Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Anthony W.

Legalizing Pot for Money?!? What Has Happened to America?!?

Recommended Posts

I don't want this to get political, first off. The state of California which has been a bit irresponsible is thinking about putting a tax on pot. My question is, WHY!?! That means legalizing it in the first place... Hell, maybe it's a good thing. I'd rather see people smoking pot than drinking beer. Pot is less addictive than alcohol and studies show it has less of a negative effect on our body. I AM NOT SAYING I AGREE WITH POT. I am saying that there are two great arguments for and against it. I want your opinion. I think this is a bit stupid, but, a lot of things are these days you must admit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My question would be...Why not???

It would be a great source of revenue for the state, and nobody ever died from smoking weed.

The same cannot be said of alcohol or tobacco.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi from the emerald triangle here in sunny california,where Ive had the police tell me many a time that,"We dont care about wed, we would rather see you sitting at home all stoned than out drunk driving or tweaking all night." Then they gave me my smoke back and sent me on my way. (3 times)

 

P.S. If you get the chance watch the series called , "Illegal drugs, and how they got that way." on the history channel. very informative, and some quite surprising little known facts , at least for me,

Edited by gwar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw a program in the UK last week where they mentioned pot being sold for medical reasons in California which may be what they're talking about.

 

In Cali, having a bad day is enough medical justification to get free pot from the City of San Francisco Health Department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather criminalize tobacco and alcohol... but as long as these two are legal and generating revenues for both the industry and governments, then why not do the same with marijuana indeed.

 

It's not nearly as addictive and dangerous as alcohol, legalizing will mean more revenues, tribunals less crowded by annoying but mostly harmless potheads, police and narcs free to deal with the more serious stuff, the part of occasional users that started because it was illegal and to stick it to the man would not have a reason to indulge PLUS it will severely undercut the profits and livelihood of certain criminal organisations and delinguant gangs (on the downside, it might push them toward more violent or dangerous activities).

 

It's also one of the oldest (with ergot) and safest psycho-active substance used by humanity and has been part of society for centuries in various forms.

In fact, in most of occidental society, the recreative and medicinal use of marijuana is a de facto more.

 

It makes sense as lons as you don't factor "moral panic".

 

I don't condone it, but wouldn't condemn it either, the usual official attitude toward marijuana is an incoherent one, more concerned with morals than public safety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My major question is: Haven't we been fighting the hippies, the peace love and socialist anarchist(proper definition, not popular definition)people for the past 200 years? Pot destroys lives. So does beer. I say we put stricter limits on all of it. I don't support pot and I don't support the destruction of lives. Hell, I'm mad at myself for being addicted to this computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend not to go for limiting what people can do with their lives providing it doesn't adversely affect others. Otherwise you end up with the kind of nanny state we're getting in the UK where they feel it's their right to monitor every aspect of your live, tell you how much fruit and veg to eat and remove any responsibility from the individual.

I'm sure you can argue that pot smokers destroy the lives of those around them, but large numbers of people smoke pot, drink alcohol and inhale tobacco without screwing up their lives so should they be penalised to protect a minority who'd probably find another way to mess up anyway? Maybe the ones around them should step and do something? Again it comes down to taking responsibility which I thought was a bonus of living in a free democratic society?

..and if anyone tries restricting my alcohol supply they're in big trouble...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's in human nature to be "addicted" to things, that's how we learn...

 

The trouble is addiction to psycho-active substances, but some, as all good things, are only a matter of degree and control, just like alcohol is not necessarily dangerous and doesn't necessarily destroy lives, it's the abuse that creates trouble (just like eating too much is not such a good idea... exercising too much isn't either... some drugs in the right quantity can save you, abused they can kill or get you addicted for life...)

 

Unfortunately in our societies the notions of personal responsability, self-control and mesure are becoming relics of the past...

 

Why fight a war against a "mostly harmless" product, when the war's already lost and the insistance of criminalizing it is only lining the pockets of delinquants and criminals ? It might as well help finance health, education, anti-tobacco/alcohol/marijuana campains etc...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not being a pot-smoker, I don't care either which way. On the one hand, legalizing it would take away that "forbidden fruit" factor and if anything, may even decrease its use. On the other hand, it is a gateway drug; I know damn well that it is and I know plenty of people who have gotten into heavier stuff who started with pot; one of which is dead from an OD, another is on medication as a result of his use but is completely clean, still others are trying to get clean but keep relapsing, some are headed for ODs and just don't care. Bit of a tricky situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its called "bankruptcy" and is simply a means to find another revenue source.

 

as to why - that would get into the political.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gateway drug argument is a falacious one not backed by any statistical data (at least I have yet to see an independent study with precise methodology and raw data whose conclusions actually correlates with the data), in fact, data I browsed until now tend to show the contrary...

 

However, it is true that for those seeking to escape reality through drugs, marijuana is often a first step, but the decision was already taken, it's the will to destroy yourself that pushed them to marijuana in the first place (because it's the easiest and cheapest to get, and it's the one inducing the least fear), not the other way round.

One could also make the argument that all those pot-smokers that went into heavier stuff were coffee drinker... and coffee is a psycho-active and addictive substance, you might as well blame coffee as a gateway drug then...

The gateway drug argument is indeed a cognitive bias inherited from decades of anti-drugs campaign (unfortunately, while they managed to plant this idea in the public debate, they didn't reach their goal or reducing drug consumption).

 

There has always been, and always will be people ready and willing to destroy their lives, and they'll do it with whatever they can find, no one product is to blame, it's like blaming the gun for the murder...

Edited by Gunrunner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Cali, having a bad day is enough medical justification to get free pot from the City of San Francisco Health Department.

 

No, I tried. Didn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pot destroys lives. So does beer. I say we put stricter limits on all of it. I don't support pot and I don't support the destruction of lives.

 

Yeah, that whole 18th Amendment thing worked out pretty well, didn't it?

 

I think that the statement "pot destroys lives" is a tad bit extreme.

 

I don't like drugs, not even weed, but I would like to think police resources, tax money, and the court system should be able to focus on much more important things than some 19 y/o kid and his friends taking bong hits while playing Xbox.

 

I in no way condone drug use or want to be around anyone that uses drugs, but the entire "War on Drugs" has been a large failure as drug use and drug related violent crimes have done nothing but increase. In the current state it is nothing but a large waste of money and it is time some new strategies are employed. However, "stricter limits" will do nothing. Are you suggesting some one have the same sentence for having a dime bag of weed as someone convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you've got your statistics, I've got my experiences and they seem to indicate otherwise. But I do acknowledge, yes personality does get into it quite a bit and was likely the deciding factor on some of my friends: the drug won't smoke itself, nor force anyone to smoke it just as a gun can't pull its own trigger, it does take the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I in no way condone drug use or want to be around anyone that uses drugs, but the entire "War on Drugs" has been a large failure as drug use and drug related violent crimes have done nothing but increase. In the current state it is nothing but a large waste of money and it is time some new strategies are employed. However, "stricter limits" will do nothing. Are you suggesting some one have the same sentence for having a dime bag of weed as someone convicted of armed robbery and kidnapping?

 

Damn good point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Caesar, it's a choice between emotive and anecdotal truth (a way to tell the truth appealing to personal experience and building up a narrative) or cold and rationnalised truth (more concerned with numbers and their relationships, often offering counter-intuitive truth but no real clue on why things happen).

 

None it better than the other, they offer two different facets of truth, one on how people see and live truth, the other on what's really going on, but without clue on why... I'd rather rely on data, you'd rather on experience, fine by me, both are as good and as true as long as we know of which we speak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ugg, I see this getting hostile... Not what I wanted... I now retract my presence from this discussion... You all can now do what you please with this.

 

There is no need for that, I wasn't trying to be hostile, there is no reason not to make your opinion heard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a hot issue with some. I can give a rat's ass. I wont do it myself and give a crap if someone else does. Doesn't affect me in the least bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy, and We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue..