Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

That's because it's not a big deal. Nobody gets called out on jaywalking unless they cause an accident or they're wanted for sinister but unwarranted crimes.

Well if it is no big deal maybe we shouldn't legalize it.

If people aren't expected to uphold the law involving its use when legalized, perhaps there are a few steps before it is even attempted.

[GavJ]

Anti public smoking laws are enforced just fine where I live.

It's not like you can expect policemen to be roving the streets hunting smokers. But the law existing means that people who are annoyed can call them, and they will show up if nothing too important is going on. It also means business employees can tell people to stop and have a legal basis for doing so such that people will just do it usually instead of making a huge scene.

Well if it is no big deal maybe we shouldn't legalize it.

...? Tried to read this from 3-4 different perspectives, and I cannot figure out how it makes sense.

[Sheb]

I think Neonivek means we should keep it illegal, otherwise people won't enforce the "no smoking weed in public part" and he'll be annoyed by the smell. But you addressed that point.

Anyway, I'm from Belgium, where we had a light decriminalization going on. (It was still illegal, but the police had orders not to annoy you if you had less than 3 grams on you, or less than one plant per adult at home). Except our recent right-wing government decided to move back to a zero tolerance policy because... Well, I'm not sure why. Honestly, I simply don't understand it. Please they "annoying old man" voting demographic maybe?

[Leafsnail]

I personally think it's a bad idea if it's allowed in public.

If they use it recreationally indoors, in private, away from children or people not interested in second hand smoke, then it's fine.

Yeah I'd support the extension of public smoking bans to marijuana if it's legalized.  It's not fair to make other people breath in your smoke, it's just unpleasant.

[Sinistar]

No, seriously, I think the best one could do when putting up pro/anti-marijuana points is take a country with a long marijuana de-criminalization history and dig up some hard facts. Personally, I don't know much about the current state of Netherlands, but from my visits I don't think that country is really bad off ever since they allowed people to happily puff the magic weed away.

My opinion though - eh, like I care. I do agree it could make potentially more people use it (the argument "if people wanted it too, they could acquire it illegally" doesn't fly with me because, well, some people want to do stuff but don't necessarily turn to a life of crime just because of it, right?), but in the long run it can't be worse than alcohol which I still regard as worse. And at least it smells better then non-handrolled cigs.

If there is one huge reason I don't ever want Marijuana to be legalized is...

It smells TERRIBLE! Like... REALLY BAD!

Basically imagine if someone stopped taking baths or showers for a month... and they just finished working out.

... are you sure you smelled marijuana and not hash?
Because from my experience the former has somewhat overly sweet, sticky smell, but not really terrible. While the later... well, there's the reason why hash is called "shit".

[LordBucket]

I'm interested to hear what other people have to say on the matter.

Don't really see that it's any business of the government what people choose to put into their own bodies. I think it's basically unreasonable to say that if you don't like what people choose to do to themselves you're going to steal their money (fines) and possibly take away their freedom (imprisonment.) And even if you buy the self-harm argument, there are lots of things that are far more dangerous that are legal. Alcohol, driving a car, skydiving etc.

I am aware of no logically self consistent rationalization for marijuana to be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both legal other than the fact that lobbyists have money. If you want to have situational policies, like "no mind altering substances while driving" or "no smoking where doing so will subject others to it," I'm basically ok with that. But illegal? That's unreasonable.

[Neonivek]

I am aware of no logically self consistent rationalization for marijuana to be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both legal

Well one is a mild hallucinogenic and the other isn't.

Same reason Absinth is illegal... except when it isn't.

[GavJ]

Well one is a mild hallucinogenic and the other isn't.

So?

The question isn't just "list some physical differences." I mean... one is a green plant and the other is a liquid, too. Okay.

The question is "How can you logically justify banning something that directly kills NOBODY compared to people dying of alcohol poisoning all the time, and indirectly kills an infinitesimal fraction of the number of people alcohol does through impairment, and yet have alcohol legal?" You can't.

[Neonivek]

Actually it makes all the difference.

It is actually the sole reason why Absinth is illegal (except when it is legal) and why Marijuana also stays that way.

And mind you with Absinth it is just a minor side effect, it isn't the reason you drink it. With Marijuana it is the point.

[Sheb]

Uh, you've never smoked pot, have you? You don't smoke it for the hallucigenic effects, that are very light. I think I've experienced them maybe a couple of time.

[alexandertnt]

Well, some particular anti-marijuana people are also anti-alcohol, anti-tobacco, and anti-recreational-drug in general. IIRC some states still have state-run liquor stores, for example. Regardless,  I don't think "Well why don't you want tobacco banned too?" stands as much of a counter-argument.

As for me, I don't think the worlds going to collapse if its legalised, and I haven't seen any arguments as to why it's worse than alcohol/tobacco (and I don't support the banning of those substances, although I do the regulation). Soo, I suppose I support it's legalization.

I don't see what the problem with it being hallucinogenic is, as long as it isnt adversely harmful to the individual or other people.

[XXSockXX]

It is actually the sole reason why Absinth is illegal (except when it is legal) and why Marijuana also stays that way.

Is Absinth still illegal anywhere? The main reason it was ever prohibited was just an Absinth scare in the early 20th century. IMHO the hallucigenic effect of Absinth is pretty neglible, in the brands sold today it is not noticeable at all.

Obviously the main reason why alcohol and tobacco are legal and pot isn't is simply cultural, no real logic involved. Alcohol is a huge part of Western culture, Tobacco too, to a much lesser extent though, but pot isn't.

[Neonivek]

Is Absinth still illegal anywhere?

Goes up and down.

Canada has flip flopped on its legality a lot.

[LordBucket]

I am aware of no logically self consistent rationalization for marijuana to be illegal while alcohol and tobacco are both legal

Well one is a mild hallucinogenic and the other isn't.

Same reason Absinth is illegal... except when it isn't.

So if I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that that category of hallucinogenic drugs, being different from stimulants and depressants, should be illegal as a category? Whereas alcohol being a depressant and the nicotine in tobacco being a stimulant, should be legal, because those categories are ok?

So then, you believe that stimulants and depressants like cocaine, speed and methyl amphetamines should therefore be legal?

If that's seriously your argument, then I'll agree that it's logically self consistent. But I don't really believe that you believe marijuana should be illegal because it's a hallucinogen and crack cocaine should be legal because it's a stimulant, just like coffee and nicotine.

The question is "How can you logically justify banning something that directly kills NOBODY compared to people dying of alcohol poisoning all the time, and indirectly kills an infinitesimal fraction of the number of people alcohol does through impairment, and yet have alcohol legal?" You can't.

I realize you're agreeing with me, but I don't agree with the self harm argument. The fact that alcohols kills people isn't a good reason for it to be illegal. Most obvious example: I suggest that suicide should be legal. It's your body, it's your self...what business is it of anybody else's what you do with your own self? If you own a car, you decide what to do with it, right? You can smash the windows of your own car if you want. That's not illegal and there's no reason for it to be illegal. Whereas if you smash the windows of a car that belongs to somebody else, you're causing harm to the belonging of another person.

The idea that you're "not allowed" to hurt your own body if you want to implies that the government thinks you don't own your own body, they do. It's their belonging, and you're causing them harm when you hurt yourself. I find that notion repulsive in the extreme.

[martinuzz]

Marijuana is a depressant, not a stimulant. People don't smoke and then go rave it up, they smoke and turn into couch potatoes for the evening.

This is a general misconception.
THC is an 'upper', not a 'downer'.
However, tobacco is a downer. If you combine weed and tobacco in a joint, and smoke that, it will indeed make you 'stoned', which does tend to turn some people into couch potatoes.
However, if you smoke or vaporize pure weed, it will not make you 'stoned', it will make you 'high'. While this is not a physical high that makes you want to jump and dance all night, it is a mental stimulant.
Something adding to that misconception would be, that a lot of people smoking their first few joints tend to pass out from not being used to it. Which can be mistaken for a depressant effect.
(You don't want to know just how many American tourists I've had to guide to fresh air and bring a glass of sugar water, when I was working in a local pub hahaha. They all pass out from that first joint lol. Protip: anyone pass out from their first joint? Get a glass of tea, or warm water, add a lot of sugar (not so much that it would make it disgusting, but enough for a good sugar boost) and give them that. They'll be awake enough to walk home again in 10-15 minutes

As for the discussion. I can only say, as a Dutch person, whatever you do, don't go about it the hypocritical way that Dutch government went;
Over here, we have 'coffeeshops', where anyone is  allowed to buy, maximum 5 grammes per person per visit. That's all semi legal, as in, it is officially still illegal by law, but you will not be arrested or prosecuted for it.
However, if you are the owner of the coffeeshop, while you are allowed to sell 5 grammes a person, you are not allowed to stock up your shop's inventory. Buying the bulk required for that is a criminal offense. As is growing the plants.
So we have the front door, which is legal, but the back door is in the hands of maffia like gangsters who grow and distribute weed.
Now imagine running a dairy store. It's okay to sell milk, cheese, butter. But hold on! Breeding cows, or buying more than one bottle of milk at a time to restock your shop, now that's illegal!
There's an ongoing debate here now for a few years, with a lot of local mayors pleading the government to legalize and regulate the growing and wholesale of weed.
The benefits are obvious:
1) it will strike a serious blow to organized crime, who are now making billions from growing and distributing weed
2) it will decriminalize coffeeshop owners, of whom a lot are actually decent folks, who really don't want to buy their stock from criminals, but in the current system, have no choice
3) it will allow inspection and quality control of weed.
4) it will offer legal employment for people who like to grow stuff.

Unfortunatly, so far it has always been parried by our Justice minister with "EU rules won't allow us to legalize". I'm sure he can't keep that up forever though.