Do you think marijuana should be legalised?

Post Reply New Topic

Pretty simple question, I'm just wondering what is every-bodies opinion on either the legalisation or continuing prohibition of marijuana.

Personally I believe it should be legalised, taxed, and regulated. This stems largely from the fact that I have a very liberal view of thing and think that everyone should be able to do anything they feel the want to with their own bodies as long as it doesn't impede on someone else's right to make their own decisions.
For something that has been proven in thousands of studies over the world to be less harmful to both the individual and the general public than alcohol which remains legal with relatively few problems; fuelling crime and costing billions of dollars to keep it illegal when the government could be MAKING millions by taxing it, It really doesn't make any sense to me.
if some random guy wants to smoke a joint in his basement I really couldn't care less, I don't think the government should either.

Now, that's just my personal opinion, and I strongly believe in the concept of respecting other peoples opinions even if you don't personally believe them.
I've seen some people get pretty fire up over this issues, so lets try not to get TOO crazy, k?

ok, GO

Yes

First which country? the us?

I think it should be legal, i don't smoke it but I probably would if ti was legal. I mean I don't drink because I am not 21. And the gov't wouldn't make millions it would approximately make 20 billion (just helping your point).

Really any country, although I happen to be in Canada
I don't smoke it either, but if other people do, i don't care, and don't think they should be criminalised for it.

Yes. The governments place is in government, not my body. It is not their business what plants I'm smoking.

Stoner and proud of it.

It's a plant. 'Nuff said. Who are our governments to outlaw a living organism? Or to try and limit what adult people may inhale, ingest, shove up their bum, or otherwise inject into their bodies? That's an utterly ridiculous concept, imho.

I couldnt agree more I mean really their going to outlaw a plant that grows from the earth do they not understand how stupid that sounds?

Heroin, cocain, shrooms, and some other rather powerful hallucinogenics are also purely natural. Peyote comes to mind.

I don't think so because pot growers support terrorism.

Sure on the shrooms and peyote part, but Heroin and cocaine can hardly be called "natural" both have to be processed heavily with chemicals and concentrated in order to get their desired effects.

I'm not 100% sure of heroin, but opium itself is purely natural.

Cocaine is processed, but less than you might think. Just chewing on coca leaves will get you high.

Drinking coffee can get you high.

from a public health perspective, a government has some responsibility to regulate some of that.

I mean, companies used to sell uranium as an arthritis cure. And the thing is, it does work. just rub some on the effected area every once in a while.

It just has some consequences later.

A line has to be drawn, because the consumer cannot be assumed to be capable of making an informed decision, because they are generally so woefully uninformed.

The question is where that line should be.

Uranium has entirely different reasons to be banned.

Marijuana does not.

I can see not legally being able to sell a recreational drug as medicine, but it still isn't the governments place to tell us what we can't do with our own bodies.

Oh I'm in favor of legalizing the wacky tobacky. I have never partaken but the war on THC is an abject failure.

I'm just saying that the FDA has a responsibility to regulate food and drugs.

I'd suggest that cannabis should be only marginally more difficult to acquire than tobacco.

But that marinol pills should still be by prescription only.

It's inappropriate for a doctor to write a prescription to smoke a bowl of weed, but that's because lighting a dried plant on fire and inhaling the smoke isn't responsible medicine.

It is, however, probably appropriate for a doctor to tell, say, a chronic pain patient, that many patients use the chronic one way or another, and they can get a similar relief from marinol pills, but baking some into a batch of brownies is way cheaper.

If we agree that Psilocybin shouldn't be in a display above the register in every gas station, then we agree that there is some basis for regulating - but perhaps not banning - natural plants that people use recreationally.

I agree that the food industry and pharmaceutical industry need to be regulated. There should be a lot more regulations if you ask me. Many preservatives, such as nitrite curing salt or natamycin, are both harmful and unnecessary. Food manufacturers gamble with the health of their customers only to increase the shelf life of their products by a few more weeks, and most consumers are utterly unaware that they're ingesting carcinogenic substances.

But I don't see how this relates to my right as a private person to grow any kind of plant in my own backyard, and to ingest anything I want. I mean, nobody complains if I grow poisonous plants such as foxglove in my garden. I can also legally buy extremely dangerous chemicals such as drain pipe cleaner. If I'm stupid enough to drink it, that's my own problem. Cannabis is utterly harmless in comparison, and I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to grow it. As long as I don't sell it, it should be nobody's business what I use it for.