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.

Shadowbrand wrote:I say do it. Oh also, have a Detox clinic in each major city. Just so that we can actually help the people.

Sure,centers to help people kick the habit would be (IMO) a good thing,sort of like A.A. but without the "dogma".
Legalization in no way means "lets turn the country into a bunch of addicts",it just seems a much more valid way of dealing with alot of problems.
Because,lets be honest,the "reefer madness" mindset & "The WAR on drugs" isn't working.

Yeah.

Kids do it because adults don't like it, and they like to get them mad.

They want to rebel, so they do it.

Honestly, if we handle it like Europe does I've heard (basically they don't give a gak, I may be terribly wrong, euro's feel free to clarify) it wouldn't be a problem.

Alcohol leads to wife-beating, shootings, etc.

Weed leads to 5 years off your life span if you do it A LOT, and makes you watch some cartoons and laugh your ass off.

Weed being illegal is causing more problem's than it is worth.

Make weed legal. McDonald's illegal.

Read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_the_Netherlands

So no not all the euro countries see eye to eye about drugs. But i am glad i live in The Netherlands. I smoked weed when i was younger found out it was a waste of money and time and quit.

It would be best to legalise but that will never happen

Khornholio wrote:Make weed legal. McDonald's illegal.

Cheetos would be able to buy Belgium if they did!

Alcohol is legal, therefore alcoholic (some) alcoholics become a problem. Plenty of people who drink do so responsibly and are not a problem. Wouldn't the same go for any other mind altering drug? Some people will abuse it, and others will just take it for what it is and be responsible about their use.

I think illegal drugs should be legalised, but only certain kinds, and only under certain conditions.

1. Weed: May be smoked openly for a legitimate medical condition, may be smoked recreationly in ones own home or in a liscensed establishment.
2. Acid: May be used medicinaly for depression or PTSD, recreationaly only in a liscensed establishment.

I only list these two, because these are the only ones that i ahve seen the effects of personally, tho I ahve not done either.

Alcohol: Let minors drink it. What, for hundreds of years it was okay, and now its not. I call bullcrap.

Fateweaver wrote:Not necessarily. Cigarettes double in price when PresBO took office and I've not heard or seen any more reports of cigarettes being smuggled in and sold cheaper on the black market.

Funny, they're the same price here as they were before. You sure that wasn't a local thing?


ITT people attempt to justify the legality of soft drugs such as weed and then segway it into unrealistic and poorly thought out textwalls about legalizing heroin and cocaine full of legitimately dangerous logical holes and an absolute lack of historical perspective.

ITT people get fooled by big numbers without wondering about the underlying implications of them.

Not sure. They went from on average 2.75/pack for Camels to 5.25/pack within 2 months of O taking office. I don't seem to recall any local legislation passing such a thing though.

Not sure. They went from on average 2.75/pack for Camels to 5.25/pack within 2 months of O taking office. I don't seem to recall any local legislation passing such a thing though.

There likely was, it's ludicrously unrealistic to expect a president to make your cigarettes twice as expensive within 2 months of taking office. Tax laws take some time to be put into effect on a national level and they have to be voted on. You probably just missed a local vote for a vice-hike.

Anything concerning cigs I don't normally pay too much attention too. I'll have to look into it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, April 1st of 2k9 was the Federal tax hike from 39 cents per pack to 1 dollar per pack. The state probably passed something to raise them higher. Some states did increase tax to help pay for other things.

As noted though. If they legalize weed then tax the hell out of it. I think MM is taxed to hell and back so do it for legalized, non-medical.

Obama did indeed pass a tax increase on cigarettes. It was used to fund an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. I believe the tax increase was 62 cents.

There's also been some noise about an increase to the Minnesota state tax on cigarettes; somewhere in the neighborhood of a dollar. I don't know if that ever passed though.

Marijuana would be an excellent source of revenue for either the states, or the federal government.

Mhm.

All I've heard from anti-weed people are "Its bad!"

And when we smack them with hard logic, comparing it to alcohol or cig's, they just continue with "But its bad"

gaks.

I'm in favour of dope and ecstasy being legalised and regulated. Harder, addictive drugs should remain illegal, though.

Fateweaver wrote:I don' think it needs to be legalized but if they do tax the feth out of it. Like I'm talking 30-40%.

How do you tax something if it's illegal? By definition they're doing it outside of government sight, so how would you tax it.

It's a bit like a bank robber putting his earnings from a heist on his tax return.

Karon wrote:
And when we smack them with hard logic, comparing it to alcohol or cig's, they just continue with "But its bad"

Your position, no matter how well grounded in evidence, is nothing more than "But its not bad".

Qualitative judgments are necessarily subjective. Don't pretend as though this is a matter of logic, it isn't.

If both alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana are all equally bad, then it would make sense to treat them in the same manner; by regulating and taxing all in step with their individual nuances.

Legalize and regulate pot, that's my opinion.

Wrexasaur wrote:If both alcohol, cigarettes, and marijuana are all equally bad, then it would make sense to treat them in the same manner; by regulating and taxing all in step with their individual nuances.

Legalize and regulate pot, that's my opinion.

I agree with you, and that does make sense. However, measuring badness isn't really possible, and many people would dispute the notion that pot is on equal footing with alcohol and tobacco (or claim that they are, and that they should all be banned).

That's the issue with qualitative arguments. There's really no way to settle them as quality isn't purely governed by medical data.

Completely relevant.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/early-marijuana-use-increases-psychosis-risk,17391/

sebster wrote:I'm in favour of dope and ecstasy being legalised and regulated. Harder, addictive drugs should remain illegal, though.

Fateweaver wrote:I don' think it needs to be legalized but if they do tax the feth out of it. Like I'm talking 30-40%.

How do you tax something if it's illegal? By definition they're doing it outside of government sight, so how would you tax it.

It's a bit like a bank robber putting his earnings from a heist on his tax return.

You misread my line. Look again. I said they don't need to legalize it but if they do (left out the legalize because I thought it was obvious what I was implying) tax the feth out of it.

Reading comprehension a little off seb?

dogma wrote:I agree with you, and that does make sense. However, measuring badness isn't really possible, and many people would dispute the notion that pot is on equal footing with alcohol and tobacco (or claim that they are, and that they should all be banned).

That's the issue with qualitative arguments. There's really no way to settle them as quality isn't purely governed by medical data.

Measuring abstractly (based on majority opinion), with data that may not be well settled, is not a particularly ineffective way to go about it.

Good and evil are nonexistent. Good or bad, is just a manipulative way of asking positive, or negative; all of which don't completely address the issue.

Just my opinion, but lots of that same opinion will have an impact on the issue of legalizing marijuana. It isn't airtight, it just makes sense.

Fateweaver wrote:
You misread my line. Look again. I said they don't need to legalize it but if they do (left out the legalize because I thought it was obvious what I was implying) tax the feth out of it.

Reading comprehension a little off seb?

Actually, you need to put a comma after the word 'legalized' in order for that sentence to have a solid case for that meaning. I knew what you meant, but its understandable that someone might not as it wasn't clear. It would also also have helped to add a 'should'.

If I think it appropriate to punctuate properly I will but I figured it was fairly obvious what I meant.

Guess it's easier to comprehend your own posts than for a stranger to comprehend them.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Measuring abstractly (based on majority opinion), with data that may not be well settled, is not a particularly ineffective way to go about it.

That is the theoretical basis of democracy, but it doesn't arrive at the actual quality of a thing. All it tells us is what people believe about a thing, which may also describe its nature. That's what I was trying to illustrate. This is a qualitative argument, and so not subject to 'logic' in the sense it was referred to.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Good and evil are nonexistent. Good or bad, is just a manipulative way of asking positive, or negative; all of which don't completely address the issue.

Just my opinion, but lots of that same opinion will have an impact on the issue of legalizing marijuana. It isn't airtight, it just makes sense.

Well yeah, because its really all about the voters, which places the matter squarely in the subjective arena.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:If I think it appropriate to punctuate properly I will but I figured it was fairly obvious what I meant.

Guess it's easier to comprehend your own posts than for a stranger to comprehend them.

Well, that's also understandable as most uses of the word 'but' include a pause, but that's really just because it is commonly used as a conjunction.

dogma wrote:That is the theoretical basis of democracy, but it doesn't arrive at the actual quality of a thing. All it tells us is what people believe about a thing, which may also describe its nature. That's what I was trying to illustrate. This is a qualitative argument, and so not subject to 'logic' in the sense it was referred to.

I didn't use the word logical, I referred to it as sensible.

Well yeah, because its really all about the voters, which places the matter squarely in the subjective arena.

Even being a subjective issue, that may have an impact (and pretty much does so) on research into the problem. More pressure, more research, more opinion from a reputable set of institutions. Does pot make you crazy? I don't think so... but what do doctors think?

You are likely to know more about all of this than I do, just adding my two cents.

I would love if the federal government legalized drugs...with conditionals.

First off...the Federal government would need to decide what drugs to legalize. We have had many, many years of study and practice in terms of what people have used and what effects these drugs have. Legalize the drugs that are not potentially life threatening after every use. Obviously, limits must be placed on how much these drugs can be taken, and severe penalties must ensue for those who overabuse, much like alcohol.

Second...regulation of these drugs are paramount. Licenses would probably be great for those who grow the stuff domestically and for those who sell it. Anyone caught selling the stuff without a license or growing it without a permit would get jail time. The importation and dissemination of these drugs without said license would also impose harsh penalties as well.

Third...saturate the market with these drugs. Make sure prices are so low it undercuts the international drug trade and illegal growing. This can be difficult, as reckless imposition of fees for licenses and permits could drive up the prices. Government regulation is paramount to making this work.

Lastly...a zone of drug use. Just call it a red light district. Major metropolitan areas should have regions like Amsterdam has where just about anything goes. The heaviest concentration of these drugs should be in these regions. Under heavy supervision and protection, peace should be kept and stability ensured.

Now all of this is probably whimsical and impossible to implement, but the two biggest challenges would be to undercut illegal drugs and to make these drugs safe (definitons of illegal and safe are left to your own respective opinion).

Wrexasaur wrote:
I didn't use the word logical, I referred to it as sensible.

I was referring to Karon's post.

Wrexasaur wrote:
Even being a subjective issue, that may have an impact (and pretty much does so) on research into the problem. More pressure, more research, more opinion from a reputable set of institutions. Does pot make you crazy? I don't think so... but what do doctors think?

You are likely to know more about all of this than I do, just adding my two cents.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not really into drug politics, I'm commenting more on the reasoning going on here (not jsut you, but the whole of the thread). Personally, I would like most drugs to be legalized, and controlled by state monopolies; though I doubt I'll ever see it happen.

FITZZ wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Drugs are legal.

Why just today I bough me some acetylsalicylic acid and acetaminophen from my local Pharmacy!

I stand corrected by Gwar (there's a shock) .

So let us focus on "Should ilegal drugs be made legal"?

Define yourself. Which illegal drugs? All of the them, some of them? which?

Because some of them are legitimately dangerous, like meth.

Frazzled wrote:
Define yourself. Which illegal drugs? All of the them, some of them? which?

Only the ones Frazzled likes. Lots and lot of them. All of it Overnight Expressed straight to Frazzled's door!

I would say all of them. If someone O.D.s they knew what they were getting into before they shoved the needle in. But then again I believe in natural selection culling the gene pool for the sake of progress too.