Should illegal drugs be legalized?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**dogma**

Nightwatch wrote:
People are saying that we should legalize pot.

What people might say is not the same as what people are saying.

Get your tenses straight, or don't pretend you speak the language.

**Albatross**

Fateweaver wrote:But you can't prove it wouldn't increase the incidence.

It's all purely speculation but I see more employer/employee problems post legalization than I see currently.

I might be wrong but I might also be right. I know a LOT of stoners who don't even think weed should be considered a drug, that it's no more harmful than normal cigarettes (subjective as mary jane does slow your reflexes more than Camels and as much as alcohol) and so there are going to be a large number of them who will say, upon legalization, that they should be allowed to smoke at work.

Again, nobody can prove the above scenario will exist but nobody can disprove it either.

I think Fateweaver may be Glenn Beck.

**Nightwatch**

dogma wrote:
Nightwatch wrote:
People are saying that we should legalize pot.

What people might say is not the same as what people are saying.

Get your tenses straight, or don't pretend you speak the language.

Very nice. I was trying to draw a connection to "if that actually happened".
And if we listen to what people are saying, why wouldn't we listen to what people say in the future? I realize you believe that no one will actually have the stupidity required to ask to smoke pot at work, but regardless of your beliefs, some people are that stupid. Which means they will say it.
And if they say it, why wouldn't they be listened to? We listen to people these days. Perhaps we don't agree, but we listen to people. Perhaps we shouldn't, and use common sense instead.

**FITZZ**

Albatross wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:But you can't prove it wouldn't increase the incidence.

It's all purely speculation but I see more employer/employee problems post legalization than I see currently.

I might be wrong but I might also be right. I know a LOT of stoners who don't even think weed should be considered a drug, that it's no more harmful than normal cigarettes (subjective as mary jane does slow your reflexes more than Camels and as much as alcohol) and so there are going to be a large number of them who will say, upon legalization, that they should be allowed to smoke at work.

Again, nobody can prove the above scenario will exist but nobody can disprove it either.

I think Fateweaver may be Glenn Beck.

...I always thought he was Joseph McCarthy reincarnated.

**dogma**

Nightwatch wrote:
Very nice. I was trying to draw a connection to "if that actually happened".

Still the wrong tense.

Nightwatch wrote:
And if we listen to what people are saying, why wouldn't we listen to what people say in the future?

Because its a different instance, stop equivocating.

Nightwatch wrote:
I realize you believe that no one will actually have the stupidity required to ask to smoke pot at work, but regardless of your beliefs, some people are that stupid.

Some of them post in this forum.

Nightwatch wrote:
Which means they will say it.
And if they say it, why wouldn't they be listened to? We listen to people these days. Perhaps we don't agree, but we listen to people. Perhaps we shouldn't, and use common sense instead.

In this context 'listening' denotes positive, political action. There is no guarantee that a given statement will produce political action. You have, again, illustrated a lack of functional literacy.

Also, common sense does not exist.

**sebster**

Stormrider wrote:You know what? Legalize them all, I changed my mind. Let everyone decide for themselves, but there better be no bitching for the consequences.

What’s wrong with a middle ground?

Albatross wrote:I think Fateweaver may be Glenn Beck.

Possibly, but it’s hard to tell if he’s crying when he posts.

**dogma**

sebster wrote:
What’s wrong with a middle ground?

It's hard?

**Stormrider**

dogma wrote:
sebster wrote:
What’s wrong with a middle ground?

It's hard?

Exactly, in the US there really is no middle ground for people to stand on concerning Social issues. It's either one way or the other concerning things like abortion, the death penalty etc...

**Frazzled**

That actually doesn't jive with most polling/census data.

**dogma**

Stormrider wrote:
Exactly, in the US there really is no middle ground for people to stand on concerning Social issues. It's either one way or the other concerning things like abortion, the death penalty etc...

That's false, there are many varied positions on the majority of social issues. The trouble is that explaining a nuanced position takes time, and often goes unheard by those who are listening. Its rare to find someone who will listen to what another person says, and remember it in detail, rather than as pro or con position.