Marijuana Legalization

[Nomrombom]

You're saying fast food isn't as addictive as weed? And how are they not comparable? They are personal choices which make the user feel good but have negative effects to the user and in some cases to society. Marijuana isn't physically addictive, whereas fast food is (well, it can be).

[obfuscator]

Well, food isn't as addictive as a drug like tobacco or heroin that has a physical addiction involved, but I'd say food can be addicting (to some people) like a drug that's psychologically addictive like marijuana.

 

Although if it was at all feasible I'd make obesity illegal too lol.

[Nomrombom]

Any way you slice it, marijuana being illegal is not fair if alcohol and tobacco are. That sounds childish, but really. And before anyone says that it's not an argument, it is. Marijuana is proven to be less harmful to you and to people around you than tobacco or alcohol. It being illegal is hypocrisy.

[sees_all1]

Let me put it to you this way. Obesity is harmful to society in the same ways narcotic use is. Obesity or over eating in general is a personal choice, beyond the necessary requirements of health of survival. Narcotic use in non medicinal use fits the same description.

Right, people choose to be fat in the same way people chose to be high. :rolleyes:

[Nomrombom]

Let me put it to you this way. Obesity is harmful to society in the same ways narcotic use is. Obesity or over eating in general is a personal choice, beyond the necessary requirements of health of survival. Narcotic use in non medicinal use fits the same description.

Right, people choose to be fat in the same way people chose to be high. :rolleyes:

 

Well of course it isn't a conscious or quick decision, but over time it is a personal choice that one makes, unless some disease is involved. Isn't it?

[sees_all1]

Let me put it to you this way. Obesity is harmful to society in the same ways narcotic use is. Obesity or over eating in general is a personal choice, beyond the necessary requirements of health of survival. Narcotic use in non medicinal use fits the same description.

Right, people choose to be fat in the same way people chose to be high. :rolleyes:

 

Well of course it isn't a conscious or quick decision, but over time it is a personal choice that one makes, unless some disease is involved. Isn't it?

enough said.

[Nomrombom]

Let me put it to you this way. Obesity is harmful to society in the same ways narcotic use is. Obesity or over eating in general is a personal choice, beyond the necessary requirements of health of survival. Narcotic use in non medicinal use fits the same description.

Right, people choose to be fat in the same way people chose to be high. :rolleyes:

 

Well of course it isn't a conscious or quick decision, but over time it is a personal choice that one makes, unless some disease is involved. Isn't it?

enough said.

 

It's still a choice, and one that is entirely preventable.

[Danqazmlp]

Any way you slice it, marijuana being illegal is not fair if alcohol and tobacco are. That sounds childish, but really. And before anyone says that it's not an argument, it is. Marijuana is proven to be less harmful to you and to people around you than tobacco or alcohol. It being illegal is hypocrisy.

 

 

This statement and the circles this thread is going in are exactly why the debate is annoying. Pro legalisation arguments like this are way too generalised and over simplified and ignore integral things which have been said many times, even in this thread. You are basically ignoring everything already said such as tobacco moving towards illegal status.

 

It isn't hypocrisy, it's called the modern world moving towards getting rid of substances which have any chance of causing negative effects. The modern world cannot suddenly ban things which are engrained in world society, create millions of jobs and incredible amounts of money. It can however keep something banned when it does none of those.

[Nomrombom]

Can =/= should

 

It's just ridiculous to me that a relatively small group of people can decide that nobody should be able to take narcotics. Who are you to tell me what I can or can't do to myself?

[aeternitatis]

I try to be as unbiased as possible.

 

Obesity does not "harm" others when weight is gained, but that does not rule out the question that it could harm society.

Most over weight & even underweight [people] would agree that, for the most part, getting obese will make you lazy. You'll probably sit around and enjoy some music while munching out.

If the general population were to gain too much weight, most of that population would become lazy or at least lazier than they were before gained weight.

This could in turn slow down the economy by decreasing productivity. That's the worst it would do. The positives outweigh the negatives.

If people would not be able to do their jobs properly while obese they wouldn't get physical complications before/during working, or they would and eventually become replaced by someone more responsible. I'm sure even if obesity were legal and not frowned upon most people would still not be over eating at work.

 

The moral aspect of legalizing over eating for personal use should not even be in question. As humans we should be allowed to take whatever food we like as long as it doesn't harm other people. Does over eating harm other people in any way direct enough to justify its illegality? No, therefore it should be legal for personal use. If legalized and properly taxed, billions of dollars of revenue would be made annually and (assuming our government spends the money accordingly) that money would benefit the people, whether it's put into health care, education or other things.

 

The question of legalizing over eating has absolutely nothing to do with cheeseburgers or soda. I agree with whoever said that just because obesity is more healthy than starving that does give it a legitimate reason to be legalized.

 

I advise the over weight people to have more of an open mind. As much as you like food and over eating, you can't simply think that 'everything' about it is good. There are negative effects, whether societal or not. You have to think beyond the physical effects of it and examine possible underlying problems it may cause. Upon analyzing these problems properly a decision can be made as to whether it should be legal or not.

 

Switched out stoner references for obesity references and all the things still apply. Changed things are in bold and the original is below. Tell me why obesity is a justified personal choice and narcotics shouldnt be?

 

[hide=orginal]

 

I try to be as unbiased as possible.

 

Marijuana does not "harm" others when smoked, but that does not rule out the question that it could harm society.

Most smokers & even non-smokers would agree that, for the most part, getting stoned will make you lazy. You'll probably sit around and enjoy some music while munching out.

If the general population were to smoke marijuana, most of that population would become lazy or at least lazier than they were before smoking weed.

This could in turn slow down the economy by decreasing productivity. That's the worst it would do. The positives outweigh the negatives.

If people would not be able to do their jobs properly while high they wouldn't get high before working, or they would and eventually become replaced by someone more responsible. I'm sure even if pot were legal and not frowned upon most people would still not be high at work.

 

The moral aspect of legalizing pot for personal use should not even be in question. As humans we should be allowed to take whatever drug we like as long as it doesn't harm other people. Does marijuana harm other people in any way direct enough to justify its illegality? No, therefore it should be legal for personal use. If legalized and properly taxed, billions of dollars of revenue would be made annually and (assuming our government spends the money accordingly) that money would benefit the people, whether it's put into health care, education or other things.

 

The question of legalizing marijuana has absolutely nothing to do with alcohol or tobacco. I agree with whoever said that just because marijuana is more healthy than alcohol and tobacco that does give it a legitimate reason to be legalized.

 

I advise the stoners to have more of an open mind. As much as you like weed and getting high, you can't simply think that 'everything' about it is good. There are negative effects, whether societal or not. You have to think beyond the physical effects of it and examine possible underlying problems it may cause. Upon analyzing these problems properly a decision can be made as to whether it should be legal or not.

[/hide]

 

What does this have to do with anything?

Troll some more.

[Nomrombom]

What does this have to do with anything?

Troll some more.

 

Ring isn't a troll, he's a highly opinionated devilish teddy bear.

 

 

OT: What doesn't it have to do with? He's making an argument for the legalization of marijuana by comparing it to overeating/obesity.

[aeternitatis]

Obesity being "legal" doesn't justify marijuana being illegal. I support legalizing marijuana, I just don't like people arguing about something they know nothing about.

[sees_all1]

Can =/= should

 

It's just ridiculous to me that a relatively small group of people can decide that nobody should be able to take narcotics. Who are you to tell me what I can or can't do to myself?

When someone finds a person OD'd and takes them to a hospital, where the staff brings them back to life, only to find that the druggy has no money and everyone else has to foot the bill.

When someone high as a kite goes on a joy ride, and drives a car into a group of pedestrians, killing two and severely injuring five.

When someone smokes pot in front of their kids, getting them high as well, in a sick form of child abuse.

 

It's not you we care about, it's others.

[aeternitatis]

Generalizing and over-exaggerating is what that is. Child abuse, crime and murder all occur when people are sober too...

[Nomrombom]

Can =/= should

 

It's just ridiculous to me that a relatively small group of people can decide that nobody should be able to take narcotics. Who are you to tell me what I can or can't do to myself?

When someone finds a person drank too much and takes them to a hospital, where the staff brings them back to life, only to find that the alcoholic has no money and everyone else has to foot the bill.

When someone drunk goes on a joy ride, and drives a car into a group of pedestrians, killing two and severely injuring five.

When someone drinks in front of their kids and then beats them, in a sick form of child abuse.

 

It's not you we care about, it's others.

 

You see what we mean?

[Zierro]

When someone finds a person OD'd and takes them to a hospital, where the staff brings them back to life, only to find that the druggy has no money and everyone else has to foot the bill.

When someone high as a kite goes on a joy ride, and drives a car into a group of pedestrians, killing two and severely injuring five.

When someone smokes pot in front of their kids, getting them high as well, in a sick form of child abuse.

 

It's not you we care about, it's others.

 

Sees All, your religion is responsible for the deaths (and in some cases, molestations) of thousands. Regardless of the fact that you may practice it responsibly, it still scares me to think of all the negative repercussions that could and have arisen from it, therefore it ought to be outright illegal for everyone.

 

We can draw parallels all day. We all have our "vices".

[Furah]

When someone finds a person OD'd and takes them to a hospital, where the staff brings them back to life, only to find that the druggy has no money and everyone else has to foot the bill.

So, because the person doesn't have the money, they should just be left to die? That's just sadistic and the most [bleep]ed up thing I've ever heard.

 

I'm so glad I live in a country where basic healthcare is available for everyone, even if they have no money.

[sees_all1]

When someone finds a person OD'd and takes them to a hospital, where the staff brings them back to life, only to find that the druggy has no money and everyone else has to foot the bill.

So, because the person doesn't have the money, they should just be left to die? That's just sadistic and the most [bleep]ed up thing I've ever heard.

 

I'm so glad I live in a country where basic healthcare is available for everyone, even if they have no money.

No, it means they shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place, especially if they can't care for themselves afterwards.

 

EDIT:

You can also read it as: I don't want to pay for their drug addiction.

[Zierro]

I think his point was more about how doing drugs can have repercussions on more than just the users, rather than something as sadistic as wanting them to rot there and die. I agree with you though - I think it's a disgusting system where the wealthier you are, the better medical treatment you deserve.

 

EDIT: Oh, nevermind lol.

[Furah]

When someone finds a person OD'd and takes them to a hospital, where the staff brings them back to life, only to find that the druggy has no money and everyone else has to foot the bill.

So, because the person doesn't have the money, they should just be left to die? That's just sadistic and the most [bleep]ed up thing I've ever heard.

 

I'm so glad I live in a country where basic healthcare is available for everyone, even if they have no money.

No, it means they shouldn't be doing drugs in the first place, especially if they can't care for themselves afterwards.

 

EDIT:

You can also read it as: I don't want to pay for their drug addiction.

What if, by keeping the drugs illegal, we were putting them in situations which lead crime, death, and other causes of social burden? Would you be willing to admit that you were wrong?

[Locke_Superbus]

What if, by keeping the drugs illegal, we were putting them in situations which lead crime, death, and other causes of social burden? Would you be willing to admit that you were wrong?

 

b b b b but that would require actually looking into the issue rather than simply make a blanket condemnation!

[sees_all1]

What if, by keeping the drugs illegal, we were putting them in situations which lead crime, death, and other causes of social burden? Would you be willing to admit that you were wrong?

If the law says "Don't do X", and someone does x, it isn't the law that made their decision to do x.

[The_Gabe]

What if, by keeping the drugs illegal, we were putting them in situations which lead crime, death, and other causes of social burden? Would you be willing to admit that you were wrong?

If the law says "Don't do X", and someone does x, it isn't the law that made their decision to do x.

 

But the citizens use money to enforce the law instead of using that money towards education about the drug.

[aeternitatis]

We aren't talking about drugs in general. You're basing your opinion on weed based on the problems associated with other drugs. I also do not like my money to be spent on drugs. The U.S. spends more than 42 billion dollars annually on weed alone (The cost has only risen annually since this study.) In addition to that, like Gabe said practically none (less than 1%) of that is spent on marijuana studies.

 

Considering that weed does not cause major nation/worldwide health issues, losing that much in tax revenues isn't justifiable at all...

[Nomrombom]

Don't forget that the crime for which the most people are incarcerated in the US is for possession of marijuana. Legalization = enormous decrowding of prisons.