world and murder people in the name of it's belief, it should be outlawed?

Your sister I just fucked could hypothetically give birth to a mulatto Hitler. So should we sow her pussy up, or cut my dick off BEFORE I've even banged her?

Who're you foolin' chief? You aren't worth a gram of my nut crust. Who the fuck are you to tell anyone what is moral or harmful? God? God jr? Hahaha...

...do us all favor and die a flaming rape-filled death.

>>30

I never said overeating should be outlawed. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said that people should watch vigilantly what they do in an attempt to keep from harming others.

You're a hypocrite. You say I am taking on too much by stating observations of what is harmful to people, and yet you, in the above attempts at refutation do just that, trying to make my assertions seem idiotic because they are obviously not in line with your view of what is potentially harmful or harmful enough to take action against. Who are you, God Jr.?

Do us all a favor and examine your posts before you make us read such idiocy.

>>31
"Us" who, bitch? Everyone has already agreed that you're a fucking nutcase.

And Hypocrite? I was being IRONIC in order to further illustrate your shitty logic. "Slippery Slope" is a logical fallacy. Period. There's no debating this little factiod and the only defense you have is backpeddling like a little bitch, or repeating yourself like monotonous fag.

We can sit here calling each other God until your balls finally drop. But in the end: I'm right. You can't and shouldn't build legislature or morality around unreasonable and EXREMELY unlikely possibilities. Sorry, kid. The only one making your assertions seem idiotic is you.

Graduate high school already, fuckbrain.

Or just...yeah...just G T F O.

>>32
CRITICAL HIT
>>31 takes 9999 damage

>>32 Combo 3 Counter hit 12% Structural failure imminent. Anti-Chan wins it.

>>32

Hmm, so your rhetoric is only serious if it works? You were still employing it in order to prove me wrong.

A man goes parachuting. There are several parachutes made available to him. Most of them are in good shape, but a bright red one is a bit old and worn. The man chooses the red one because he thinks it's cool. It may endanger his life.

It is possible that it will not open. It is also possible that any of them may not open. Should he shirk all logic and take the red one, although it is A LOT MORE LIKELY that it will not open? I guess so, since there are the failure of all of them is possible, however unlikely. The red one's failure is not 'EXTREMELY unlikely.'

>>35 Let's not forget that he goes parachuting with others who may be snagged by the uncontrollable mess his parachute will degenerate into AND that he goes parachuting over a densely populated area. And that the manufacturing of his parachute is more expensive. And that he is probably a homophobe who thinks he's "really cool" for daring to drop the n-bomb over the headsets while playing HALO (BIG LETTERS) 2 on FuxBox Live.

>>35

Fail. Just leave.

I want to see Xel and anti-chan jelly wrestle bare breasted.

>>37

Flawless logic there.

>>39

I'm sorry, you seem to be under the impression that the debate isn't over. As it stands, your failure is uncontested fact. I can only suspect that you get some kind of sick and twisted sexual thrill from me shitting on you. It's obvious >>38 and >>39 are the same person so my suspicion is valid.

tl;dr

cigs and alcohol do far more damage than pot ever would.

our prisons are filled to the brim with teenagers caught with a joint or two or a plant growing in their home for their own use. Do i think pot should be legalized right away? no. but i do think we'd benifit from having it decriminalized, and just issuing a fine for it. most pot smokers do so in the privacy of their own homes. those who are caught outsdie their homes high, or even driving vehicles, should be fined heavily. get your munchies before you smoke, be smart about it.

the slippery slope thing is BS. mostly because it's assumed it applies to all pot smokers. any high is just as likely to cause the want for a better high. alcohol leads to stronger alcohol, cigs lead to larger sources of tobacco (chewing tobacco or cigars, or just more cigs in general), and pot will probably lead to something stronger, usually stronger pot, but not always. If you're gonna call ANY drug a gateway drug, you need to call ALL drigs gateway drugs, because they all have the potential. this doesn't mean it absolutly causes the urge to obtain stronger drugs.
Pot should be treated like both cigs and beer. no smoking in public places like cigs, and no operating vehicles like alcohol. smoke it in your house, our somewhere away from public places or vehicles, maybe even have hash bars with a taxi service or something.
Crime would go down if pot were legalized, because there would be no need for dealers of at least specifically pot. pot could be sold like any other legal drug, and could be regulated and kept from being laced with something dangerous. Plus i'm sure the government would love to place some kinda tax on it like they do cigs.
I think of it this way. do what you want, whatever you want, as long as it doesn't lead to the harm or interference in the lives of other people (or animals if you end up splitting the hair like that). i dont see how pot does either of those things if used responsibly.

>>13
The holocaust didnt happen.

>>42
The habbocaust happenned though, you get my point. Poor nigras 8(.

oh my fucking god, I am laughing so hard at this. Good show, 4chan xD

Can this be settled with firearms? Your silly ass arguements that never come to a conclusion are boring.

What does society gain when drugs are legalised? Does it increse GDP? Does it feed straving children? Does it build a better world for our descendants than a socity identical to ours that did not legalise drugs?

Answer is; there is no end benifit. The world would probibly be berrter off without alchohol too. Legalising any more drugs than are already legal (beer&ciggarettes) would create problems; not solve them.

Time you spend high is time that could be spent making the world a better place/ being productive. From an economic standpoint; the opportunity cost of getting high exceeds the utility gained from it.

>>46
"Time you spend high is time that could be spent making the world a better place/ being productive. From an economic standpoint; the opportunity cost of getting high exceeds the utility gained from it."

You think without recreational drugs like beer, cigs and pot the world would just work harder? as if these are the three pillars of laziness and without them a wonderful productive utopia will emerge? please. yeah maybe there would be some small benifits from lowered consumptiton, but overall, casting prohibition of anything creates a dangerous underground for that commidity. The first prohibition of alcohol did indeed reduce small household violence and petty crime, but it gave rise to murders, robberies and gang warfare over the production and distribution of said commodity.

alcohol is far more dangerous than pot ever could be, and it sits on some kind of golden throne as the 'drug wars' rage below. More people die through alcohol related accidents and illnesses than most major illegal drugs out on the market, esp pot.

>>46

>>47 Wins. Also; I'd like to add that liberty and freedom do fall under the category of "benefits" and that your argument is a bit duplicitous in that you're basically prohibiting a human being's freedom because you don't think it's "beneficial" to the GDP and mean while the only reason alot of these substance haven't been legalized is because a commercial mechanism hasn't been put in place yet. Don't try to assume some moral highground when your basic motavator is profit.

>>48
There's a big difference between not getting executed by the state for exercising freedom of speech and getting a huge hunk of government cheese for not being able to support the number of kids you've had.

>>46
"What does society gain when drugs are legalised? Does it increse GDP? Does it feed straving children? Does it build a better world for our descendants than a socity identical to ours that did not legalise drugs?

Answer is; there is no end benifit. The world would probibly be berrter off without alchohol too. Legalising any more drugs than are already legal (beer&ciggarettes) would create problems; not solve them.

Time you spend high is time that could be spent making the world a better place/ being productive. From an economic standpoint; the opportunity cost of getting high exceeds the utility gained from it."

I can't believe the arrogance of this guy's post, that he thinks that those who want to smoke pot or use drugs should not be allowed because any talents they might have would then go undeveloped and would not benefit society.  This whole notion is based upon the presupposition that the individual somehow belongs to society, as in is owned by society, and has no right to do with his body and his property as he pleases. 

It doesn't matter whether it is good for the economy or not.  The point is is people should have the freedom to do with their bodies and their property as they want so long as they aren't causing direct harm to another person.

>>46
Maybe we should ban computer games too.  Just imagine all the time that could have been spent learning by our nation's children that they spent playing video games instead of doing something for society.  Selfish assholes all of them.  They should be thrown in jail for depriving society of the potential benefits of their productive labor by selfishly playing computer games instead of doing something for the good of society.

>>51
That might actually be a good idea.

>>51

why stop there? What's the internet but a gateway to porn and gambling sites? What's TV but a collective masturbation of our pop culture? What're movies but escapes from the real world? So much time wasted! ban it all! we must contribute to the national economy and scientific community, damn hell, high water, and recreation!

>>49
"getting a huge hunk of government cheese for not being able to support the number of kids you've had."
ahahahaa

>>53
BRING BACK THE ERA OF PURITANISM!!!  BAN DANCING AND THEATRE.  BURN ALL THE WITCHES!!!

Amen, brother.  >>46 is either a troll or just didn't think about the logical conclusions of his argument.

Time spent high could also be spent manufacturing weaponry.  And that DOES affect posterity.

People on drugs create literature and expand culture. People on drugs created much of the work you enjoy throughout the day. People on drugs experience thoughts that allow for the laying down of the rifle for the pen.

You gentlemen may slip a bitter tongue to the hippies and the like all you wish, but that does not drown out the fact that they were right.

The choice to legalize or not is as simple as the choice between a Mac-11 in your hand, or a paintbrush.

For anyone who says the benifits of freedom of drug use are negligible and fabricated, consider who has left the greater boon to society: Alduous Huxley or Richard Nixon?

People on drugs created much of the work you enjoy throughout the day.
My computer was designed by a guy high on drugs? And my house? And my car? And, and, and?

Shit, civilization is going to come apart. Drugs and art can go well together, but drugs and any work that requires precision is a disaster.

Hey, if people want to do drugs, let them, but stop with the bullshit excuses.

If you were properly medicated we could be spared this truly remarkable fantasy.