Weed legal?
- Legal
- Illegal
- Decriminalized
0
voters
Have any?
What are your thoughts on the subject?
Should it be legal?
Why?
Why not?
Should be legal.
Actions that do not pose an imminent or overwhelming threat of harm to others should be legal.
Smoking weed does not pose an imminent or overwhelming threat of harm to others.
Smoking weed should be legal.
Thoughts?
I think marijuana should be decriminalized, as the synthetic versions currently legal pose even more problems (generally psychological), and let us not forget the salvia fiasco. Chemists are going to continue producing these substitutes so long as the genuine article is illegal.
My main pros are:
- It is much safer than alcohol, especially when ingested or consumed through a vaporizer.
- It is taxable. This creates jobs for Americans, allows for in country industrial production, which removes or reduces our expenditure on importing [industrial hemp and hemp products] and poses a benefit for a country in financial crisis (benefits, not solves, but benefits).
- Medicinal uses are notable, though less ambiguous research is necessary.
- Because of how long it remains in the system, frequency of use and dose levels are easily monitored.
My main cons are:
- It is often consumed with tobacco, and through the common method of gutting a blunt, creates a great amount of waste which usually is left on the ground of nature parks I happen to stroll through. Smoking it is potentially as hazardous as tobacco.
- You cannot smoke pot and subsequently read Anti-Oedipus without re-reading each sentence two or more additional times.
- Though it can combat anorexia, this effect can translate to eating disorders in addition to general lethargy in some users, depending on frequency of use and strength of dose.
A philosophical reason for legalizing/decriminalizing pot: it makes you more philosophical.
I think that as long as you are not causing harm to somebody else you should be allowed to do whatever you want with yourself. (I mean direct harm… making yourself fat and thus ugly to look at doesn’t qualify)
Essentially, each individual has their best interests in mind more than a government official. Who is the government official to say what one should or shouldn’t do to oneself?
…so true so true…
also a potential reason some might want people not smoking it…
Indeed what sort of insurance that they serve our insurance over their own…
Pretty much all the arguments around drugs have relatively boring theoretical roots. This, I feel, is especially notable in those who oppose legalisation (in the UK so I specifically mean our politicians when I say this) simply because their own position is incoherent and requires lying (essentially) about the facts to support their position. Given that EVERY politician here ascribes to basic liberal principles (again UK, that our last left wing govt was also a govt of deregulation and privatisation drives this home) for them to not support the idea that man is sovereign over their own body essentially requires a denial of the facts over weed use. See making it class B in 2009, or the weird Mephedrone controversy last year.
I support legalisation (in the UK) simply because the current drug laws, formed in the court of tabloids and deranged, public outrage, is inconsistent, based on lies and misinformation and the political class is not strong enough to do anything about it. I support it simply because I find the inconsistency of the system incredibly irritating.
Given that one, basic theoretical principle of liberal democracy should ensure legality in the UK, that its not relies on obscuring the practical implication, and here is where I think the interesting debates lie.
That said, I do have one worry (which, by the by, also applies to alcohol) I’m not sure I like having a society where there are lots of mood altering substances available only because the UK has a pretty poor record of treating mental illness and I don’t like that there are more roots of self medication open. That is not to say I think weed causes any mental illness - the evidence is at best inconclusive and if you think otherwise you need to go read the latest papers - but that it presents a root to people with problems a way by which they can mask them, a route that can be more harmful in the long run.
The problem is this isn’t an argument against legalisation, and the ‘why’ demonstrates the problem with all of these kinds of arguments against it. Weed is prevalent in society RIGHT NOW, whether legal or not, and, in fact, proper regulations would actually help protect against these sorts of outcomes.
Mephedrone controversy …whats that?
Its amazing how the incarceration has gone up sense the war on drugs huh…
I wounder how much money could be saved if we weren’t’ incarceration so many dope heads and sxrewing up their lives…
Again, in the UK.
The laws which state whether owning a particular drug is legal or not (generally) requires that the actual drug be named (where named essentially means refer to a definite chemical structure). So, to avoid the law, there’s been a habit here where they just ‘invent’ new drugs every year or so, generally by manipulating the structure of existing chemicals.
Mephedrone is one such creation, similar in nature to MDMA or amphetamines except that it was (initially) legal. The path to it (inevitably) getting banned was paved by a MASSIVE amount of spin from the media, they basically invented an entire new drug culture attached to it, gave it nicknames nobody used and attributed deaths to it without evidence and, when the evidence arrived, proved to be wrong.
I’m no particular fan of it, but the process of it coming to public attention and being banned is a fairly good indication of everything that’s wrong with the drug laws in this country. Especially given that, according to latest research, the only result of banning hasn’t been reducing its use, but doubling its street price. Anecdotal evidence suggest that, now its illegal, users are more likely to go on to MDMA or coke since they’re already using illegal drugs / now have to go to street dealers, the barriers have been removed.
I don’t agree that people always know what’s in their best interests more than the government does, but I do believe that despite this people should be allowed to decide for themselves what they can and cannot do to their own bodies.
Which is why I favor the legalization of drugs, prostitution, gambling, abortion (which is already legal), and probably other things I’m not thinking of.
It should be legal because it feels good.
Sexism! I demand MORE women in prison and I wont be happy until there is an exact 50%-50% split.
Eh, pot gives you the impression you are more philosophical, but you’re just high. Psilocybin, on the other hand, may aid a philosophical nature, provided you are not preoccupied with laughing uncontrollably.
Disclaimer: I am only addressing these substances in order to contrast marijuana
In the U.S., we have the methadone controversy, where we employ clinics to divvy it out to “recovering” opiate addicts, allowing them to get their fix while remaining productive little cogs, though not necessarily aiding their ultimate recovery since methadone’s usefulness stems for its similar tolerance properties–good for the company who produces methadone and the clinics who serve it, bad for the addicts who may want to get their lives back together. I’ll have to research mephedrone further.
As per the “similar” substances mentioned, MDMA was initially legal as well, but it was eventually outlawed, and, in my opinion, rightfully so: it is absolutely devastating to serotonin production. In essence, you burn a day or two’s worth of serotonin in a matter of hours. Extended use puts your body into a sort of substitution (observable with most drug classes: the brain relaxes natural chemical production since it receives stimulus from an external source, though MDMA is arguably more visible than most, seeing as it directly targets serotonin) which is both painful and difficult to mitigate.
Amphetamines are clinically useful when regulated to counter ADD/ADHD, but when abused [used recreationally], are horribly detrimental to the body in general. “Physical effects of dextroamphetamine can include hyperactivity, dilated pupils, vasoconstriction, blood shot eyes, flushing, restlessness, dry mouth, bruxism, headache, tachycardia, bradycardia, tachypnea, hypertension, hypotension, fever, diaphoresis, diarrhea, constipation, blurred vision, aphasia, dizziness, twitching, insomnia, numbness, palpitations, arrhythmias, tremors, dry and/or itchy skin, acne, pallor, convulsions, and with chronic and/or high doses, seizure, stroke, coma, heart attack and death can occur.” The tolerance development rates are also exceptional with this class, making chronic/high doses difficult to avoid with recreational use.
Back to the primary topic, the issue at stake here is abuse of a substance and negative effects of recreational use. The CalChamber report raises what I think is a huge issue, in addition to an even larger one that they did not perhaps intend to raise.
The “huge issue” is:
Because of the nature of variance in metabolic rates and the exceptional length of time Delta-9 THC (and all other cannabinoids) remain in the system (especially the fat tissue), you cannot tell if someone is under the influence while at work or operating a vehicle, aside from dilation, apprehension/mild-moderate paranoia, an increased appetite, inflamed scleral capillaries, an obvious odor and dry mouth, all of which can be attributed to a variety of other causes [abrupt changes in lighting conditions, pre-existing anxiety or stress and not previously having an opportunity to eat respectively] or can be somewhat hidden/relieved [eye drops, body spray/perfume and a cool refreshing beverage respectively]. This means that an employer risks a lawsuit (in the case of marijuana being legal) when considering to reprimand an employee for intoxication on the job, which is substantially problematic, especially as concerns a company receiving Federal Grants for maintaining a drug-free workplace.
The even larger issue is:
Alcohol is legal, not because it is a safe drug, but because prohibition did not work–it is in fact a drug, contrary to popular belief, and one of the most dangerous (it is its own drug class whereas the only other drugs that approach it in terms of risks are opiates and barbiturates, both of which are entire classes of drugs). It created more crime criminalized than it did when legal and I think this is an interesting point as regards marijuana. Alcohol has a tendency to incite or instigate violent or otherwise injurious behavior while the only violence associated with marijuana is in the large scale criminal production of it. In comparison to a substance that is physically and psychologically addictive, exhibits the potential to damage every organ in the body, reduces inhibitions/decision making skills, causes physical illness [vomiting, hangover], et cetera, marijuana is harmless (seeing as the only physically feasible method of achieving death from overdose involves concentrating massive amounts in pill form–aspirin is exponentially less difficult to overdose from), though I feel [if legalized] it should be subject to the same legal limitations as alcohol (including age of consumption).
there is no such thing as a philosophical reason to legalize pot, what is a philosophical reason to you anyway?
A reason that comes from a person who has a philosophical orientation… a reason that is supported by particular philosophical positions… i mean come on…of course philsophy is an issue here as this issue ranges from polotics to psychology to sociology to science… there are ethical considerations perhaps…
I disagree entirely… different people react differently to pot… it is considered a mild hallucinagin I believe… and personally smokeing weed for me is like a normal person taking shrooms…
some people get very productive on it that I know…
But we’re not talking productivity, we’re talking philosophy.