Discuss.

If booze is ok, why not Weed? I do not even smoke cigarretes but if the smoker does it responsibly like we are asking and expecting for alcohol consumers then I see not much wrong with it. Plus...Mucho Tax money for the State instead for the street dealers.

If booze is ok, why not Weed? I do not even smoke cigarretes but if the smoker does it responsibly like we are asking and expecting for alcohol consumers then I see not much wrong with it. Plus...Mucho Tax money for the State instead for the street dealers.
On the other hand, by just looking the other way, you don't clog the courts with trivialities, and, if need be, you have a great tool to go after that potsmoking POS who is screwing up society but on who no other charges will stick.

As with the tax income: if pot is illegal, you can just confiscate ALL of the earnings the dealers make from it. 100% taxation (plus a fine) if you get caught.

Anything that promotes an alternative black market for a forbbiden product is bad..and in this case Marihuana is not worse than your average beer drinking man. What is bad is the excess in consumtion, just like alcohol. I´m not worried about Stan going out on a weekend with his friends and downing some Grinbergers (sp?) or Stan sitting on his coutch watching some gay soccer game while slurrping on some malt liquor..I´m worried about the everyday alcoholic and his effect on others (driving, disturbing the peace, etc..). Same with weed..We alsways portray the weed smoker as some sort of Beavis-Butthead 24/7 stonned while the majority of consumers I know personally are pretty occasional indulgers. Having these people to go to some dark alley to get their "beer" is stupid and..as I said..bad for the State which could be making a killing out of it just like they tax tobacco.

:cool:

I am against legalizing Marijuana. If everyone were allowed to get Marijuana legally anytime anywhere, half of the people in society would be like Ixabert :eek:

Anything that promotes an alternative black market for a forbbiden product is badShouldwe legalize the hard dangerous drugs as well? There is a black market for those. Should we legalize fully-automatic machine guns? There is a black market for those. Should we legalize child pornography? There is a black market for this as well :eek:

Some things should be illegal even though they inspire black markets

Yes, for any reason.

Mucho Tax money for the State instead for the street dealers.


This will just create a black market for tax free marijuana. Then you have to pay people and other overhead to regulate the taxing and making sure that the product has been taxed, and that untaxed product is prohibited and violators are punished, and there goes your tax money profits.

Yes. Why? Because the situation we have now, where marijuana is illegal, but nobody really gives a shit and the cops only get involved when there's stuff being grown or they're bored, breeds disrespect for the law.

If something isn't being enforced, then either it must be enforced or it must be legalised. Anything in between is harmful to society.

I do not support heavy taxation on it, either. The State has too much money as it is.

Should we legalize the hard dangerous drugs as well? There is a black market for those. Should we legalize fully-automatic machine guns? There is a black market for those. Should we legalize child pornography? There is a black market for this as well :eek:

Yes, yes, and no. Child pornography is criminalized because it victimizes children.

Yes, yes, and no. Child pornography is criminalized because it victimizes children.Drugs victimize the druguser, fully automatic weapons potentially victimize everybody.

Sugary products victimize the user. Cars potentially victimize everybody.

Yes, why do they need more tax money?
Everyone cites taxes about this issue.
Who really gives a crap if the citizens can get away with not paying uncle sam MORE taxes? We already pay a lot.
Where is that money going to end up going? The fed is already a business, why give them more our our resources?
Besides, the money is already out in the system, in the market...it's not like it isn't going anywhere. Unless if you a big time and stash it in the Turks&Caicos or Antigua.
That actually would be the smart thing to do.

As for society, it has been documented that there is not that much violent crime directly related to pot. Cops don't really enforce possession anymore.
I don't know, the whole pot black market subculture is kind of charming.
You know, like those places that sell everything pot related, sans the pot?
kind of cool, in a neo-hippies way.
Hey, if you want to be a pot head, you know where to get it.
Still, it's a drug and will mess up your brains if not your body.
People claim it's not as bad as other drugs. Who cares? It's still 'bad' for you.
Why not take benadryl to get that feeling?

I don't really care if the government legalizes it or not.
I'm leaning towards No.

Sugary products victimize the user. Cars potentially victimize everybody.So are you arguing for the legalization of fully automatic weapons and all drugs? Legalization of these is dangerous and a terrible thing to unleash on society.

Also: it is not a good idea to trivialize drugs by comparing them to candy.

I do not support federal drug and gun laws. Shocking, isn't it?

I do not support federal drug and gun laws. Shocking, isn't it?So I suppose society would be total peace and harmony if every gangster, every thug, and every criminal had a fully automatic AK47?

Do you think laws stop hippies from getting pot and gang members from getting guns?

Off topic, a little, but have you ever seen Woodstock? That is so darn funny when Arlo Guthrie is fried out of his mind, talking about "Wow man, New York State through way is closed, maaan!, They had to FLY me in, far out!"

It depends on the phrasing of the legislation. Since all of the major tobacco and liquor companies have already patented their cannabis brand-names decades ago, I would shy away from 'legalization' that translates into standardized corporate product overseen by a Federal alphabet-soup agency, a la the FDA.

As a matter of fact, I don't mind a continued ban on the sale of cannabis; I'm much more in favor of legalization for personal growers. A max-limit of ten plants per home-grow sounds reasonable in that it criminalizes, or at least dissuades, large commercial operations while at the same time forcing heads to learn botany, plant science and agriculture (after a fashion), ie, useful things. Actually having to work patiently towards a goal you can't gratify immediately is a life-lesson about 80% of potheads need to learn, anyway.

So I suppose society would be total peace and harmony if every gangster, every thug, and every criminal had a fully automatic AK47?

No it wouldn't. This is earth, not heaven.

Repealing drug laws would dismantle a lot of onerous, expensive government agencies and dry up cash flow for criminals. It would also free up the courts and prisons for the only true crimes: destruction or damage to persons and their property.

Repealing gun laws would re-establish the balance of power in society where it should properly reside: with peacable, law-abiding property owners.

Btw...comparing Heroine or Cocaine with a Joint is pretty braindead IMHO. In any case, those in favour of keeping weed ilegal should be equally harsh about alcoholic beverages. The problem is excess..yes there are some truly worthless potheads but so there are also alcoholics. Because some idiots can not control themselves with drinking we should not punish the majority that has a fair good grip on their consumption. Same with marihuana IMO.

The problem is less addictive drugs (except for the really nasty ones) than addictive personalities. People can get hooked on anything that is pleasant, physically addictive or not. Electronic games, gambling, whatever.

Pot is not physically addictive. Alcohol is. Compare the behavior of someone who is stoned to someone who is totally drunk. Keeping this in mind, it makes absolutely no sense to oppose private pot usage while supporting liquor.

I say this as someone who doesn't even like pot and prefers alcohol. I would feel like a hypocrite to want pot to be illegal.

Btw..I´m also for the legalization of Extasis, without it Ibiza would have no meaning :D

So I suppose society would be total peace and harmony if every gangster, every thug, and every criminal had a fully automatic AK47?


With liberal gun laws, every gangster, thug and criminal would have their brains splattered on the sidewalk by their would-be victims, who happen to be much smarter than them. ;)

I've smoked pot a few times. Never spent any money on it. As far as I'm concerned it is nothing special, and it's even less desirable when there could be legal consequences. It makes your throat hurt and screws with your head.

But if people want to use it, well, let them.

Btw...comparing Heroine or Cocaine with a Joint is pretty braindead IMHO. In any case, those in favour of keeping weed ilegal should be equally harsh about alcoholic beverages. The problem is excess..yes there are some truly worthless potheads but so there are also alcoholics. Because some idiots can not control themselves with drinking we should not punish the majority that has a fair good grip on their consumption. Same with marihuana IMO.

Perhaps the real issue is re-education? Instill a set of standards within society that will understand not to take weed (perhaps, limit this to the case of excessiveness). Those that do can be alienated? That way it could still be legal, but very few would want to take it.

The real problem with weed and alchohol is, as you said, excess. These are the people we can do without in any future society.


For now, I'm with Lenny. Keeping it illegal. Taxation I'm not so bothered about (I believe tax to be a good thing), I'm more bothered about how they spend my tax money....


Ibiza, isn't that the pointless little island that leaches off the greedy, drunken, hedonistic, dullard Brits? ;)

Like with alcohol there is not much we can do to prevent the binge drinker from apearing. There are always "weak" people who can not control themselves with any form of entretainment...internet included. Most get a grip on themselves at some point and others need treatment. The vast majority knows the diference between drinking a beer or a glass of wine from downing half a bottle of Vodka. Same thing with weed. The movie-type of pot head is a minority while, as I said, I know many perfectly normal people who indulge, like with beer, once in a while with a joint or two.
Prohibition produces greed and unworthy interest in something that, if legal, would hardly sink a nation into depravity. Look at the Netherlands or Switzerland now...In both countries you can buy weed and that normalization, after some initial binge, even out perfectly IMHO.

Well..Ibiza being "pointless" is rather a harsh adjective..we make good money from those "dullard Brits" you mention, along with youth from the rest of Europe. Besides that its a wonderful Mediterranean Island and a great place to live.

No, for practical reasons, in that it would please the wrong people. I would not be opposed to the viewpoint that in a "war on drugs", use/trafficking is tantamount to treason.

Look at the Netherlands or Switzerland now...In both countries you can buy weed and that normalization, after some initial binge, even out perfectly IMHO.

OK, seems like a fair point. BUT, I don't think putting those sort of drugs into the hands of the British citizens is wise. I would presume the Swiss and Dutch are better educated at dealing with them (presumably of course).

Well..Ibiza being "pointless" is rather a harsh adjective..we make good money from those "dullard Brits" you mention, along with youth from the rest of Europe. Besides that its a wonderful Mediterranean Island and a great place to live.

Ok, pointless is a little harsh, but I was emphasising that the islands main function seems to service the "dullard Brits". If they were not there, it would be an even better island. Making money in the wrong ways :p , It must be like taking candy from a baby.

Though I tend to dislike potheads they would probably be idiots if pot didn't exist and in any case the war on drugs is too expensive a futile effort for me too support.

Legalize hard drugs too, they are a natural selection mechanism.

Drugs victimize the druguser

Thats their peregotative, the question is do they victimize me enough to repeat the stupidity of prohibition going after them... I say no.

Put it this way, stoners and pill heads are not going to disturb the peace. They may even just hug you or laugh or something equally as evil.

Drunks are liable to pretty much do anything with enough beer in them.

It is always hilarious to hear anybody want to ban hash, always makes me chuckle when they compare it to say heroin etc.

I don't like the crowd that wants to legalize pot here (basically the same crowd that just loves every wog that enters the fucking place), so part of the reasons I oppose it is to spite them. Not very objective, I know.

So I suppose society would be total peace and harmony if every gangster, every thug, and every criminal had a fully automatic AK47?

In the USA, ownership of class3 firearms, which includes fully automatic weapons, is legal, provided that the owner obtain a tax stamp (~$700.00/year), last I heard.

I support the legalisation of marijuana. It is far less dangerous of a drug than alchohol, and I doubt that legalisation would increase it's use much more than it already is.

If booze is ok, why not Weed?.


Exactly, it really is as simple as that. What do they say about pot? It is a "gateway drug". It kills brain cells. Both of these things are also true about alcohol. And alcohol, unlike pot causes a physical addiction, and all that come along with that. How many pot smokers become violent when they don't have any pot? Well, alcoholics certainly become violent when they haven't had a drink in a while. Alcohol, also, often causes certain people to act violent when they are drinking it, how often do you hear about someone under the influence of Marijuana acting violently? Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug, IMO, then marijuana.

I must say, I am completely surprised that so many have voted that pot should be legalized.

I don't like the crowd that wants to legalize pot here (basically the same crowd that just loves every wog that enters the fucking place), so part of the reasons I oppose it is to spite them. Not very objective, I know.
Thats the reason Nixon didn't legalize it lol... he hated the hippies who used it.

Exactly, it really is as simple as that. What do they say about pot? It is a "gateway drug". It kills brain cells. Both of these things are also true about alcohol. And alcohol, unlike pot causes a physical addiction, and all that come along with that. How many pot smokers become violent when they don't have any pot? Well, alcoholics certainly become violent when they haven't had a drink in a while. Alcohol, also, often causes certain people to act violent when they are drinking it, how often do you hear about someone under the influence of Marijuana acting violently? Alcohol is a much more dangerous drug, IMO, then marijuana.

I must say, I am completely surprised that so many have voted that pot should be legalized.

Fair enough. However, you do drink alcohol on occassion, no? :)
I bet you partake in alcohol use a lot more than pot use.
So, if alcohol is much more dangerous than weed, why not do weed more than alcohol?

I think that if people want to do it, go ahead. Even if citizens want to grow their own stuff, if it's obvious that it's for personal consumption, than the government should look the other way.
Kind of like the laws on the books outlawing certain sexual practices.
They do exist in certain states you know....not too many are ticketed or thrown in jail for breaking these laws :p
Thank heavens.

How about leave it up to the states and/or cities?
Like in Europe, all the weed heads can go to Oregon or wherever to get their stash.
Maybe keep it contained in certain areas.

Fair enough. However, you do drink alcohol on occassion, no? :)
I bet you partake in alcohol use a lot more than pot use.
So, if alcohol is much more dangerous than weed, why not do weed more than alcohol?





yes, I drink alcohol on occassion. How ever would you guess? :p I barely ever smoke pot. However, I do think alcohol is more dangerous then pot, to certain people, who already have problems controlling their behaviors. And yet, you can go to a bar, or a liquor store, as long as you are 21 and purchase this drug. Why should marijuana be so much more controlled?

Yea, I'lll agree with that theory. Basically, alcohol and weed are no different.
Alcohol causes much more death annually than weed no doubt.

I don't know though, the cops don't really bother the weed heads, unless you sell it or get pulled over at 3 am and you give a bored cop a drug case.
They love that.
But it's kind of a pseudo-underground, you can get it if you want, but it's all done without government interference, both for better or for worse.
I'd leave it up to the States.

smoke em if you got em.. :cool:

Of course it should be legalised. It'd diversify the market where presently you're stuck with nylon and not much else.

Everything should be legalised not simply Marijuana.

Everything should be legalised not simply Marijuana.
You're advocating the abolition of the law. LOL. Do you realise how contradictory that is?

Should marijuana be legalized?

Sure. The partial legalization of marihuana here in the Netherlands is working out reasonably well.

Sure. The partial legalization of marihuana here in the Netherlands is working out reasonably well.


For who?

For who?

I'm not aware of any party that suffers from the partial legalization, while it improves the quality of the drug (less dangerous substances that shouldn't be there) and saves law enforcement resources. As far as I know, the percentage of people addicted to drugs is not significantly larger in the Netherlands than in other Western nations with more restrictive drug laws.

I'm not aware of any party that suffers from the partial legalization,

Pharmacueticals.

Which is why it will never be legalized here.

They have unimaginable clout.

Weed should never be legalized. Alcohol and cigarettes should be banned as well.

Weed should never be legalized. Alcohol and cigarettes should be banned as well.


And your reasoning for this?

I've always been of the opinion that humans should be allowed whatever self-destruction they so choose. As recently as just under a hundred years ago, you could walk into a drug store and order yourself some cocaine, right off the shelf. Reefer sold for around a dollar an ounce, and yet there were not mass killings going on by those enslaved to dope of whatever name. In the end, evil comes from within a person, and not without from the substances they consume. If a drunk kills somebody, you can guess that the seed of destruction had already been planted. As for the hard drugs and automatic weapons question, I have yet to see a gun of any level of power rise from its position on the gun rack and spontaneously shoot someone. Accidentally, maybe, but that's just human stupidity's fault, and you can bet it was either poorly placed or improperly handled. Same goes with drugs. There are heroin users who can abstain all week and snort it on the weekends, and there are those who steal from the locals to buy their next fix.

All that aside, however, you have to keep in mind that the whole "war on drugs" is less a question of our safety (which, if you haven't noticed, the government doesn't give two shits about), and more a matter of control. After all, what should the government do? Give up their ban and admit they were wrong, foolish, and dragged us all into an endless quagmire of gang warfare and urban decay that lasts unto this day? Of course they won't! They will plod forward, forever denouncing the other side as "treasonous," much as they do with those who dissent on this whole "war on terror," essentially a plan to Americanize the entire world and force democracy upon people whether it would be beneficial to them or not. Our government will never admit they're wrong or even that they made a slight miscalculation. Forever their path will be the "right" one, for they will tread over all dissent. Besides, once we've got our right to damage our bodies however we so choose, what's next? We might start demanding our own freedoms back, and not just the sort we're imposing on other nations. Covert subversion exists forever within the minds of the liberal elite that control the mass media. What will they do when people begin to stand up and say "No, you're wrong?" Indeed, it's far easier to continue our "war on sanity" and announce to the world quite proudly that our ignorance is strength.

War on drugs = stronger government, just like war on hackers. Marijuana is the oldest Indo-Aryan drug... if anything, all drugs should be legal in certain areas of the city, and those who are too ill to get up should get the hollowpoint treatment.

And your reasoning for this?

They are harmful to society. They do nothing beneficial at BEST and at worse cause serious social problems. I would imagine that would be painfully to obvious.

War on drugs = stronger government, just like war on hackers. Marijuana is the oldest Indo-Aryan drug... if anything, all drugs should be legal in certain areas of the city, and those who are too ill to get up should get the hollowpoint treatment.
Should our current government(s) have wage war against drugs?--no, because that would give a corrupt system more power.
Should an ideal government have wage war against drugs?--no, because drug-culture would not be revered as much as it is.
Should some sort of interim government serving to destroy modern idiocy and restore health to society wage war on drugs?--yes, and I mean a literal war. Kill every addict, dealer, user, and all those who encourage drug use or protest the violent means to end usage.

Should our current government(s) have wage war against drugs?--no, because that would give a corrupt system more power.
Should an ideal government have wage war against drugs?--no, because drug-culture would not be revered as much as it is.
Should some sort of interim government serving to destroy modern idiocy and restore health to society wage war on drugs?--yes, and I mean a literal war. Kill every addict, dealer, user, and all those who encourage drug use or protest the violent means to end usage.

Outrageous, imho. Please define 'drugs'. Would it include alcohol and tobacco? If not, please explain why they are excluded while marihuana is not. Assuming it's used in moderation, marihuana may be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.

They are harmful to society. They do nothing beneficial at BEST and at worse cause serious social problems. I would imagine that would be painfully to obvious.


There could be some argument as to whether marijuana is harmful to the individual who uses it, but how is it harmful to society?

Please define 'drugs'. Would it include alcohol and tobacco? If not, please explain why they are excluded while marihuana is not. Assuming it's used in moderation, marihuana may be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco.
Drug: n. something and often an illicit substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness

Alcohol and tobacco fall into this category. I do not think there is anything intrinsically wrong with these two drugs, or most others for that matter, but I believe that it is necessary to purge one's folk from addicts, escapists, and degenerates. This is why I only advocate anti-drug laws during a hypothetical interim period rather than in a healthy society.

but how is it harmful to society?
If you live within an American city, you'll notice that drug-use is very harmful.

Drug: n. something and often an illicit substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness

But is the actual drug itself, what is harmful, or the addiction it causes? Again I have to say, many things can cause addiction for a certain type of people. food, gambling,etc.

If you live within an American city, you'll notice that drug-use is very harmful.[/QUOTE]


This is true with certain drugs, I do not belive it is true with marijuana. When I think of the type of thing you are describing I think of meth, crack, heroin,etc. I have to add that I don't think all drugs should be legalized, just marijuana.

Marijuana of the indica variety is the original Indo-European drug. It is not a party drug for the weak-minded as the ditch-weed Sativas are. It is a terrifying, paranoid, visionary, shamanistic drug.

I would legalize it under the provision that only high-grade Indica was legal to cultivate, and that sales were illegal except of seeds. If you can't get your act together to grow a plant, you don't need drugs, I say.

I have now known many people who have experimented with drugs. Those who confined themselves to marijuana, and eschewed alcohol and others, have done the best; those who went into heroin/ecstasy/meth have mostly died. Cocaine users appear to be able to keep it to the weekends about 75% of the time, with the remaining 25% being tragedies.

But is the actual drug itself, what is harmful, or the addiction it causes? Again I have to say, many things can cause addiction for a certain type of people. food, gambling,etc.
the drug itself. People turn to drugs primarily out of weakness, generally desiring to escape their mundane lifes. Addiction is pathetic as well, but it is the usage itself that I find most detrimental.

This is true with certain drugs, I do not belive it is true with marijuana
The idea that one can escape their boredom through marijuana (or any drug) is harmful, the culture that surrounds drug use is harmful (most white users are "wiggers," quasi-hippies, or metal-heads--all degenerates), and the fact that people make a living off of dealing drugs is harmful (the money spent on drugs fuels other diseased aspects of society).

Marijuana of the indica variety is the original Indo-European drug. It is not a party drug for the weak-minded as the ditch-weed Sativas are. It is a terrifying, paranoid, visionary, shamanistic drug.
Chemically-induced spirituality is bullshit, IMO. However, I recognize that others may find legitimate use for marijuana--that is why I do not advocate the permanent removal of it from society (just as I am not in favour of eliminating alcohol permanently, as I use mead in a legitimate way).

I don't know if I advocate drugs as replacement to spirituality -- but if one must use a drug, it should be shamanistic, e.g. esoteric and revelatory, and not of the mundane (alcohol, meth, heroin, etc).