any reasons why marijuana should still be illegal?

Page 16 of 16 [ 251 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Surfman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Aug 2010
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,938
Location: Homeward bound

28 Aug 2012, 3:49 pm

Health issues should not be treated as criminal issues

You dont see laws criminalising those who over eat, over drink alcohol, or prosecutions against doctors who prescribe poorly ending in drug injury?????

Sure excessive use is bad.

I have never doubted that. I have always maintained a 1-2gram a week recommended dosage. In fact, I have written many submissions to our Law Commission regarding recommended safe titration levels

How can uses titrate safely in an unregulated market?? My dealer wants me to buy more more more!! !

Below is a video showing cops and mom's protesting for the legalisation of cannabis:



[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-l0R_ZL9BA[/youtube]



John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

28 Aug 2012, 4:33 pm

It's safety risks (or lack thereof) are not completely understood. It would need to be tested like experimental medications. FDA approval would be likely, but probably not for recreational use.

If it didn't alter people's judgement in a way that is not predictable and can create a burden to tax payers without any benefit to society, I'd say let them do whatever they want.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

28 Aug 2012, 4:56 pm

I wonder who these mysterious tax payers are, because they seem so morally superior to most citizens of this country since none of them ever do anything unhealthy or use any drugs. :roll:


Or I could just stick to my perspective of regular citizens are the tax payers...and they pay taxes so that they can contribute to services they might benefit from or need if they should end up in a bad situation or severely injured.


_________________
We won't go back.


John_Browning
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range

28 Aug 2012, 9:54 pm

Sweetleaf wrote:
I wonder who these mysterious tax payers are, because they seem so morally superior to most citizens of this country since none of them ever do anything unhealthy or use any drugs. :roll:


Or I could just stick to my perspective of regular citizens are the tax payers...and they pay taxes so that they can contribute to services they might benefit from or need if they should end up in a bad situation or severely injured.

Just the average taxpayer that shouldn't have to foot the bill for emergency responder calls, unpaid hospital bills, and legal costs resulting from recreational use of intoxicants. If a user can cover all their own costs and insurance, and if safeguards could be set up to prevent non-participants from getting harmed, then by all means let them do what they want even if they self-destruct. They do not have the right to drag anyone down with them.


_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown

"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

28 Aug 2012, 10:13 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I wonder who these mysterious tax payers are, because they seem so morally superior to most citizens of this country since none of them ever do anything unhealthy or use any drugs. :roll:


Or I could just stick to my perspective of regular citizens are the tax payers...and they pay taxes so that they can contribute to services they might benefit from or need if they should end up in a bad situation or severely injured.

Just the average taxpayer that shouldn't have to foot the bill for emergency responder calls, unpaid hospital bills, and legal costs resulting from recreational use of intoxicants. If a user can cover all their own costs and insurance, and if safeguards could be set up to prevent non-participants from getting harmed, then by all means let them do what they want even if they self-destruct. They do not have the right to drag anyone down with them.


I don't see how using the social safety network brings others down....the whole reason it exists is to help the citizens when they need it or to provide public services. The taxpayers are just citizens it's its not like tax payers are a special class of people who can pay all their hospital bills, have never put themselves in harms way and thus had to have money spent on them ect. Its ridiculous to act like tax payers don't use drugs mostly.


_________________
We won't go back.


Delphiki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Apr 2012
Age: 181
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,415
Location: My own version of reality

28 Aug 2012, 10:17 pm

John_Browning wrote:
Sweetleaf wrote:
I wonder who these mysterious tax payers are, because they seem so morally superior to most citizens of this country since none of them ever do anything unhealthy or use any drugs. :roll:


Or I could just stick to my perspective of regular citizens are the tax payers...and they pay taxes so that they can contribute to services they might benefit from or need if they should end up in a bad situation or severely injured.

Just the average taxpayer that shouldn't have to foot the bill for emergency responder calls, unpaid hospital bills, and legal costs resulting from recreational use of intoxicants. If a user can cover all their own costs and insurance, and if safeguards could be set up to prevent non-participants from getting harmed, then by all means let them do what they want even if they self-destruct. They do not have the right to drag anyone down with them.
Well with that justification I am not going to pay for people who eat fast food. Or don't exercise regularly, or have bad genes, or are disabled, etc.


_________________
Well you can go with that if you want.


Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

28 Aug 2012, 11:43 pm

Wow, such is the tragic life of a US tax payer. Getting forced to pay for people that do unhealthy things. Poor cutey tax payer. I want to cry right now.


_________________
.


29 Aug 2012, 8:57 am

John_Browning wrote:
It's safety risks (or lack thereof) are not completely understood. It would need to be tested like experimental medications. FDA approval would be likely, but probably not for recreational use.

If it didn't alter people's judgement in a way that is not predictable and can create a burden to tax payers without any benefit to society, I'd say let them do whatever they want.




Dude, do you have ANY idea about the financial burden that the drug war places on taxpayers? I find it laughable that you attempt to justify criminalization and prohibition by claiming that eliminating the 2 would be a misuse of tax dollars. In fact, that argument is completely ret*d. The use of governmental force to control what substances people put in their bodies costs BILLION$ of tax dollars every f*cking year and has proven to be an abject failure. That's why I'm against the drugs war and the illegality of marijuana: Because I don't wanna pay of it. I also don't want prison cells filled up with people who shouldn't be there.



visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

29 Aug 2012, 11:33 am

AspieRogue wrote:
Dude, do you have ANY idea about the financial burden that the drug war places on taxpayers? I find it laughable that you attempt to justify criminalization and prohibition by claiming that eliminating the 2 would be a misuse of tax dollars. In fact, that argument is completely ret*d. The use of governmental force to control what substances people put in their bodies costs BILLION$ of tax dollars every f*cking year and has proven to be an abject failure. That's why I'm against the drugs war and the illegality of marijuana: Because I don't wanna pay of it. I also don't want prison cells filled up with people who shouldn't be there.


QFT.

Look at The War on Drugs (tm) through a fiscal conservative lens. It is a job-creation scheme for police forces. It serves a questionable public policy purpose, and is simply a means under which government can force tax money back into the economy. If government really wanted to address the primary concern of the drug trade it would give the enforcement dollars to the tax authorities, not the police.


_________________
--James


Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,439
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

29 Aug 2012, 11:35 am

AspieRogue wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
It's safety risks (or lack thereof) are not completely understood. It would need to be tested like experimental medications. FDA approval would be likely, but probably not for recreational use.

If it didn't alter people's judgement in a way that is not predictable and can create a burden to tax payers without any benefit to society, I'd say let them do whatever they want.




Dude, do you have ANY idea about the financial burden that the drug war places on taxpayers? I find it laughable that you attempt to justify criminalization and prohibition by claiming that eliminating the 2 would be a misuse of tax dollars. In fact, that argument is completely ret*d. The use of governmental force to control what substances people put in their bodies costs BILLION$ of tax dollars every f*cking year and has proven to be an abject failure. That's why I'm against the drugs war and the illegality of marijuana: Because I don't wanna pay of it. I also don't want prison cells filled up with people who shouldn't be there.


There is that to.


_________________
We won't go back.


6655321
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2012
Age: 34
Gender: Female
Posts: 81

29 Aug 2012, 12:12 pm

There is no defensible reason why marijuana should be illegal.

Marijuana prohibition creates the greater evil. It creates a dangerous black market, like alcohol prohibition during the Great Depression.

It keeps people from making their own decisions about what they choose to put in their bodies.

It ruins peoples lives' and their futures and puts in jail people who have done nothing wrong.