First  Prev  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  Next  Last
Should marijuana be legalized?
4082 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 6/23/11
I should be charged with 1000 counts of possesing weed(cause i have smoked everyday for about 3 years now. that sound ridculous. for what smoking a plant. thank god i have never been caught.
Posted 6/24/11
Yes, it's pointless to try and prevent it form being sold, so why not jack up prices and take large taxes percentages
Posted 6/24/11

amoureux10 wrote:

Yes, it's pointless to try and prevent it form being sold, so why not jack up prices and take large taxes percentages
So then why are you contradicting yourself with your own solution? As in it's commonsense in any business that a commodity becomes undesirable with high cost, while it offers little benefit. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that taxation and price are parts of the regulation itself, the legislation also sets limitations on age and methods of consumption.

You obviously didn't understand that all legalization involves universalizing a lawful standard at controlling human behaviors.
Posted 6/24/11

DomFortress wrote:


amoureux10 wrote:

Yes, it's pointless to try and prevent it form being sold, so why not jack up prices and take large taxes percentages
So then why are you contradicting yourself with your own solution? As in it's commonsense in any business that a commodity becomes undesirable with high cost, while it offers little benefit. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that taxation and price are parts of the regulation itself, the legislation also sets limitations on age and methods of consumption.

You obviously didn't understand that all legalization involves universalizing a lawful standard at controlling human behaviors.


Lets not be dramatic, and of course there will be other restirctions that will make it a hassle, but is that not part of the plan? The government does not want a public high all of the time. And as for the age requirements, they don't mean much, I know many who have bought some from these clubs and shops that are well underage. In closing, it is a good suggestion in my opinion, why keep money in drug dealers hands when we as a country can be rolling in money?
Posted 6/24/11 , edited 6/24/11

amoureux10 wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

So then why are you contradicting yourself with your own solution? As in it's commonsense in any business that a commodity becomes undesirable with high cost, while it offers little benefit. Furthermore, regardless of the fact that taxation and price are parts of the regulation itself, the legislation also sets limitations on age and methods of consumption.

You obviously didn't understand that all legalization involves universalizing a lawful standard at controlling human behaviors.


Lets not be dramatic, and of course there will be other restirctions that will make it a hassle, but is that not part of the plan? The government does not want a public high all of the time. And as for the age requirements, they don't mean much, I know many who have bought some from these clubs and shops that are well underage. In closing, it is a good suggestion in my opinion, why keep money in drug dealers hands when we as a country can be rolling in money?
You think that not enough money was the problem? When ironically it's the opposite that's true.

Also, just because it is what it is, doesn't mean that's how it should be. Your underage consumption is only an excuse, while there's no merits in irresponsible and insensitive behaviors, among ignorant and inexperienced youths. When there are comparatively more talented 13 or even 9 years old. I mean come on, when hyperinflation caused by too much worthless currency is the problem. Can marijuana consumption really help you develop your hypo-manic edge? Or sharpen your intrinsic motivators?

Finally, there's been historically a big bioethics mistake about making any single plant a "cash crop." Case in point, you reduce the biodiversity within that environment, thereby risking long-term sustainability for short-term economic gain. Not to mention the economic inequality due to unfair overproduction on cash corp, thereby lack of protection cause by preexisting unfair trading agreement. The more you advocate that a certain corp is more profitable, it'll create inequality and deforestation, within the context of the linear process of human economic engine called consumption.
3549 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
74
Offline
Posted 6/29/11
Indifferent about it. Yes on it getting legalized just so people who get caught with it won't have to face fines or charges. But no because of the economic stuff. Prices would rise, taxes, and it'd be harder to be available to younger people (just because there would be age restrictions like alcohol and cigarettes).
Posted 7/3/11
Weed is legal. They prescribe it now to patients and I need to be one of the patients >_>
Posted 7/4/11 , edited 7/4/11
should alcohol be legalized ?
oh wait it is and it hurts innocent lives just so we can run away from our problems....
16068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / Edmonton, Alberta...
Offline
Posted 7/6/11
I think it should be legalised, controlled and regulated. Tax revenue generated specifically from the sales could be ideally protected and used for a pre-determined specific cause that benefits society as a whole (medical research, social programs, education (heck, maybe even institute a free post-secondary education program, based on the revenue that would be generated)).

Also, there would have to be a way to legally determine and quantify intoxication levels like breathalizers for alcohol. Fines for being under the influence of marijuana and committing any criminal act would have a steep multiplier on it. So if you would have been fined $500 for doing X under the influence of alcohol, you'd be fined $2000 for doing it under the influence of marijuana. This would initially seem unfair, because a punishable crime shouldn't be punished more or less for being committed under different circumstances, but this acts as more of a detriment to commit crime. And if it didn't prove an adequate dissuasion, I'd suggest harsher legal measures, but the legal measures discussion is one that deserves its own thread IMO.
Posted 7/6/11 , edited 7/6/11

Bunny-chu wrote:

I think it should be legalised, controlled and regulated. Tax revenue generated specifically from the sales could be ideally protected and used for a pre-determined specific cause that benefits society as a whole (medical research, social programs, education (heck, maybe even institute a free post-secondary education program, based on the revenue that would be generated).

Also, there would have to be a way to legally determine and quantify intoxication levels like breathalizers for alcohol. Fines for being under the influence of marijuana and committing any criminal act would have a steep multiplier on it. So if you would have been fined $500 for doing X under the influence of alcohol, you'd be fined $2000 for doing it under the influence of marijuana. This would initially seem unfair, because a punishable crime shouldn't be punished more or less for being committed under different circumstances, but this acts as more of a detriment to commit crime. And if it didn't prove an adequate dissuasion, I'd suggest harsher legal measures, but the legal measures discussion is one that deserves its own thread IMO.
I have two categorical and scientific objections that make marijuana legalization a problem with real, long-term societal harms.

First off is the tax revenue idea, no matter how you spin it, it's essentially gonna be a government sanctioned "cash crop" program. Any social program run by the government throughout history has to be upscale to a certain magnitude with the industrial model, in order for it to have real long-term benefit by providing social needs for the general populace as a whole. You might have heard of this as the utilitarian principle/motto of "the greatest good for the greatest number". Whereas in evolution is simply a process of natural selection; any genetic mutation with the most beneficiary biological traits that can result in a greater chance of survival for the entire specie, gets to be pass down as genetic inheritances throughout the individual members of said specie. Otherwise the entire specie will eventually meet their evolutionary dead-end.

However, utilitarian principle has this nasty consequence that earns its nickname as a "backward-looking" logic. Because it simply wouldn't know what the benefits really are until it plays itself out from start to finish, and because of it the logic also has a safeguard known as the "harm principle". Which means that when the harm of such program is greater than the good it caused, don't do it. Any social program might look good on paper with expectations and good intention, but throughout known history "cash-crop" program never payout in the long-term. Case in point, you reduce the biodiversity within that environment, thereby risking long-term sustainability for short-term economic gain. Not to mention the economic inequality due to unfair overproduction on cash corp, thereby lack of protection cause by preexisting unfair trading agreement. The more you advocate that marijuana is more profitable, it'll create inequality and deforestation, within the context of the linear process of human economic engine called consumption.

That's my first categorical objection against legalization. Regardless of the fact that marijuana consumption isn't a social need/greater good, but a psychosocial want with comparatively less than stellar real health and social benefits. When it's in fact a complicated medical treatment that's hard to administrate in practice, which is my second categorical objection based on the empirical science of marijuana.

THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) can stay in a person's body for as long as 3 to 90 days after smoking or being ingested orally.

There are numerous determining factors for how long drug toxins stay in a persons body which vary from person to person, such as the analytical method used, your health, your body weight, metabolism, fluid intake, the type of drug toxin, and the degree of exposure to the drug toxin.

Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol or THC, one of nearly 400 chemicals in a cannabis plant, accounts for most of marijuana's psychoactive, or mind-altering, effects. The strength of the drug is determined by the amount of THC it contains which varies from plant to plant. Marijuana stays in your system for different amounts of time depending on how often you smoke it, how much you smoke, and the makeup of the individual (weight/height/etc.).(citation)

However, the high itself doesn't last nearly as long.

The affects of cannabis, notably the euphoria or "high" feeling lasts for up to 8 hours. THC is quickly metabolized by the body and has a high affinity for CB1 receptors in the brain. A common misconception is that THC is stored in the body's fat cells and that when a drug test is taken, the drug test is detecting THC. The reality is that only THC metabolites - the byproducts of THC breakdown - are stored in the body's fat cells. Drug tests seek to detect THC metabolites. One can not get high from the metabolites. THC metabolites can be detected in the body for as long as 8 weeks depending on how often one smokes, one's body fat percentage, kidney functions, etc. Essentially if one smokes only occasionally, the metabolites will only be detectable for a very short time, as long as 2 weeks. A heavy smoker will have metabolites in their system for much longer, up to 3 months.(citation)

So you see, it's impossible to determine the level of marijuana intoxication per usage. When in fact a person can be tested for marijuana positive while still being sober.
16068 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / Edmonton, Alberta...
Offline
Posted 7/6/11
I see your point DomFortress. I agree that the harm versus good it offers doesn't seem to pan out and my favouring the legalisation is largely due to the drug being heavily prevalent in society in many cultures and areas where it is illegal. It seems a lot like prohibition days in it's illegality and consumption. Because the drug is illegal, but still highly accessible and desirable by many, it will be obtained through illegal means, and offer no benefit to society.I believe we only have two routes to take to be effective in controlling the distribution of marijuana to effectively outlaw, one would have to impose harsher punishments on being caught and dissuading use for both possession and trafficking in marijuana. Or, legalise it and have a chance to put the revenue to good use (this in itself, becomes another debate, because we all recognise the incredible corruption within the bureaucracy of government.)

I see little benefit in the use of this drug myself, but then, I also see little benefit in smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and similar, where others do see significant benefit.
Posted 7/7/11 , edited 7/7/11

Bunny-chu wrote:

I see your point DomFortress. I agree that the harm versus good it offers doesn't seem to pan out and my favouring the legalisation is largely due to the drug being heavily prevalent in society in many cultures and areas where it is illegal. It seems a lot like prohibition days in it's illegality and consumption. Because the drug is illegal, but still highly accessible and desirable by many, it will be obtained through illegal means, and offer no benefit to society.I believe we only have two routes to take to be effective in controlling the distribution of marijuana to effectively outlaw, one would have to impose harsher punishments on being caught and dissuading use for both possession and trafficking in marijuana. Or, legalise it and have a chance to put the revenue to good use (this in itself, becomes another debate, because we all recognise the incredible corruption within the bureaucracy of government.)

I see little benefit in the use of this drug myself, but then, I also see little benefit in smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol and similar, where others do see significant benefit.
But keep in mind that human desire of just about anything can be created/trained. Just like how monkeys can be trained into the social role of consumers, but still have the evolutionarily shared irrationality we humans have with our own money market economy called "loss aversion".

So imagine that right now I handed each and every one of you a thousand U.S. dollars -- so 10 crisp hundred dollar bills. Take these, put it in your wallet and spend a second thinking about what you're going to do with it. Because it's yours now; you can buy whatever you want. Donate it, take it, and so on. Sounds great, but you get one more choice to earn a little bit more money. And here's your choice: you can either be risky, in which case I'm going to flip one of these monkey tokens. If it comes up heads, you're going to get a thousand dollars more. If it comes up tails, you get nothing. So it's a chance to get more, but it's pretty risky. Your other option is a bit safe. Your just going to get some money for sure. I'm just going to give you 500 bucks. You can stick it in your wallet and use it immediately. So see what your intuition is here. Most people actually go with the play-it-safe option. Most people say, why should I be risky when I can get 1,500 dollars for sure? This seems like a good bet. I'm going to go with that. You might say, eh, that's not really irrational. People are a little risk-averse. So what?

Well, the "so what?" comes when start thinking about the same problem set up just a little bit differently. So now imagine that I give each and every one of you 2,000 dollars -- 20 crisp hundred dollar bills. Now you can buy double to stuff you were going to get before. Think about how you'd feel sticking it in your wallet. And now imagine that I have you make another choice But this time, it's a little bit worse. Now, you're going to be deciding how you're going to lose money, but you're going to get the same choice. You can either take a risky loss -- so I'll flip a coin. If it comes up heads, you're going to actually lose a lot. If it comes up tails, you lose nothing, you're fine, get to keep the whole thing -- or you could play it safe, which means you have to reach back into your wallet and give me five of those $100 bills, for certain.

And I'm seeing a lot of furrowed brows out there. So maybe you're having the same intuitions as the subjects that were actually tested in this, which is when presented with these options, people don't choose to play it safe. They actually tend to go a little risky. The reason this is irrational is that we've given people in both situations the same choice. It's a 50/50 shot of a thousand or 2,000, or just 1,500 dollars with certainty. But people's intuitions about how much risk to take varies depending on where they started with.

So what's going on? Well, it turns out that this seems to be the result of at least two biases that we have at the psychological level. One is that we have a really hard time thinking in absolute terms. You really have to do work to figure out, well, one option's a thousand, 2,000; one is 1,500. Instead, we find it very easy to think in very relative terms as options change from one time to another. So we think of things as, "Oh, I'm going to get more," or "Oh, I'm going to get less." This is all well and good, except that changes in different directions actually effect whether or not we think options are good or not. And this leads to the second bias, which economists have called loss aversion.

The idea is that we really hate it when things go into the red. We really hate it when we have to lose out on some money. And this means that sometimes we'll actually switch our preferences to avoid this. What you saw in that last scenario is that subjects get risky because they want the small shot that there won't be any loss. That means when we're in a risk mindset -- excuse me, when we're in a loss mindset, we actually become more risky, which can actually be really worrying. These kinds of things play out in lots of bad ways in humans. They're why stock investors hold onto losing stocks longer -- because they're evaluating them in relative terms. They're why people in the housing market refused to sell their house -- because they don't want to sell at a loss.

The question we were interested in is whether the monkeys show the same biases. If we set up those same scenarios in our little monkey market, would they do the same thing as people? And so this is what we did, we gave the monkeys choices between guys who were safe -- they did the same thing every time -- or guys who were risky -- they did things differently half the time. And then we gave them options that were bonuses -- like you guys did in the first scenario -- so they actually have a chance more, or pieces where they were experiencing losses -- they actually thought they were going to get more than they really got.
(citation)

So in fact, we're not just corruptible, but irrational as well if we're not careful. At which point we could be taking our consciousness for granted in the long-term, simply because we allowed ourselves to be distracted by instant-gratifications.
54164 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / あなたのベッド
Offline
Posted 7/8/11
Stay illegal.

If they legalized it they would tax, and it wouldn't be anymore fun.


32377 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / F / Liverpool, Mersey...
Offline
Posted 7/9/11 , edited 7/9/11
What kind of question is this forum? Of course it needs to stay illegal lolol
this drug messes up people lives

516 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F / Florida
Offline
Posted 7/20/11

Regulus133 wrote:

It should be legalized. What we do with our own bodies should be our choice, and that includes drug usage. I see some people here arguing that it should be illegal because it represents a danger to the public, but many things do. Giving up freedoms is often required for safety, but lines must be drawn. I'd rather see the dangers that our out of our control be regulated than those that are within it. That being said, anyone who uses a drug that impairs his judgment is responsible for his actions, as he made the choice.

It also seems that other countries get along well even with more potent drugs being legalized. And it should be noted that the "war on drugs" of the United States is only partly concerned with drugs. The other part is, at least in our presence in other countries to stop it, for political power.


Pretty much what I had to say.

Plus the drug lords and all the violent crimes tied to that business would be eliminated. And besides, marijuana isn't actually that damaging. If you don't overuse it it won't really affect your brain and it's much more "lung friendly" than cigarettes.
First  Prev  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.