By electoral right... you voted them in.

I guess by that logic that all the white people have the right to vote that black people be deported, or even killed! Right?:shrug: :rolleyes:

Its not the best system but unfortunatly we are stuck with it. Can you think of a better system that encorporates action with debate?

Duh, guys,
A bunch of other things should be legal by those grounds!
Prostitution should be made legal to put all the dirty pimps out of business, stops the spread of diseases, and turns prostitution into a safe and tested produce.
Cocaine should be made legal to take the power out of the hands of the huge nicaraguan drug lords.
Theft should be made legal so the government can tax it. Think about how much property is changing hands here untaxed!
Murder should be a standard service offered by the government to stop all of the amature hit men who might screw up and only injure, or cripple someone. That's just not cool!

Hell! Maybe we could become known in an international level for some of these things. I would love to see prostitution become a major US export.

By George, I think he's getting it!

Now here is where you seem to go off the path. You see, prostitution and drug use are victimless transactions between consenting parties. Theft and murder [obviously] are not. Therein lies the crux of this biscuit!
:D

Bob

So where does child pornography fit, in this grand scheme?

And it is VERY debatable if drug trading is between two consenting parties! Remember drug addiction is classified as a disease and not a character weakness like some would say. Also drug trading/use is definitely NOT victimless!

Prostitution... Sure legalise it it's not the prostitutioun itself that is harmful, it's the drugs (tada) and pimps for example.

Drugs and prostitution should be legalized.

my 2 cents.

Child pornography by nature victimizes children and hence should not be legal. A child cannot consent to such an act as a child is a child; because a child is a child they need legal protection. Anyone that views child pornography willingly promotes the victimization of a child. Drug use and child pornography are very different sociologically speaking.

It really tests my adherence to the First Amendment to allow myself in the company of some of the most vile creatures on earth, but I still believe no information should by its very existence be contraband. We have laws against information theft, against public indecency, against harrassment, against conspiracy, against fraud, and against sexual assult and rape, which by themselves protect a society from people who would procure or use information to harm us.

We do not need laws that procecute horrible people for looking at horrible things. So long as they have not harmed anyone, I think even terribly sick people deserve a right to privacy.

Alchemy

Can we please leave child abuse to a different thread?...

Pediaphiles should be seperated from society. Child porn is not a victimless crime, and internet policing for the purpose of stamping it out is fine by me. If only the RIA spent 5% of their 'spare' time and energy to something other than money...

I'd rather drugs were available rather than glamourised and pushed

The fact is the majority has changed with regards to drug use. Remember democracy only works on the obvious/polarised things. Anything less is a screaming match...

Alchemy. I would'nt allow a flea privacy to suck my blood, I would'nt allow cancer the privacy to spread through my body. I would'nt allow pediaphiles to share the same mind space as any child of mine. The constitution was written by 'gentlemen' for gentlemen, the world has changed alot since then, so should your constitution IMO...

Under that argument, child porn should be allowed, since "it's there anyways"...

But you're right, it's not victimless, because the act of taking the pictures creates a victim.


So I'm going to ask again: how did marijuana become illegal?

I can't rember the date... but sometime not very long ago factory owners were concerned about productivity being harmed by its staff smoking weed.

They pertitioned and made the drug illigal, thus increasing effciency.

It was also helped along by the film "Reefer Madness" (1936), which portrayed pot smokers as maniacal psychopaths bent on listening to Jazz!:eek:

Link

Bob

This mirrors my position on many such things... I don't like it, I don't condone it. Neither do I condone drug use, smoking, drinking, or the eating of Big Macs, but I do not think it is the role of government to enforce my value system on others.

Bob

That's like saying Martin Luther King and Adolph Hitler were the same because they both wanted to 'reorganise society'. Or comparing jaywalking to genicide because they are both crimes :rolleyes: . It's childishly polarised generalistion and hardly constructive to the debate. Come on people! :p ...

Let's not confuse canabis with class A drugs and perverts please?...

It was meant as a very pertenant point(you have to consider the sheer amount of people who use cannabis or who are not opposed to it. 50/50%?). My point being it's not going to make it any more widly available than it already is (and if any of you think it is'nt extremely widespread, please remove your noggin from your colon :p ), in fact it'd probably take away the mysterious glamour that's attatched to it. As it stands now it's an uncontrolled mess that cost's a fortune in money and manpower that would be better used elsewhere, and would actualy MAKE money for the economy (not to mention third world crop growing countries eh?)...

I don't know for sure why it was criminalised, at a guess it may of been something to do with the depression?(wrong era?), may have been an increase (along with cocaine and opium which were also legal) in abuse due to the 'unpleasant reality' of the time?. The economy could'nt take the added strain of money passing into illicit channels or out of the country?...

So the problem is enforcement, right? It's still wrong, correct?

I gotta google something up...

I don't get what you mean. If you mean is it wrong to smoke canabis?, then no. IMO it is'nt a 'crime against the soul'. Cannabis does'nt turn you into a demonic monster(Alpha positive male for all the scientificaly minded out there :p ). It all depends on the person. If they're a 'bad un' then they're a bad un without cannabis's help. Cannabis is'nt a soul destroying drug like heroin, cocain, amphetamins, LSD and alcohol can be. It just is'nt in the same class. The only comparison is that it's 'mind altering' to some people :shrug: ...

If not, what do you mean? :D ...

Criminalising cannabis has'nt worked. It has'nt stamped it out, it has'nt even dented it, to much stick and not enough carrot. If society was a better place less people would be escapists...

You may be right, but that's outside the scope of the government involvement, which stands for what's best for people, either individually, or as a group. They're not concerned with spirituality, if that's what you were getting into ;)

I still have to Google for it, but I'd like to know how the government came to make Cannabis Illegal.

Otherwise, having a law and enforcing a law are seperate. If cannabis's availability is still an issue, it's not a legal problem, it's a law enforcement problem, and we all know that our law enforcement organizations aren't able to enforce everything.

Here's a good article:
http://www.wikman.com/eric/marijuana.html

In short, it concludes that privately growing/using cannabis ought to be legal.

Here's another one (multiple pages):
http://marijuana.bdtzone.com/history/history.asp

I thought you where against it Ben?

Did I say I was for it? ;)

(don't conclude that because I post a link, that it relates my position :dome: )


I just thought that the history of the legalization was relevant, and the first link supports my position.

Maybe privately growing it should be made legal. It could be limited/supervised, so that "Farmer Joe" doesn't turn his 1'000 acres into a cannabis field!:D :rolleyes:

Well my position is and will prob. allways will be:

As a small time recreactional drug and uses in medicene: OK

As a way of life: you need help maaaan.

Well, if the above link proposes legalizing it, for one's own consumption, maybe we ought to run a poll on that.

And following the NCAA objective debacle, maybe these personal fields ought to be registered, just to make sure that it doesn't turn into acres upon acres of the stuff, and the resale ought to remain illegal.

The problem really, is that if it's legalized, there's not much stopping the free enterprise spirit from kicking in, to where people would resell it, and the resellers aren't going to care one bit who they sell it to.

Registering the users isn't going to do anything useful.

I don't know. Does anyone else have any ideas about how it would be legalized?

In my opinion, all drugs should be treated the same way we treat alcohol or tobacco (both "legal" drugs).

Bob

Just make it legal to smoke it in your own home... though illegal to grow it yourself.

Then the government introduces packets of leaf an puts tax on them.... but since they are mass producing it they can tax it up the level of most dealers.... plus people can be sure they are getting the right stuff -- guarantied so people WOULD invariably buy it.

Of course they would still have an underground black market there is no way to stop that b/c it is too easy to grow yourself and since the price varies so much; but people tend to go where it is most convenient not where it's cheapest most of the time.

As for medicinal purposes threat comes in easily. Controlled farming/cultivation of the drug lends it hand in hand to research and prescriptions.

It has been thought through before but there are still hard liners who perceive the drug to be the root of all evil b/c it affects your concentration and inhibitions and will INVARIABLY lead on to harder drugs. And no government will support such an enterprise knowing they will alienate approximately 30% of the electorate.


~ Boli

Here's another article that discusses the history of weed.

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm

I find it kind of interesting that though many of these articles are very similar, there are suble differences in the things they present as facts. For example, BigBen2k's second link above on the first page states that cotton replaced hemp as the primary fiber for clothing and such because it became cheaper to produce. Yet still today one of the primary arguements for legalization that many use is that hemp is such a good fiber for making various things out of (clothing, rope, etc.).

In any case, I believe we have at least gotten to the point where people who are actually reading these links are coming to understand the issues instead of blindly stating un-informed opinions on the subject. For example I think BigBen at least understands what and why the Canadian government is trying to do in decriminalizing it, even if he still disagrees with it - unlike icehearts 1-liner post at the top of page three which I consider nothing more than flamebait.

Personally, I would like to see it completly legalized (and if you look to the left, you may note that I am in Canada where it is already on the road to being decriminalized). I believe people should be free to grow their own and smoke it for whatever reasons they wish. They should be allowed to sell it, and the government should collect a tax on it. In the end, it should be controlled very much like tobacco currently is here. I should also say that tobacco is currently controled much more stricly here than anywhere else I've been to. Smoking tobacco is currently illegal in ALL public places in Alberta except for bars/pubs which require everyone that enters to be 18 years or older (18 is also the drinking age here btw) - by the end of 2004 that will also be illegal, all public places will be smoke free. That includes dedicated smoking areas of these places, there is not a single McDonalds in this province with a smoking section anymore - if minors are allowed inside, smoking is not allowed. It is also illegal to smoke tobacco outdoors in many public places - notably just outside the doors of buildings that you can't smoke inside of - if you're out in the middle of nowhere you can smoke, but you can't do it in a place where the public needs to walk through your cloud to get to where they are going.

Weed should IMHO be controlled very similar to that. It should not be allowed to be smoked in public, where secondary smoke would be inhaled by the general public. If you are purchasing it somewhere, it will be heavily taxed (tobacco is currently taxed by about 200% here) and require the purchaser to be at least 18 years of age. Just like alcohol driving while under the influence, selling to minors, etc. will all be illegal and have heavy penalties. But for the average recreational user, the government really should have no say in him being allowed to have a plant in a small pot on his dresser in his bedroom, and to break off a bit of it to smoke while he watches a bit of TV before he goes to bed.

A very intelligent response, thank you Cova! I have a new respect for you!

Not that I'm changing my position in any way, but if I was forced to choose, the minimum that I would agree to, is smoking it on private property only: anything else would remain illegal.

Maybe that way, when someone is pulled over that's smoking it, they can still get a DUI charge on them, plus a "smoking in public", but not the higher charge of drug possesion, and not any "intent to resell". After all, it would have to be legal to carry it, just like any other commodity.

I am on the brink of being offended by that comment! But I'm not really...

I was in a hurry and wanted to express a deep concern of mine in as a simple fashion as possible. Stating my arguments would just be a reiteration of bigben's early posts, so I refrained from posting that again and decided to simply lend my support to one of the sides of this argument.

First - thank you for that first line. Now you just have to forgive me if I come back and post something that makes no sense at all after a good smoke :)

As to the last mini-paragraph, again I think it's pretty much covered by existing laws, in that case the ones dealing with alcohol. Obviously it is illegal to drive while drinking, in fact current laws also make it illegal to drive after smoking up (as it is illegal to posses any weed, but there are no laws against having possesed and smoked it in the past). Public drunkenness laws can be expanded to cover more than just being drunk, but also high on various compounds (which again, would cover even people who have done illegal drugs but no-longer have any in their possession). As for smoking off of private property, it would be the same as where you are allowed to drink. You can't walk down the street with a beer in your hand, and you shouldn't be able to with a joint (and here in Alberta in a year you'll have a hard time doing it with tobacco too). And obviously on private property you can pretty much do as you please. But then there's also crown land - if I'm out camping somewhere (not a official campground, but hiking off the trails) or at a bush-party or something, again I should be free to do as I please. In an effort to crack down on the drug-use that is common at many late-night parties, raves, etc. the entire class of parties is being made illegal in many cities, and such parties are moving out of the cities and into the great out-doors. I don't agree with making the parties illegal in the first place (you are punishing a lot of people just to stop a few from doing some drugs that don't affect others much if at all - E and LSD being the most common to see people doing in my experience, both are swallowed and produce no "second-hand-smoke" type of effect for anyone else in the area), but wherever we end up having them, let us do what we want at them.

And iceheart - I meant no offence. You've made some decent responses since then, but you have to admit that posting nothing more than "I can't believe people are actually even contemplating something so stupid as drug legalisaztion..." is a pretty useless post. At the least if all you wanted to do was state your position on the matter you could have done so without attempting to insult any/all of us that are pro-legalization. In fact I would go so far to say the fact that we are contemplating it shows that we are in fact intelligent, and after we make a decision, whether for or against legalization, then you can make your own opinions on whether it was a good choice.