|
|
Should Marijuana Be Legalised? Medically, ethically, economically, and legally, drug use and sale freedoms have been a part of national and international politics for decades, if not longer in varying forms. Most notably is cannabis/marijuana/weed/green/the wacky tobacky, an illegal narcotic in the majority of Western law books, that has been the focal point of drug debate since coming into vogue in the early days of the 1950's and 1960's counter culture. From Nancy Reagan just saying no, to Bill Clinton smoking but not inhaling, MJ plays a key position in modern politics on all sides of an ever complicated debate.
This thread seeks to provide a podium for all present sides, through intelligent debate and presentation of evidence.
Link Library
Cannibis Statistics, privatly owned independent site
Wikipedia article
Marijuana and Medicine Study, 1999 IOM
A science blog
National Institute of Drug Abuse
US Drug Enforcement Administration fact site
Virginia Law Review study of the History of Legalization
Erowid
Note* These links range from private to public, educational to federally controlled. They will contradict each other. They serve as a base for research, and a basic overview of the most prominent sides.
|
|
|
|
...........FAIL
For the love of Christ Neoma.
Excellent questions.
Of course, we first must specify what advantages we're talking about.
Personal?
Societal?
Economic?
I think any and all. But starting with the economics is always a good place. Which method would make the most money?
I ask this because while glib, unless you can monetize it, there's no way it'd ever make it through government.
Post edited 8/17/08 9:19PM
What? I gave an honest answer.
Well typically, legalization makes the most taxable profit, as not only does it a) allow the obvious (taxation), but also b) creates competition in a controlled market that could be traded and sold by stock like a commodity c) allows policing agencies to focus spending elsewhere, or allows said drug enforcement budgets to be used on other avenues of social spending.
With no reason or evidence.
Thanks.
So as far as decriminalization goes, we'd basically be pulling a Schultz and saying "I see nuzzzzing!" What's the benefit there, if not economic? We'd just be denying its existence, which would free up money from police projects but not much else.
Then please, by all means, put forward an argument that decriminalization may be the better answer.
Not to mention that it does away with markets that don't take in taxable income.
Post edited 8/17/08 9:28PM
Indeed, a very good weapon against illegal markets and organizations, most notably the Hells Angels, who control the majority of the Canadian trade.
Oh man I'm asking because I have no friggin clue. If I had any answers I'd be pushing them forth, but I don't want to be one of those guys who thinks he knows something he doesn't.
All I know of marijuana, quite honestly, is that it's 100% illegal in NY, even for medical purposes. People say the medical marijuana research is dubious from both sides, so that's a bit of a mess and in of itself.
In fact, this is the only time I'll really render an opinion on the topic. If marijuana proves a medicinal benefit better than alternative meds, then there's no more harm in its prescription than for opioid narcotics and we give those. If anything, using it to keep people off the really strong stuff might be worthwhile. If we can control narcs we should be able to control weed, medicinally as well.
Then here are 3 Canadian decriminalization pages.
Federal Gov.
U Toronto
CBC Indepth
I would like to formally state that my belief is that marijuana poses health risks to those who smoke it.
These risks include Mental instability (anxiety, depression, psychosis, increased risk of mental illness), memory loss, loss of fine motor skills, difficulty learning, lack of attention, decreased response time, possible birth defects (when consumed by pregnant women), harm to infants (when consumed by breat feeding women), and it can also lead to the use of more dangerous drugs.
Evidence of this can be found: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_issues_and
As i have no idea how to make a neat and tidy link like those used in the first post of this thread i'd be great if you fine people would humor me and scroll on down to the bottom to the following links:
3, 13, 14, 22, 41, 45, 46, 56, 69 (bow chicka bow wow)
Why are these minor adverse side effects are worth the billions upon billions of dollars spent on enforcing the laws and incarcerating non violent offenders?
Also, you must do alot better than cite wikipedia.
Its the major effects that make it right to incarcerate people. plus why the hell would you willingly do that yourself?
I cited other sources man. Didn't you check them out?
Also i believe your familiar with my ideas toward citeing sources. Baby steps dude.
Isn't this thread a duplicate of one already on this forum? I though you wern't allowed to do that. Don't they usually lock a thread for that?
Dude...
We do that all the time.
You just explained why alcohol should be illegal.
Ok then maybe it should.
You should get on that legeslation right away man.
Come on thats the best you can do? people hit me with that one like 20 times on the last thread.
Bringing a horribly flawed argument into a new thread does not make it suddenly valid.
May you all burn in hell beside me you closed minded jerks.
I don't see the flaws.
Would you kindly point them out?
You said yourself your view is not based on any evidence. It can not be reasonably supported/validated/defended. There is no logical way, after what you have said, that you can expect to be taken seriously anymore.
Yet you persist. Why?
But i've gone out and found support for my views. Just. Like. Every. Single. One. Of. You.
I persist to make ammends for destroying a thread.
Okay, I appreciate you trying. I really do.
But you may want to take a break from posting to at least let people catch their breath(well, fingers).
But I ask you this, why should a handful of mild side-effects that influence you to say it should be illegal, outrank mine and many others beleifs that what they do to themselves is their own problem?
What right do you have to say I can not light up a fatty?
Edit: I ask you to stop posting... then I ask a question...
Wow I'm smart.
Post edited 8/17/08 10:09PM
why shouldn't it be illeagle th... no not going there again.
Because if everyone looked at the problems of society as "their own problem" how long would it take for the world to destroy its self?
What if the holocaust had been just the Jew's problem?
What if someone destroying their mind out of ignorance or poor judgement is their problem? Then things become everyone's problem quickly.