Legalise Marijuna kthxbai

YOU WILL >:[

>>40
Then only niggers would sell alcohol.*
fix'd

>>38
Yes, but pot under a legal system would be more tightly controlled, just like alcohol is.  The way things are, pot dealers who are completely outside the law have pretty much zilch in the way of restrictions upon who they sell to... and that means children have incredibly easy access to it.  If we legalized it, such an action would destroy the black market within days, allowing us to pass some sort of "no pot before 21" law, making it more difficult to get for children who are quite far under the age restriction, as opposed to now, where anyone can get it if they have the cash. 

And also, my goal in legalizing is not to stop legal adults from smoking pot - the drug is really not all that harmful imo, and apparently is less harmful than many legal drugs, and even if it wasn't, it still should be their choice to use it or not as long as they aren't hurting others, and the vast majority of them aren't.

Again, the goal is to get rid of the black market so we can keep it out of the hands of non-adults, stop wasting money on jailing peaceful potheads, protect our civil liberties, lower the cost of the drug so people don't have to steal or go broke to purchase it (many do, and this creates a whole host of problems for society, just one of which is increased crime), and to stop screwing up the families of those arrested for actions that really aren't aggressive.

>>39
We tried that, and it failed miserably.  Crime soared, and a lot of people just started buying their alcohol from criminals and their organizations, such as Al Capone and his.  In the end, we finally realized what a big waste the whole operation was and just ended it and allowed people to live their lives in peace. 

I think it should be legal. Even though it's a party drug, and I'm a believer that drug/alcohol parties are reckless, dangerous and vile things.

But hey, kids will be kids. Unless they turn into adults, then the welfare-class will be the welfare-class.

Sure, medically, it's okay. But it's also medically okay to run around in circles until you fall over, even if you do look and act like a jackass.

Well, think of it this way, people say it's bad for you so you don't do it and act like an idiot. Like your parents threatening you not to flip your eyelids out for fun, because you look like an idiot.

When you legalize it, it won't be associated with crime anymore and will reduce alot of social friction.

When is the science community gonna pull its head out of its ass and accept the negative health effects of marijuana?

More people need to do drugs.

I fucking love weed

how the hell does it being legal stop you from smoking it anyway.

l2smokekthnx

>>38
Its a good thing you brought up alcohol, because it points out a classic example of the utter failures of drug prohibtion.  Like alcohol, pot is a drug.  Prohibition of alcohol lead to increased crime rates, massive expenditures, and attacks on our civil liberties, just like today's drug war.  Years later, we got sensible and legalized alcohol.  Hopefully soon, people will come to their senses and legalize pot so we can stop wasting our time, money, and civil liberties.

>>39
That's already been tried, and it failed miserably, kinda like today's prohibition of marijuana is failing miserably.  More and more people are using it, and even younger people are because we can't keep it out of our schools due to the black market and its unscrupulous dealers.  If we legalized it, it would destroy this black market so we can keep it out of our schools, while allowing those who are legal, responsible adults who want to use it to use it.

>>50
I was already aware of that.

>>39
Well then, I'd say it would be about time to start up the moonshinin operation.

>>50
Real problem is American's don't drink responsibly, and they get drunk and crash into some minivan killing 5 people.  Sure, they get prison time, but where is the justice for the families of the deceased?
If you ask ANY family member of the victims they'd rather have it have been prevented than throwing some drunk in jail, because it's obvious that they've lost more than justice can offer in recompense.
Hence, the reason people wish to restrict the actions of others through government control.
And don't give me that "education" bullshit, It's been a known fact to everyone that DUI is extremely dangerous, but people do it anyway.  What I find interesting is that few libertarians support draconian measures to combat crime, since they don't believe in deterministic theory at all it seems.  I support the death penalty for being caught under the influence, regardless of whether you hurt anyone or not.

>>53

"I support the death penalty for being caught under the influence, regardless of whether you hurt anyone or not."

People make mistakes, ask your parents

>>53
"I support the death penalty for being caught under the influence, regardless of whether you hurt anyone or not."


I support the death penalty for you.

I think the death penalty is a little too harsh, we should just rape them and take all their money

>>45
"Well, think of it this way, people say it's bad for you so you don't do it and act like an idiot. Like your parents threatening you not to flip your eyelids out for fun, because you look like an idiot."

Lots of things are bad for you.  That doesn't mean people's choices should be restricted in these areas.  Eating big-macs is bad for you.  Eating ice cream is bad for you.  Drinking alcohol is bad for you.  None of these facts justify banning or restricting these activity to the adult populace, however.  People should be free to make their own choices unless they are harming another individual or infringing upon their rights unreasonably in the process of engaging in that activity.

"When you legalize it, it won't be associated with crime anymore and will reduce alot of social friction."

What social friction? Drug use is soaring right now while it is illegal, and at least as far as marijuana goes, as near as I can tell from other kids at school, it is, if anything, a badge of social honor to be a pot smoker.  Many people seem to be, if anything, proud of being a person who uses pot.

Anyways, as long as the person isn't hurting others by using it, why *should* there be social friction at all? If those people want to use pot, and they don't harm others in doing so, I seriously don't care, as long as they are legal adults.

>>53
The majority of marijuana users don\'t harm other people, and the effects of driving under the influence of marijuana have been shown to be considerably less dangerous than the effects of driving under the influence of alcohol, by and large.  Of course, I am not saying there shouldn\'t be laws against driving under the influence of marijuana, I am just pointing this fact out.  I will also say that the costs to society in general of prohibiting alcohol use were far higher than the costs of just legalizing it and letting people alone.  Furthermore, the number of alcohol users in general who are responsible and don\'t infringe upon the rights of others far surpass the number who *DO* infringe upon the rights of others through drunk driving.  It is not right to take away the rights of all those responsible enough to drink in a responsible manner simply because a small minority of the people are not as responsible. 

dammit i just want to eat a ganja muffin and sip coffee with my friends after work

fuck u government

>>38
You cannot make broad generalizations like that.  (lol @ me for even trying to say this).  Whether or not you are a troll, argument by analogy is notoriously weak unless you can compare with mathematical precision that the two are essentially identical.

Anyway,

Alcohol is not to marijuana as marijuana is to hard drugs.  Take heroin for example.  Heroin is an incredibly powerful substance that destroys the body because of the physical consequences.  On the contrary, it has not been extensively proven that marijuana has any detrimental consequences, and even if it does,  they are clearly not to  the degree of many other hard drugs.  Marijuana is in fact different than "all the other drugs," even though DuPont would like you to think otherwise.

What cannot be used as a valid reason to ban a substance is its addictive properties.  Firstly, there are many legal substances/things in this country that are easily as addictive as any drug.  Cigs, alcohol, gambling, WoW, 4chan are all examples.  Secondly, for a government to ban something because it doesn't think its citizens can use it responsibly, and when the item in question cannot cause direct harm to someone else (i.e. its not a grenade or flamethrower or something), then that's baseless restriction of individual freedom.

From a governmental p.o.v., however, i can see the reason for allowing alcohol and banning hard drugs.  Hard drugs, consumed by youngsters, fucks up and kills off healthy productive members of society, or creates a  burden on society when they endure destructive lifestyles.  Cirrhosis and emphysema, on the other hand, do not hinder productivity, as  they develop near retirement, shortening the time the person is on social security/medicare.

>>60

>Cirrhosis and emphysema, on the other hand, do not hinder productivity, as  they develop near retirement, shortening the time the person is on social security/medicare.

Point taken, but unfortunately, we still have to pay through the nose for their fucking healthcare during their long, slow death.  Better to legalize the shit that'll kill you fast; the only thing an OD costs us is the price of a coffin.

Costs us a lot more than a coffin.  Raising a child is an investment by society, and to have that kid bump himself off at 20 is a waste.

Regardless, reckless drug use is associated with societal problems, as least as far as economic production by individuals is concerned.  Although marijuana may be controllable, things like meth and heroin DO fuck you up, and you just cannot be as productive as you could be without these drugs.

An argument in favor of government banning illicit drugs, (and I think it is a good one) is that the majority of society does not use these, and the consequences of using these hard drugs almost inevitably puts a burden on society in the form of shelters, welfare, etc.   Thus, diligent, hard working individuals may, in fact, have a right to demand the government ban clearly harmful substances (again, marijuana doesn't quite fit this description IMO), because they have invested in public education and social welfare schemes, so they have a point to remove young people's reckless destruction of their bodies.

A counter argument may claim that there is no direct harm to these diligent people, so they should butt out.  But if we are to stay ahead of superior Japan and huge motherfucking China, is it not entirely out of reason to ban substances?

>>62
Marijuana has a stigma attached to it because only criminals and people who would overuse drugs anyway use it irresponsibly. If it is commercialised then there can be regulations to ensure the substance is not adulterred. We can also corner the market and set up franchises in China and Japan. You forget asians have no souls, this means NO CREATIVITY. The reason why their civilisation is so powerful yet so stagnant is because they need whites and blacks to control them and get them to do something useful. Ancient China invented ocean going vessels, stamps and gunpowder by pure chance because it has so many people, yet it never sailed to America, invented the printing press or developped awesome cannons because they are like robots. Chinese philosophy is still at the stage where they can only understand concepts with metaphors, they cannot develop pure a priori concepts as they are not sentient.

They create such wonderful toys in order to try to feel anything, anything at all, and always fail.

>>64
Who invented the sybian?

they would never commercially legalize it, thats going way too far. you would need a country wide unanimous vote for it. its against the FDA's gay ass standards and im sure it isnt easy to change those fuckers minds. as of now it is legal, only to people that actually need it, and i dont think it will ever go any farther then that.

>>66
You can't predict what the world will be like in 20 years, so it may go further than that.