Weed, Pot, Marijuana.....Legalize it or not?

Should we legislate on the basis of whether we've done things before and if we've liked it? I never smoke it but that doesn't give me the right to prohibit others from doing so. Who cares if people get f*cked up from it? I could give a shit less what others do as long as they're not hurting others.

Yeah cause legalizing marijuana will really be killing people. Quite ironic that it's actually prohibition that leads to gang violence and death on a large scale.

Being that you're the most inconsistent member in this forum I wouldn't be the least surprised to hear you don't support prohibition of alcohol however, which negatively affects people far more than marijuana ever will.

 

The spy tool on NetBuilders? That's vBISpy.

Straight outta John Stuart Mill:

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."​

Exactly as Lao Tzu pointed out, "The more laws and order are made prominent, the more thieves and robbers there will be."

I'm not inconsistent, you're just a victim of propaganda.

If you would think more and watch propaganda videos less, you would realize that it is your own positions which are completely inconsistent.

 

Congratulations, you wish to prohibit alcohol. You may profit from reading history first, however, before we can continue our discussion.

Well I'm glad you admit to the drug war contributing greatly to violence and crime that would not be there in the absence of the laws that create them. And law /= order. The drug war for instance is disorder.

Freedom is never inconsistent. You have no principled or factual basis for your arguments; you are full of opinions and quotes from dead people that are "smarter than you" who at the same time usually come to conclusions far different than your own.

 

Huh? Are you illiterate?

Well duh.

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.” -- Thomas Jefferson.

Freedom isn't, but Paulista's are.

 

So we're in agreement on everything then? Great.

 

Not everything I bet Will doesn't support Pittsburgh Steelers! LOL

 

I'd imagine he's indifferent to them since there probably isn't any quotes about them by dead famous people.

 

Got to thinking about this some more the other day.

Cheeseburgers, bad
Pot good.

We live in a strange world.

 

I wouldn't say everything.

We just happen to agree on most domestic issues.

We disagree on foreign policy issues.

Unlike Paulista's, I believe in this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.​

I haven't fallen for the fallacy of group rights. There are no group rights; there are only individual rights. I don't believe that an individuals rights are alienable just because they happen to have had the bad luck to be born to Muslim parents or in Dar al Islam. This is exactly the same as my stance on the slavery of Communism. There are no significant moral differences between Communism and Islam. Everything that Barry Goldwater wrote about Communism in The Conscience of a Conservative applies equally well to Islam. The embrace of totalitarianism by "modern" "libertarians" such as Ron Paul is disgraceful. It's is a philosophy of defeat; it is an abandonment of all that is moral.

From this same belief comes my opposition to laws against emigration and immigration. Humans have rights; areas of dirt have no rights -- land doesn't own people. A persons rights are not alienable just because they happen to be born South of the border. A Latino is no less human than a blue blood from New England. It is very popular now among "modern" "libertarians" to believe that "all men" means "all men born in the U.S." or "all men in power" or "all white men" or "all men who believe the same as we do." This is poppycock. None of these are attributes of men as they are created (born). These are just verbal dodges men use to justify moral dodges. All men means all humans.

And what are their rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Not "free health care, retirement, and cable TV". Their rights are exactly as defined by John Stuart Mill -- the right to be left alone as long as they grant those same rights to other men. These are not group rights. The Taliban have no "right" to take away the rights to life, liberty, and property of the people of Afghanistan. In attempting to do so, they forfeit their own rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Outside of that forfeiture, no one has a right to oppress others -- despite what "modern" "libertarians" may believe and accept.

 

I'm not a Paulista, and I don't share his views on immigration. I don't understand how you plan to free all foreigners from their governments, especially when most of them have been brainwashed to be loyal to their leaders (sort of like here). That costs money (lots), and for a government to do so would require a lessening of the economic freedom you hold dear.

 

We should be talking about banning cigarettes rather than legalizing weed, marijuana and other bullshit, actually bullshits better atleast it doesn't kill you.

 

Ban cigarettes? Really? Have we learned nothing about what happens when a state tries to prohibit otherwise popular products?

I'm a huge fan of pot but I can admit there are people who shouldn't be using it. Some people get paranoid from it and that's a well-known but generally rare response (10 - 15%?). A lot of people can't focus or find their motivation when they're high, and they should probably not smoke until they're done with their work for the day. (I know a guy who made million$ while smoking every day - but he had a strict "after sundown" rule.)

And then for some people, marijuana provides the pain relief and relaxation necessary to be productive and ambitious. Regular smoking has not and probably cannot be tied to significant cognitive decline, especially not when compared to regular consumption of alcohol and prescription medications. For the regular smokers, they'll even become accustomed to the perspective and won't demonstrate the common "stoner" stereotypes of slow talk and clumsy movement. That has more to do with being in an unfamiliar state of mind than with the actual effects of the plant.

 

California is currently considering a ban on smoking on public beaches. As stupid as it may seem, since the shore breeze pretty much eliminates the possibility of anyone breathing second hand smoke, it is a hell of a revenue generator for the state on the backs of the poor, as usual. It reminds me of all the revenue the state will generate from DUI tickets, smoking in public tickets, rehab center taxes, and a variety of other offshoot businesses once Pot is legalized.

 

Just like some people shouldn't be eating hohos or taking antidepressants (which also can make you paranoid).

 

I've gt to say that legalizing pot has numerous benefits and very few down falls.

Those who wish to use it have easy access, one way or the other - my ex's kid (she was 20 odd, not a real kid) was a pot addict for a time.

Making it legal makes it cheaper but also limits the appeal to the kind of people who'll do things simply because it is illegal, aka, fashionable. (Such as underage drinking.)

Many people shouldn't drink; it isn't any different.

Legalizing pot stops many crimes in their track and makes money for the government - why criminalize something natural? It's a "nanny" country.

 

There's a lot of ways legalizing could benefit society. The inner city struggle is largely due to the government's racist laws in the first place. It's funny tracing the root of problems to their origin... you always seem to end up at the same source. That's why these problems don't get talked about. It's as if these problems were inherent, but they're not.

Not all problems are due to government, but a lot are. And most of them are the hidden cause of other problems we like to blabber on about, and they remain hidden because there's a vested interest in keeping them that way for $$$ and power.

I don't even smoke pot, but I also have no right to control the private affairs of others.

 

So the ban on pot is a racist law? Please explain.

 

the people who know say 'yes' - the people who don't know, don't know.

 

Wow, so now potheads are a race? Funny!

 

http://www.drugpolicy.org/about/position/race_paper_history.cfm

Enjoy.