Weed

[Gaffer]

Lool some of you need to get a life.

Hey Joel.

 

[Chaz Sexington]

First, I will say the burden of proof certainly lies on the side of those in favor of prohibition. This is a PLANT. It is found in NATURE, and one that humans have cultivated for thousands of years. Could you name another plant that is banned by the government (aside from mushrooms, which are legal in many places, as they should be)?

Opium poppy

We live in a liberal society (UK, European countries, US) that values the right of the individual to do what it pleases as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others. So why can I not grow a plant or smoke a joint on my property? That does not involve me harming others or infringing upon their rights. So if you are in favor of prohibition, you are basically asking the government to take unprecedented measures to regulate the personal, private behaviors of its citzens...in what other instance does the government regulate an indivudal 's personal behavior that does not affect others? Only in the case of drugs. So if you are in favor of prohibition, you have to prove that the social impacts of marijuana use are only negative and that they are so grave that it is a rare case when the government must step in and regulate our behavior (such as is the case with heroin).

This I do agree with - my body is not the government's property; however, they are the ones (the tax payers) that pay for medical care if I do **** up. And heroin was originally one of the best painkillers known to man (it was heroic drug), but the downside was the addiction. I disagree on a liberal society though, though that's a matter of definition and of no real consequence for the matter at hand. w

The reason? It depends on the country, but at least in the US, almost every single drug has been criminalized because of racial issues (they were usually brought into the country by different races)...often times it was framed in terms of stopping nefarios dark-skinned men from corrupting white women. This was the case with opium (the evil Asian men that lure these women into their opium dens), with marijuana (brought over by Mexicans), and with crack (was the drug of blacks while cocaine, which it is derived from was the drug of whites, and of course, the penalties for crack were much, much harsher than those of cocaine).

I'm inclined to disagree until I see some sources. I would say it's an offshoot of the religious right and their attempt at controlling people.

As for the health effects, much of what has been said here parrots the government/police/school propaganada. It is NOT, I repeat NOT, addictive. Psychologically, maybe (but so are a lot of things). But it's not chemically addictive like tobacco is. As for brain damage, there are NO studies that prove permanent brain damage from marijuana. I know of one study, however, that proved it prevents alzheimer's. Having said that, I do think that if you are a daily pot smoker for decades, it will mess up your memory and brain (not nearly as badly as alcohol would with that kind of use, of course). But if I want to do that, that is my right because I live in a liberal society where the government doesn't make my health decisions for me. It doesn't tell me I have to walk instead of drive, it doesn't tell me I have to exercise, and it doesn't tell me I can't order a Big Mac that will clog my arteries.

It does cause brain damage, don't kid yourself. . It is also chemically addictive, as it targets cannabinoid receptors. It is however less addictive than alcohol (see the drugs thread from earlier) per person that tries it. Though I do agree with the liberal part of your post; the nazis claimed your body belonged to the Reich, and thus damage to them was an attack on the State.

I'm sorry but this is absolutely ludicrous. The fact that you lump in weed dealers with pimps and criminals shows your problem. Society labels these people as criminals because weed is illegal and government/police/school propaganda teaches us to view these people in the same light as murderers and rapists. How many weed dealers and growers do you know? I do know quite a few. Some of them are bad people who are just trying to profit off of the black market. But most are just normal people like you and me. There's a plant that they like to smoke, so they grow it and sell it. If you like weed, it would be nice to make it your job, right? Especially if you get to work from home and choose your own hours. That's what some people do. Others I know are poorly educated and lost their jobs in the recessiona and don't have a choice: it's the only way they can make money. So yeah, you do sound a bit brainwashed when you assume that these people are evil criminals who will turn to pimping and money laundering as soon as it becomes legalized.

If you're going to campaign for liberalism, at least make people responsible for their own choices. Can't have both.

At some point you also made the claim that the reason alcohol and tobacco shouldn't be banned is that they are very ingrained in our society, while weed isn't, so it should be banned. This another very poor argument. Weed IS ingrained in our society. I don't know about Britain, but it is very, very common among young people in the US. There aren't many stoners, but most people have tried it (the statistic I've seen is that 40% of American high school seniors have tried weed at some point, but I think it's much higher since most people I know have tried it). Tobacco, however, is not common at all. It used to be, but the anti-smoking people have almost gotten rid of it entirely. It is very rare, and most tobacco smokers just have the occasional cigarette while drunk. But we haven't banned tobacco because we believe it is your RIGHT as an American to make such a decision, even if it is a chemically addictive substance that is terrible for your health.

It's almost 50% of Americans btw. However, this varies from culture to culture.

Weed, on the other hand, is better for you and much more ingrained in our society. It is very common. This is why prohibition is extremely ineffective, just as it was in the 1920's in the US. If you criminalize a substance that is commonly used by a society, you are simply supporting organized crime and drawing people into that world that normally wouldn't. Someone might be a weed smoker and go to a dealer who also sells things like coke and heroin, making those things more accessible. The whole ladder argument is a pretty silly one, but criminalizing weed does make other drugs much more accessible to the population, since they have to go to the same source to get weed.

Exactly. Most drug-related violence is cartels, not the actual users themselves. The only thing a dude that's been smoking weed has attacked was a bag of cool ranch Doritos.

Of course another important reason prohibition is ineffective is that it doesn't work...what happens you bust the biggest weed dealer in the UK, for example? Does that stop people from smoking weed? No. Where there is supply there is demand. Somone else (or more likely, several people) will take his place. People will continue to smoke no matter what. The difference is if you criminalize it you waste a bunch of money on trying to catch criminals in these pointless weed busts that happen again and again and don't change anything...you guys are going through a fiscal crisis right now (we are too), and you seriously want to spend money on that? I think we have better uses for our taxpayer dollars, namely stopping real crime, like murder and rape. For more arguments on that subject, check out www.leap.cc (law enforcement against prohibition). Of course a lot of police want it to stay illegal so it can justify and pay for their jobs, and many people in government have their own selfish motives for it (the War on Drugs in the US is full of hidden motives, including justifying our support for the Colombian military dictatorship over the years).

Agree with this too - I'm for legalising weed use, then weed sales from government licensed shops. However, for this to work you need an educated, responsible people. And most people are useless inbreeds. The state of drugs in Norway is getting worse as the cartels and gangs cut it with worse and worse stuff to turn a profit.

Also, your cyanide/astrophysicist analogies are horrible. I want to scream every time someone makes the analogy that you do or don't need to have experienced something to understand it (I never lived through the holocaust but that doesn't mean I can't talk about it, etc.). Everything in life is different, and the cyanide analogy, for example, is a terrible one. We know for a fact that it leads to death. There is no room for disagreement here. Weed, however, has a lot of subjective effects that are difficult to measure. It affects every person differently. Science has a hard time pinning down what the exact effects of weed are because it is a complicated substance with complicated effects that are difficult to understand. You should know this since you just made a post about the follies of science. Because weed is like this, you really can't understand the effects until you've tried them. It's the same with alcohol...you don't know what it's like to be drunk until you have experienced it.

This is a horrific argument - that you need to try it when science is currently unravelling its properties. This is hampered by the huge restrictions on researching weed though. We know how it works though and what substances affect you, e.g. ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol. If you want to find out the modes of action, search pubmed. Pubmed contains all peer-reviewed scientific journals.

It's also the same with any life matter that isn't so black and white (like cyanide)...do you seriously think that your opinion on marriage is as valid as a 50 year old who has been divorced twice? I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on marriage, but you're not as much of an expert on it as people who have experienced it, so we'll listen to those people first. This is why people are hesitant to listen to you talk about the effects of marijuana (not legality, effects). Especially when you do things like bring up examples of weed-smokers getting paranoid and beating their wives...I'm sure this has happened before in history, but I guarantee you spouse-abuse and violence happens more when you are sober than when you are high (of course it happens much, much more when you're drunk). It's something that you haven't tried, so a pot-smoker is going to be less likely to listen to you describe the effects of it. Since I've never learned about astophysics, I won't hold my opinion on matters of astrophysics as high as the astrophysicist's.

There's a lot more to say in response to some of the arguments here and so many more reasons prohibition of weed is a terrible idea but I really have to get going since I'm late.

However, the divorcee won't have an objective view of matters. Horrible argument.

- Why does it matter if it occurs in nature, idiotic argument. Humans occur in nature, so you're saying we shouldn't make human action illegal? What if there was a plant that could be grown easily, had a high risk of death. Should that be legal too, I mean it's nature so it's k for it to kill people. It's the Government's job to regulate, it's government failure if they don't act. It's a demerit good, they're supposed to have less demerit goods, not more in the economy.

You believe it's the government's job to regulate. If anything, the banking crisis taught us government are idiots.

The fact that you're obsessed with your average best buddy, small time image as your dealer shows your problem. Anecdotal evidence is win. What about the story's of the busts of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of Marijuana, are they just making a decent living off something they like too? Or are they profiting extraordinarily from the black market?

It's not the dealers making the massive profit here - it's the cartels.

Tobacco is common, alcohol is common. Weed is NOT ingrained in our society, not by a long shot. Firstly, I don't care about the US. Secondly, key word you used tried. Is the culture centred on it? No. Culture is far more centred around smoking and alcohol, it's second nature to do those things. What percent of the 40% would be ridiculously upset over weed completely disappearing?

Personal opinion. Weed and humans have been intrinsically linked for millenia, depending on the culture.

Prohibition de-legalised something that had already become apart of culture. Weed is an illegal product that has become popular (far less so than alcohol and tobacco). So then de-legalising will bring its popularity up to that similar to alcohol and tobacco. Why? Why do we want that? Then where do we draw the line, we legalised weed, do we campaign to legalise coke in 10 years time?

Holland has done well, legalised weed and less use of it there than most western countries.

Supply and demand, cool. Firstly, it's where there's demand there's supply, I mean I've been stood on the street supplying banana skins but no one is demanding them!!! Secondly, we're tightening up a fiscal mess left by labour. Maybe we should remove the bureaucracy from the police force so they can actually be out doing their jobs rather than paperwork, I'm not sure how much crime you think there is, but they're going to be far more effective and efficient as a whole if they're actually out doing their jobs, rather than paperwork, rather than the difference legalisation of weed would make. And then there's all of the time and effort required by the Government and other officials to write up and execute the laws, another waste of resource (In these critical fiscal times!).

Source?

And then I guess the taxation argument is going to come up. So lets say, hypothetically, we legalise it. Then what? Laws of comparative advantage show we're far more likely to import than produce ourselves; since we don't have the correct climate, and the costs of production being far higher than a country such as Jamaica. And then we place a tax on the imported good (and most likely a tariff), therefore there's a welfare loss from the importing. And then ask yourself, where is the money going from the import? That's right. Straight out of the country, so there's a percentage tax on the good, but 100% of that paid is going straight out of the economy. The net fiscal loss is equal to (Import cost - Tax revenue), so do you want to be paying 100% plus tax on the product, so that it becomes fiscally advantageous? Didn't think so.

This... makes no sense.

Also going to put forth that with increased access comes increased use. Since it promotes lethargy, a person's productivity will fall while under the influence. Since this could equally happen with a drunk person, I'll give it equal probability. Lets say there's a 1% chance someone goes to work drunk/hungover (1% for the sake of numbers), then there's a 1% it happens with weed too. Now, as I've said, I don't believe we can get rid of alcohol from society, but weed is still controllable by the amount of people smoking it, if more people are, the increased chance of someone becoming lethargic at work, therefore productivity falls.
Just because you love the economic arguments so much.:wub:

Touché GodCubed.

You're presuming with your numbers that the people who would smoke and drink, then go to work are different people. And if you're voting ConDem, why are you pro-controlling people? It is however their choice to make, not yours.

 

[Joel`]

You believe it's the government's job to regulate. If anything, the banking crisis taught us government are idiots.

It taught us that regulation is needed too.

It's not the dealers making the massive profit here - it's the cartels.

Maybe, I don't know. I imagine if you have hundreds of thousands of pounds of weed then you're not doing too badly.

Personal opinion. Weed and humans have been intrinsically linked for millenia, depending on the culture.

Opinion as you say. Times are very different now than to the past millennia though.

Holland has done well, legalised weed and less use of it there than most western countries.

Surely that's more proof they're more responsible than legalisation decreasing use.

Source?

For what?

This... makes no sense.

Yes it does, I could have organised it better though. We don't have the climate to produce it, and our workers demand more wages. Therefore costs of production are higher from creating the artificial climate, and from higher wages, so it's cheaper to import from another country where their costs are far cheaper. When you import, the money is going out of your economy not in. So, for taxation to work, you must make more tax revenue than you do from the money leaked out by import.

You're presuming with your numbers that the people who would smoke and drink, then go to work are different people. And if you're voting ConDem, why are you pro-controlling people? It is however their choice to make, not yours.

The probability argument still works though. More access, more usage, higher probability of someone being high, higher probability of being under the influence of work.

Regulation and I don't believe in allowing more demerit goods. There always has to be some element of control or society breaks down.

 

[Chaz Sexington]

It taught us that regulation is needed too.

Not really, as it was government legislation that caused them to start the sub-prime lending and government pressure that made them loan money to people who couldn't pay it back.

Maybe, I don't know. I imagine if you have hundreds of thousands of pounds of weed then you're not doing too badly.

Cartels make billions.

Opinion as you say. Times are very different now than to the past millennia though.

Certainly, but you may argue we're using more now than ever.

Surely that's more proof they're more responsible than legalisation decreasing use.

They are more responsible, but I was out with three Dutch people last night, and yes, they've got a different culture than Britain, but it's not that fundamentally different. Britain's problem is social irresponsibility due to more and more people are dependant on the gov't for handouts.

For what?

Maybe we should remove the bureaucracy from the police force so they can actually be out doing their jobs rather than paperwork, I'm not sure how much crime you think there is, but they're going to be far more effective and efficient as a whole if they're actually out doing their jobs, rather than paperwork, rather than the difference legalisation of weed would make. And then there's all of the time and effort required by the Government and other officials to write up and execute the laws, another waste of resource (In these critical fiscal times!).

Bureaucracy is important to keep things fair, as everything has become more complicated. I find the government utterly useless in most aspects (e.g. the running a country).

Yes it does, I could have organised it better though. We don't have the climate to produce it, and our workers demand more wages. Therefore costs of production are higher from creating the artificial climate, and from higher wages, so it's cheaper to import from another country where their costs are far cheaper. When you import, the money is going out of your economy not in. So, for taxation to work, you must make more tax revenue than you do from the money leaked out by import.

A good import-export rate is important, but we can grow weed cheaply here. It's very easy to grow. And you can tax imports.

The probability argument still works though. More access, more usage, higher probability of someone being high, higher probability of being under the influence of work.

Regulation and I don't believe in allowing more demerit goods. There always has to be some element of control or society breaks down.

As long as people don't do anything against me (such as wreck my property, steal my things, physically attack me etc) they're free to do as they like. It's their lives, not mine; they're free to do what they like as long as it doesn't hurt me in any way. If I employed someone and they turned up high, I'd warn them, then next time I'd fire them. People have to be made responsible for their own choices.

 

[Pugman]

I respect my Body.

 

[prow07]

Just gonna give a little input.

A couple of years back there was a dealer next door and he had his 'mates' or customers over, nearly every night, about 15 people, and they had loud music at 3am all of the time. Then that turned into violence, when they were so high, that they smashed their own windows. Sometimes they even had fights with each other in the garden.

Another thing is, that these people had no jobs, and were obviously using their dole money to buy drugs.

I know people will disagree with me when i say that cannabis is a horrible drug, and the side effects are awful, and i respect your decision, but I have seen what it can do, and sometimes the effects it has on people are quite frightening, and this puts me off the drug completely.

 

[Joel`]

Not really, as it was government legislation that caused them to start the sub-prime lending and government pressure that made them loan money to people who couldn't pay it back.

It was government legislation that de-regulated them that led to the "credit crunch"

Cartels make billions.

Okay then.

Certainly, but you may argue we're using more now than ever.

Can't deny that either.

They are more responsible, but I was out with three Dutch people last night, and yes, they've got a different culture than Britain, but it's not that fundamentally different. Britain's problem is social irresponsibility due to more and more people are dependant on the gov't for handouts.

Exactly, Britain sucks.

Bureaucracy is important to keep things fair, as everything has become more complicated. I find the government utterly useless in most aspects (e.g. the running a country).

Resources could be far, far better spent than paperwork. It's one of the principles behind the Tory government to increase efficiency and productivity. [/QUOTE]

A good import-export rate is important, but we can grow weed cheaply here. It's very easy to grow. And you can tax imports.

It'll always be cheaper in country's that hold comparative advantage. Taxing imports leads to a net welfare loss (Google the gains from trade diagram), and leads to reactionary protectionism if we introduce tax against them.

As long as people don't do anything against me (such as wreck my property, steal my things, physically attack me etc) they're free to do as they like. It's their lives, not mine; they're free to do what they like as long as it doesn't hurt me in any way. If I employed someone and they turned up high, I'd warn them, then next time I'd fire them. People have to be made responsible for their own choices.

Exactly, if we had no control these things would happen far more often. Laws are there for a reason after all.

 

[nilelg5]

This thread turned from being a yes/no thread to a debate with entire sa per each post (Word limit please lee)

 

[Chaz Sexington]

It was government legislation that de-regulated them that led to the "credit crunch"

Can't deny that either.

Resources could be far, far better spent than paperwork. It's one of the principles behind the Tory government to increase efficiency and productivity.

It'll always be cheaper in country's that hold comparative advantage. Taxing imports leads to a net welfare loss (Google the gains from trade diagram), and leads to reactionary protectionism if we introduce tax against them.

Exactly, if we had no control these things would happen far more often. Laws are there for a reason after all.

Government legislation under Clinton which encouraged banks to lend to people who couldn't pay back was one of the main pillars. The banks were greedy, admittedly, but the bail-outs taught them one thing - they are too big too fail. I'm a free-market capitalist, and I don't appreciate government favouring private companies, for whatever reason. It reeks of corruption. However, it's not what we're discussing.

I don't think anyone likes the bureaucracy, but it's required in a democracy. I would prefer a more effective bureaucracy than smaller one.

It's cheaper to make many things abroad, yet it hasn't caused the collapse of the British economy (yet). And it's not like we'd import that much more weed, we'd just be able to tax it.

Laws are there for a reason, but the reason may not always be a good one. Do you have your longbow ready to practice tomorrow? It's the law.

---------- Post added at 01:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:28 AM ----------

Just gonna give a little input.

A couple of years back there was a dealer next door and he had his 'mates' or customers over, nearly every night, about 15 people, and they had loud music at 3am all of the time. Then that turned into violence, when they were so high, that they smashed their own windows. Sometimes they even had fights with each other in the garden.

Another thing is, that these people had no jobs, and were obviously using their dole money to buy drugs.

I know people will disagree with me when i say that cannabis is a horrible drug, and the side effects are awful, and i respect your decision, but I have seen what it can do, and sometimes the effects it has on people are quite frightening, and this puts me off the drug completely.

That doesn't sound like weed. Much more like cocaine. And the problem here wasn't the drug, rather a social one.

 

[curtis290]

Opium poppy

I was asking for examples other than drugs. Anyways, it's heroin that is banned, not the poppy. If we were to ban the poppy, that's because it can only be used for heroin. Yet we do use it for morphine, which is a pain reliever. Weed would be a much better pain reliever since it's not chemically addictive, but I suppose a lot of the anti-weed people here wouldn't care. The better example is coke. In Bolivia for example, the cacao leaf is legal (the indigenous people chew it and always have), but processing it into cocaine is illegal.

This I do agree with - my body is not the government's property; however, they are the ones (the tax payers) that pay for medical care if I do **** up. And heroin was originally one of the best painkillers known to man (it was heroic drug), but the downside was the addiction. I disagree on a liberal society though, though that's a matter of definition and of no real consequence for the matter at hand. w

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. First of all, you don't think we live in a liberal society? Do we not live in a society that protects the right of property? Do we not have individual rights? Process of law? Would Locke not like our system of government? I'm not saying there are no 'illiberal influences,' namely religion, but on the whole, we live in a liberal society and I've never met anyone who would seriously claim otherwise. And how can you say that's of no real consequence for the matter at hand. We're talking about LEGALITY for Christ's sake. How the **** are we supposed to decide whether or not something should be illegal if we don't even think about how our society is supposed to make that decision? If we lived in an illiberal society, say a very Muslim country, we would make our laws based on Shar'ia. But we don't. We live in a liberal society, which means that I can do whatever I want as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others. This includes doing unhealthy things that aren't good for society as a whole, such as smoking tobacco, not exercising and eating big macs, and making fun of other people. So it's the most important part of the debate. You make some good points, but that one was not.

As far as the healthcare argument goes, not sure if that was directed at weed (since if you smoke every day it's bad for your lungs and we might have to pay for it), but if it was, well there's big macs and tobacco.

I'm inclined to disagree until I see some sources. I would say it's an offshoot of the religious right and their attempt at controlling people.

It's late and I don't have time to pull out sources, but a google search or wikipedia page should do the trick for you. You are right that the religious right nowadays has something to do with it (although in America they don't even care that much about it anymore), but I'm talking about how the laws originated. With the case of weed, it was Mexicans, with opium it was Asians, and I already discussed crack/cocaine policy. This isn't me talking and I didn't come up with these arguments, and the first time I heard it was from a well-renowned political science professor.

It does cause brain damage, don't kid yourself. . It is also chemically addictive, as it targets cannabinoid receptors. It is however less addictive than alcohol (see the drugs thread from earlier) per person that tries it. Though I do agree with the liberal part of your post; the nazis claimed your body belonged to the Reich, and thus damage to them was an attack on the State.

The second link doesn't provide any evidence that it is chemically addictive, so you might want to check that. More importantly, it ISN'T. You do NOT get withdrawal if you stop using it. I have talked to doctors and bio professors that will confirm this. As for brain damage, again, short-term loss of memory has been proven, but no long-term effects about brain damage. However, I think there are long-term effects if you smoke every day for decades.

If you're going to campaign for liberalism, at least make people responsible for their own choices. Can't have both.

When did I say they weren't responsible for their choices? There is a huge job shortage right now, and some people will sell weed because they have no other option other than go on welfare. I'm pointing out the fact that this shouldn't be illegal. So I'm not sure what your argument is.

It's almost 50% of Americans btw. However, this varies from culture to culture.

Well we're talking about America/western Europe, where most people smoke weed, so it's relevant.

Agree with this too - I'm for legalising weed use, then weed sales from government licensed shops. However, for this to work you need an educated, responsible people. And most people are useless inbreeds. The state of drugs in Norway is getting worse as the cartels and gangs cut it with worse and worse stuff to turn a profit.

It's true that people are stupid, but this doesn't mean we always have to regulate their behavior.

This is a horrific argument - that you need to try it when science is currently unravelling its properties. This is hampered by the huge restrictions on researching weed though. We know how it works though and what substances affect you, e.g. ∆9-tetrahydrocannabinol. If you want to find out the modes of action, search pubmed. Pubmed contains all peer-reviewed scientific journals.

No, your argument is the horrific. I'm sure since there are countless psychological studies, we completely understand the human mind, don't we? Just because we have studied something doesn't mean we fully understand it...no scientist will seriously tell you they fully understand weed. More importantly, it is a psychoactive and anything that ineracts with the human mind is confusing to us and something we won't understand. And I suppose that you think you can read a bunch of chemists' reports on alcohol and know exactly what it's like to be drunk? I don't know if you've been high or not, but it's something you have to do to have a good grasp of. And a lot of people on this thread are making arguments about how evil weed is and about its effects when they haven't experienced it and really don't know what it's like.

However, the divorcee won't have an objective view of matters. Horrible argument.

Did you even listen to what I said? Where did I say the 40 year old would have a completely objective view on marriage? I was making the very obvious point that with some things, experience counts, which is why the 40 year old who has been married twice will know more about marriage than the 13 year old...I didn't say Joel could have NO opinion on the effects of weed since he hadn't tried it, or that my opinion was 100% objective because I have tried it. But if we're going to listen to two people talk about the effects of weed, I'm assuming most people would give my opinion more weight than Joel's since I have tried it. I can tell you what it's like to be high, while Joel can't. Did I say Joel can't have an opinion about weed? Of course not. But if you seriously think that a 13 year old girl's opinion on motherhood is as valid as a 45 year old mother of 3's, than you're very dense.

- Why does it matter if it occurs in nature, idiotic argument. Humans occur in nature, so you're saying we shouldn't make human action illegal? What if there was a plant that could be grown easily, had a high risk of death. Should that be legal too, I mean it's nature so it's k for it to kill people. It's the Government's job to regulate, it's government failure if they don't act. It's a demerit good, they're supposed to have less demerit goods, not more in the economy.

Another terrible analogy. First of all, you keep mentioning killing. That involves infringing upon the rights of others. Whose rights do I infringe upon when I smoke in my room? Anyways, I'm talking about regulating substances found in nature. Can you name me another one that is prohibited? Big macs, televisions, and FM's are demerit goods, but the government doesn't ban these things because we live in a liberal society that values individual freedom to make these choices ourselves. Anyways, demerit by whose standards? Yours? And why should I have to listen to you? Why can't I make that decision for myself, like I can with anything else in life? Now you keep making this 'social good' argument, but I guarantee you if you made tobacco illegal, people would stop smoking it. You can't grow tobacco in your house. So why then shouldn't we get rid of tobacco? It would create 'social good' if less people smoked it. You talk about it being infringed in the culture, but why should that matter? If it's bad, shouldn't we get rid of it? To play one of your cards, murder is ingrained in our culture, so we should just accept it?

- Don't care about the US or racial issues.

I brought it up as an example to show the history of marijuana legalization. You seem to be concerned with this. You argue that since alcohol and tobacco have been legal for a while, they should be legal, while since marijuana has been illegal, it should remain so. I'm just putting out the ridiculousness behind the past legislation and how that's not a good reason for keeping it so.

- Go learn the definition of addiction. Everything's addictive, and it's still a chemical stimulant of the brain. Just because there's no physical withdrawal does not make it non-addictive. People are far more likely to become psychologically addicted rather than a physical dependency. I.E. They could do X activity, but they'd rather do X + Get high. You think the stuff you buy from the street has the health benefits? As I said, it's unique chemicals in the plant that cause the health benefits. In your regular stuff, it's far less potent; if they can isolate the chemical, and then sell it as a drug - with the intended use of being medicinal - then it's a good thing. But then it's no longer weed.

Whether or not something is chemically addictive makes a HUGE difference. I can go from being a regular weed smoker to quitting cold turkey (like I have done several times in life) with absolutely no problems. Occassionally I'll get a craving (psychological), usually when I'm drunk, but it's NOTHING like cigarettes or morphine/heroin. Being a cigarette smoker, I know what it's like to quit cigarettes. Your body becomes chemically and physically dependent on it. This doesn't happen with weed, which makes a huge difference. Anyways, both from personal experience and from what I've seen on this forum, FM is much more addictive than weed and takes more of your time. The same might go for football. Should we ban those activities as well?

The fact that you're obsessed with your average best buddy, small time image as your dealer shows your problem. Anecdotal evidence is win. What about the story's of the busts of hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of Marijuana, are they just making a decent living off something they like too? Or are they profiting extraordinarily from the black market?

And what percentage of dealers export thousands of pounds worth of marijuana? Almost all dealers (in the states at least, although less so in Britain where growing conditions are different) are small-time, and they usually get it from someone who grows in their own house.

But more importantly, you're only supporting my argument. Legalizing weed GETS RID of the big time weed dealers. That's the only way you can get rid of these people. Sure you can put them behind bars, but because there's a demand for weed and there's a lot of money to be made from selling it in large quantities (thanks to the fact that it is decriminalized), there will be bad people who want to make a living off of it. That's because we live in a society that glorifies wealth. But if we decriminalized it, there won't be any people that make a living off of its illegal distribution. Of course if it was legal, maybe there will be some guy that gets rich from owning a lot of weed farms, but he'd be a legitimate businessman and wouldn't use violence or any improper techniques (if he did, he would get in trouble). This is the advantage to legalizing and regulating these substances.

Tobacco is common, alcohol is common. Weed is NOT ingrained in our society, not by a long shot. Firstly, I don't care about the US. Secondly, key word you used tried. Is the culture centred on it? No. Culture is far more centred around smoking and alcohol, it's second nature to do those things. What percent of the 40% would be ridiculously upset over weed completely disappearing?

I know a lot of people that are ****** off by criminalization. Second, more people have tried weed than tobacco, and at least in the states, more people smoke weed on a regular basis than tobacco. At least at my age. In my generation, tobacco is nearly done for (maybe not in the lower classes, but definitely in the middle to upper classes).

Second, why are we even discussing this? Whether or not something is "ingrained in the culture" does not determine whether or not we should criminalize it. Let's look at a developing country such as China. Video games aren't ingrained in their culture...so they should ban them because they are demerit goods that are not in widespread usage yet?

More importantly, if we decriminalized alcohol, its usage would decrease DRASTICALLY. Can you imagine what drinking would be like without pubs? If it was illegal to be drunk in public (meaning the police could breathalize you at any time)? I guarantee you we could make alcohol much less common than weed if we wanted to. Alcohol is a "demerit good" and causes many more social ills than weed does, so by your logic, we should ban it. The same goes for tobacco.

Lastly, whether or not something is "ingrained in the culture" has nothing to do with whether or not we try to get rid of it or not, as I stated before. I'll play the extreme analogy card again, used by many in this thread: spouse abuse was ingrained in our culture, yet we have reduced it by being harsh about it. Murder is ingrained in our culture, but it's still illegal because it infringes upon the right to life of other people.

Prohibition de-legalised something that had already become apart of culture. Weed is an illegal product that has become popular (far less so than alcohol and tobacco). So then de-legalising will bring its popularity up to that similar to alcohol and tobacco. Why? Why do we want that? Then where do we draw the line, we legalised weed, do we campaign to legalise coke in 10 years time?

No, it depends on the state. But in many states, weed was legal until the 1960's, after it was popular. The older generation didn't like the fact that young people were smoking it (it was associated with those hippy free love types who listened to rock and roll and had premarital ***) and tried to get rid of it. Second, how do you know that decriminalizing it will make it as popular as alcohol? Did that happen in Canada or the Netherlands?

Third, you keep saying "why would we want that?" This decision isn't YOURS to make. Our society doesn't regulate the individual behaviors of its citizens. That is the fundamental principle behind liberalism. If I want to eat fatty foods, I can. If I want to smoke tobacco, I can. If I want to drink alcohol, I can. If I want to spend all of my weekend alone in my room playing FM, I can. If I want to be an *******, I can. If I want to cheat on my girlfriend and lie about it, I can. Since we live in a liberal society, criminal behavior only occurs when you infringe upon the rights of others. You haven't stated once in this thread why my smoking a joint in my room affects ANYONE else or infringes upon their rights.

Your main point seems to be that if we make weed legal alongside tobacco and alcohol, its consumption will increase, which is bad for society. Well, if we make tobacco and alcohol illegal, its consumption will rapidly decrease (much moreso than weed). Since that is good for society, shouldn't we do that too?

Supply and demand, cool. Firstly, it's where there's demand there's supply, I mean I've been stood on the street supplying banana skins but no one is demanding them!!! Secondly, we're tightening up a fiscal mess left by labour. Maybe we should remove the bureaucracy from the police force so they can actually be out doing their jobs rather than paperwork, I'm not sure how much crime you think there is, but they're going to be far more effective and efficient as a whole if they're actually out doing their jobs, rather than paperwork, rather than the difference legalisation of weed would make. And then there's all of the time and effort required by the Government and other officials to write up and execute the laws, another waste of resource (In these critical fiscal times!).

Good lord. Where there is DEMAND there is supply. Where there is supply there isn't always demand, per your banana peel example. Second, I think policemen should be doing more important things than policing some kid smoking weed in the park. Don't they have murder and rape cases to solve? If you think they would be filling out paperwork if they weren't policing weed smoking (and this is how it is in some very small towns) than yes, they shouldn't be paid by our tax dollars. Anyways, if you had even listened to what I had to say, you would have noticed my point is that it is a ***** law that we shouldn't be spending our resources enforcing. We have more important things for the police to do and more important things our tax dollars could be spent on.

And then I guess the taxation argument is going to come up. So lets say, hypothetically, we legalise it. Then what? Laws of comparative advantage show we're far more likely to import than produce ourselves; since we don't have the correct climate, and the costs of production being far higher than a country such as Jamaica. And then we place a tax on the imported good (and most likely a tariff), therefore there's a welfare loss from the importing. And then ask yourself, where is the money going from the import? That's right. Straight out of the country, so there's a percentage tax on the good, but 100% of that paid is going straight out of the economy. The net fiscal loss is equal to (Import cost - Tax revenue), so do you want to be paying 100% plus tax on the product, so that it becomes fiscally advantageous? Didn't think so.

Do you seriously think that legalizing weed would have drastic impacts on the trade deficit? Second, it's clear your just pulling this **** out of some econ textbook you read. I want you to concretely explain, in your own words, how putting a tariff on imported weed (so that it is cheaper to buy British weed than foreign weed) would hurt the British economy. And you don't even need to put a tariff on imported weed...just make it illegal? If you are so concerned about the trade deficit, than make a law that you can't bring in imported weed. That way people only buy from British growers, which helps the British economy. But another thing to remember is that the price will go way, way down once it is decriminalized. This is because it is illegal, and this makes distribution tricky and controlled by a few dealers. But once it is legal, there is no risk, and anyone can grow it (of course you can make them get a permit in order to do so, as it is in some states in the US). Now if you want to make it more expensive, go ahead and tax the **** out of it, and then you can help the fiscal deficit. Oh, and your argument that it will start a "tariff war" is downright hilarious. I can imagine it now, a tariff war started between Britain and the US over weed duties.

Umm, I said people on weed beat their wives because someone made an equally ludicrous argument that someone drunk will do the same. I was making a point of his awful argument rather than believing it myself, thought that was clear how I worded it. :/

Yet you keep insisting that weed is a "demerit good" and that it causes all of these social ills. Since alcohol causes many social ills, and we could drastically reduce its consumption if we wanted to, shouldn't we make it illegal? The crux of your argument seems to be that allowing weed will lead to more people consuming it, which is bad and must be stopped (criminalization).

I've made an effort to steer away from discussing the effects in full for this very reason. My cyanide/astrophysicist analogies were in reply to the people who said I couldn't have an opinion on the subject.

Fair enough. I don't remember exactly who you were writing in response to. But I will take your arguments on legalization just a little bit less seriously because you haven't tried it. You seem to be very supportive of the criminalization of something you haven't experienced, and as someone who has experienced this very much, I would say that if you had as much experience as I do with weed (although I don't smoke it currently and haven't for months), you would probably have a different opinion on it.

Also going to put forth that with increased access comes increased use. Since it promotes lethargy, a person's productivity will fall while under the influence. Since this could equally happen with a drunk person, I'll give it equal probability. Lets say there's a 1% chance someone goes to work drunk/hungover (1% for the sake of numbers), then there's a 1% it happens with weed too. Now, as I've said, I don't believe we can get rid of alcohol from society, but weed is still controllable by the amount of people smoking it, if more people are, the increased chance of someone becoming lethargic at work, therefore productivity falls.
Just because you love the economic arguments so much.:wub:

Touché GodCubed.

Can you name me one other thing that we have banned because it reduces productivity? How about football manager 2011? It certainly has effected my productivity at my job. The World Cup destroys productivity for an entire month, I guess we should get rid of that too? If I want to be unproductive, that is my CHOICE. If my boss fires me, that is his choice, and my fault for losing my job. Now I'm sure you'll bring up welfare arguments, but if you want to do that, you need to provide hard evidence that marijuana usage increases unemployment. But then again, legalizing it and taxing it would pay for that.

As for alcohol being ingrained in our society, I'm guessing you think it should be illegal but that such a law is impractical, which is why you are not in favor of the prohibition of alcohol. That's what pretty much everything you have said here implies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it were possible to effectively ban alcohol, should we do so? Your logic would certainly suggest we should. As I've stated before, if we wanted to, we could almost get rid of alcohol in this society. Without bars to go to and if it were illegal to have drank at all (police could brethalize you if they thought you had, and it's easy to know when someone's been drinking), I guarantee you hardly anyone would drink anymore. Wouldn't that be a good thing? We would reduce the amount of consumption of the "demerit good," which is "good for society."

If you do agree with this and secretly think alcohol should be banned (and that the only reason we don't/shouldn't is because it wouldn't work), I'm sorry buddy but you need to lighten up. It's Saturday night, go out and get a drink and relax a little bit. Heck, get wasted if you want to, as long as you don't drive. You can be a drunken idiot and puke in the streets just like so many other Englishmen. You know why? Because we live in a free society that allows to make bad, immoral decisions because it believes in our RIGHT to do so.



We've been having all of this debate about the legality of it, but we haven't adequately discussed the fundamental assumptions on which what we're arguing about lies. If we're talking about legality, we need to discuss what should be illegal and what shouldn't. I'm not sure where you are politically, but I'm assuming you're a "liberal" in the classical sense of the word (ignore the modern political implications of that loaded term, but I assume you believe in individual rights, the process of law, and that if you read John Locke you would agree with a lot of what he said).

The idea behind a liberal society is that we are free to make our own choices as long as we don't infringe upon the rights of others. Can I smoke tobacco? Yes. Can I drink alcohol? Yes. Can I eat a horrible diet and never exercise? Yes. Can I be a total *******? Yes, as long as I'm not infringing upon the rights of others. Can I murder someone? No, it infringes upon their right to life. Can I steal their ****? No, it infringes upon their right of property. Can the government ban Scientology, even though it is a cult with devious intentions that is bad for society? No, because that infringes upon our right to choose our own religion.

So can the government ban me from smoking weed in my room or alone in the park? Many countries have already realized the ridiculousness of weed criminalization and are turning around (Netherlands, Canada, a numerous number of countries including Argentina have decriminalized it, heck even the US of all places is extremely weed tolerant, and in countries where it is illegal, most police don't care). Of course if I do something on marijuana that infringes upon the rights of others, than I get into trouble, but that is because I infringed upon the rights of others, and will get in trouble for that particular act. If I am paranoid and kill someone (has happened before in history), than I get in trouble because I infringed upon their right to life, and that's what I should go to prison for. Not smoking weed.

Not once have you proved in this thread at any moment that smoking weed infringes upon the rights of others, and this is the only instance when we are supposed to make a behavior illegal. Now I do think that in extreme cases you should prohibit something that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others if it is clearly something terrible with no positive consequences and very, very destructive to society...meth/heroin would be included in this category. But weed is not NEARLY this extreme and can have many positive impacts (I know a lot of people that benefit from weed, and included in this group are people that attend some of the top graduate schools in the US), unlike the previous examples. Of course you might lump weed into this category of "drugs" alongside heroin and meth, and if you do, I'd say that mostly has to do with the fact that you've never tried it and because you've listened to much to propaganda that believes meth and weed are pretty much the same thing.

If weed were discovered today, doctors would say it was a miracle drug and it certainly wouldn't be banned.

 

[A* Manager]

Never touched the stuff but know a lot of people who do it ,
I am still in two minds over to try it or not tbf

 

[Stann]

I don't accept peoples negative views on cannabis unless they've tried it and hated it, or had a bad experience with a friend or family. You're ignorant if you don't realise more than half the population of the country have smoked or do smoke weed on some sort of basis. It has been proven that long-term it is nowhere near as harmful as alcohol. Smoking the occasional joint has never been proved to cause long-term problems. The only cases of "psychosis", "schizophrenia" are from heavy smokers, who smoke on a regular basis.

The government has seemed to drum it into peoples heads that this is a hardcare drug, it's nothing more than a calming sedative. I mean come on it's not like an EU country would legalise it if it was that bad...

 

[Ben]

@Curtis290, your fingers must be killing.

 

[Stann]

I was asking for examples other than drugs. Anyways, it's heroin that is banned, not the poppy. If we were to ban the poppy, that's because it can only be used for heroin. Yet we do use it for morphine, which is a pain reliever. Weed would be a much better pain reliever since it's not chemically addictive, but I suppose a lot of the anti-weed people here wouldn't care. The better example is coke. In Bolivia for example, the cacao leaf is legal (the indigenous people chew it and always have), but processing it into cocaine is illegal.



Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. First of all, you don't think we live in a liberal society? Do we not live in a society that protects the right of property? Do we not have individual rights? Process of law? Would Locke not like our system of government? I'm not saying there are no 'illiberal influences,' namely religion, but on the whole, we live in a liberal society and I've never met anyone who would seriously claim otherwise. And how can you say that's of no real consequence for the matter at hand. We're talking about LEGALITY for Christ's sake. How the **** are we supposed to decide whether or not something should be illegal if we don't even think about how our society is supposed to make that decision? If we lived in an illiberal society, say a very Muslim country, we would make our laws based on Shar'ia. But we don't. We live in a liberal society, which means that I can do whatever I want as long as I don't infringe upon the rights of others. This includes doing unhealthy things that aren't good for society as a whole, such as smoking tobacco, not exercising and eating big macs, and making fun of other people. So it's the most important part of the debate. You make some good points, but that one was not.

As far as the healthcare argument goes, not sure if that was directed at weed (since if you smoke every day it's bad for your lungs and we might have to pay for it), but if it was, well there's big macs and tobacco.



It's late and I don't have time to pull out sources, but a google search or wikipedia page should do the trick for you. You are right that the religious right nowadays has something to do with it (although in America they don't even care that much about it anymore), but I'm talking about how the laws originated. With the case of weed, it was Mexicans, with opium it was Asians, and I already discussed crack/cocaine policy. This isn't me talking and I didn't come up with these arguments, and the first time I heard it was from a well-renowned political science professor.



The second link doesn't provide any evidence that it is chemically addictive, so you might want to check that. More importantly, it ISN'T. You do NOT get withdrawal if you stop using it. I have talked to doctors and bio professors that will confirm this. As for brain damage, again, short-term loss of memory has been proven, but no long-term effects about brain damage. However, I think there are long-term effects if you smoke every day for decades.




When did I say they weren't responsible for their choices? There is a huge job shortage right now, and some people will sell weed because they have no other option other than go on welfare. I'm pointing out the fact that this shouldn't be illegal. So I'm not sure what your argument is.




Well we're talking about America/western Europe, where most people smoke weed, so it's relevant.



It's true that people are stupid, but this doesn't mean we always have to regulate their behavior.



No, your argument is the horrific. I'm sure since there are countless psychological studies, we completely understand the human mind, don't we? Just because we have studied something doesn't mean we fully understand it...no scientist will seriously tell you they fully understand weed. More importantly, it is a psychoactive and anything that ineracts with the human mind is confusing to us and something we won't understand. And I suppose that you think you can read a bunch of chemists' reports on alcohol and know exactly what it's like to be drunk? I don't know if you've been high or not, but it's something you have to do to have a good grasp of. And a lot of people on this thread are making arguments about how evil weed is and about its effects when they haven't experienced it and really don't know what it's like.



Did you even listen to what I said? Where did I say the 40 year old would have a completely objective view on marriage? I was making the very obvious point that with some things, experience counts, which is why the 40 year old who has been married twice will know more about marriage than the 13 year old...I didn't say Joel could have NO opinion on the effects of weed since he hadn't tried it, or that my opinion was 100% objective because I have tried it. But if we're going to listen to two people talk about the effects of weed, I'm assuming most people would give my opinion more weight than Joel's since I have tried it. I can tell you what it's like to be high, while Joel can't. Did I say Joel can't have an opinion about weed? Of course not. But if you seriously think that a 13 year old girl's opinion on motherhood is as valid as a 45 year old mother of 3's, than you're very dense.



Another terrible analogy. First of all, you keep mentioning killing. That involves infringing upon the rights of others. Whose rights do I infringe upon when I smoke in my room? Anyways, I'm talking about regulating substances found in nature. Can you name me another one that is prohibited? Big macs, televisions, and FM's are demerit goods, but the government doesn't ban these things because we live in a liberal society that values individual freedom to make these choices ourselves. Anyways, demerit by whose standards? Yours? And why should I have to listen to you? Why can't I make that decision for myself, like I can with anything else in life? Now you keep making this 'social good' argument, but I guarantee you if you made tobacco illegal, people would stop smoking it. You can't grow tobacco in your house. So why then shouldn't we get rid of tobacco? It would create 'social good' if less people smoked it. You talk about it being infringed in the culture, but why should that matter? If it's bad, shouldn't we get rid of it? To play one of your cards, murder is ingrained in our culture, so we should just accept it?



I brought it up as an example to show the history of marijuana legalization. You seem to be concerned with this. You argue that since alcohol and tobacco have been legal for a while, they should be legal, while since marijuana has been illegal, it should remain so. I'm just putting out the ridiculousness behind the past legislation and how that's not a good reason for keeping it so.



Whether or not something is chemically addictive makes a HUGE difference. I can go from being a regular weed smoker to quitting cold turkey (like I have done several times in life) with absolutely no problems. Occassionally I'll get a craving (psychological), usually when I'm drunk, but it's NOTHING like cigarettes or morphine/heroin. Being a cigarette smoker, I know what it's like to quit cigarettes. Your body becomes chemically and physically dependent on it. This doesn't happen with weed, which makes a huge difference. Anyways, both from personal experience and from what I've seen on this forum, FM is much more addictive than weed and takes more of your time. The same might go for football. Should we ban those activities as well?



And what percentage of dealers export thousands of pounds worth of marijuana? Almost all dealers (in the states at least, although less so in Britain where growing conditions are different) are small-time, and they usually get it from someone who grows in their own house.

But more importantly, you're only supporting my argument. Legalizing weed GETS RID of the big time weed dealers. That's the only way you can get rid of these people. Sure you can put them behind bars, but because there's a demand for weed and there's a lot of money to be made from selling it in large quantities (thanks to the fact that it is decriminalized), there will be bad people who want to make a living off of it. That's because we live in a society that glorifies wealth. But if we decriminalized it, there won't be any people that make a living off of its illegal distribution. Of course if it was legal, maybe there will be some guy that gets rich from owning a lot of weed farms, but he'd be a legitimate businessman and wouldn't use violence or any improper techniques (if he did, he would get in trouble). This is the advantage to legalizing and regulating these substances.



I know a lot of people that are ****** off by criminalization. Second, more people have tried weed than tobacco, and at least in the states, more people smoke weed on a regular basis than tobacco. At least at my age. In my generation, tobacco is nearly done for (maybe not in the lower classes, but definitely in the middle to upper classes).

Second, why are we even discussing this? Whether or not something is "ingrained in the culture" does not determine whether or not we should criminalize it. Let's look at a developing country such as China. Video games aren't ingrained in their culture...so they should ban them because they are demerit goods that are not in widespread usage yet?

More importantly, if we decriminalized alcohol, its usage would decrease DRASTICALLY. Can you imagine what drinking would be like without pubs? If it was illegal to be drunk in public (meaning the police could breathalize you at any time)? I guarantee you we could make alcohol much less common than weed if we wanted to. Alcohol is a "demerit good" and causes many more social ills than weed does, so by your logic, we should ban it. The same goes for tobacco.

Lastly, whether or not something is "ingrained in the culture" has nothing to do with whether or not we try to get rid of it or not, as I stated before. I'll play the extreme analogy card again, used by many in this thread: spouse abuse was ingrained in our culture, yet we have reduced it by being harsh about it. Murder is ingrained in our culture, but it's still illegal because it infringes upon the right to life of other people.



No, it depends on the state. But in many states, weed was legal until the 1960's, after it was popular. The older generation didn't like the fact that young people were smoking it (it was associated with those hippy free love types who listened to rock and roll and had premarital ***) and tried to get rid of it. Second, how do you know that decriminalizing it will make it as popular as alcohol? Did that happen in Canada or the Netherlands?

Third, you keep saying "why would we want that?" This decision isn't YOURS to make. Our society doesn't regulate the individual behaviors of its citizens. That is the fundamental principle behind liberalism. If I want to eat fatty foods, I can. If I want to smoke tobacco, I can. If I want to drink alcohol, I can. If I want to spend all of my weekend alone in my room playing FM, I can. If I want to be an *******, I can. If I want to cheat on my girlfriend and lie about it, I can. Since we live in a liberal society, criminal behavior only occurs when you infringe upon the rights of others. You haven't stated once in this thread why my smoking a joint in my room affects ANYONE else or infringes upon their rights.

Your main point seems to be that if we make weed legal alongside tobacco and alcohol, its consumption will increase, which is bad for society. Well, if we make tobacco and alcohol illegal, its consumption will rapidly decrease (much moreso than weed). Since that is good for society, shouldn't we do that too?



Good lord. Where there is DEMAND there is supply. Where there is supply there isn't always demand, per your banana peel example. Second, I think policemen should be doing more important things than policing some kid smoking weed in the park. Don't they have murder and rape cases to solve? If you think they would be filling out paperwork if they weren't policing weed smoking (and this is how it is in some very small towns) than yes, they shouldn't be paid by our tax dollars. Anyways, if you had even listened to what I had to say, you would have noticed my point is that it is a ***** law that we shouldn't be spending our resources enforcing. We have more important things for the police to do and more important things our tax dollars could be spent on.



Do you seriously think that legalizing weed would have drastic impacts on the trade deficit? Second, it's clear your just pulling this **** out of some econ textbook you read. I want you to concretely explain, in your own words, how putting a tariff on imported weed (so that it is cheaper to buy British weed than foreign weed) would hurt the British economy. And you don't even need to put a tariff on imported weed...just make it illegal? If you are so concerned about the trade deficit, than make a law that you can't bring in imported weed. That way people only buy from British growers, which helps the British economy. But another thing to remember is that the price will go way, way down once it is decriminalized. This is because it is illegal, and this makes distribution tricky and controlled by a few dealers. But once it is legal, there is no risk, and anyone can grow it (of course you can make them get a permit in order to do so, as it is in some states in the US). Now if you want to make it more expensive, go ahead and tax the **** out of it, and then you can help the fiscal deficit. Oh, and your argument that it will start a "tariff war" is downright hilarious. I can imagine it now, a tariff war started between Britain and the US over weed duties.



Yet you keep insisting that weed is a "demerit good" and that it causes all of these social ills. Since alcohol causes many social ills, and we could drastically reduce its consumption if we wanted to, shouldn't we make it illegal? The crux of your argument seems to be that allowing weed will lead to more people consuming it, which is bad and must be stopped (criminalization).



Fair enough. I don't remember exactly who you were writing in response to. But I will take your arguments on legalization just a little bit less seriously because you haven't tried it. You seem to be very supportive of the criminalization of something you haven't experienced, and as someone who has experienced this very much, I would say that if you had as much experience as I do with weed (although I don't smoke it currently and haven't for months), you would probably have a different opinion on it.



Can you name me one other thing that we have banned because it reduces productivity? How about football manager 2011? It certainly has effected my productivity at my job. The World Cup destroys productivity for an entire month, I guess we should get rid of that too? If I want to be unproductive, that is my CHOICE. If my boss fires me, that is his choice, and my fault for losing my job. Now I'm sure you'll bring up welfare arguments, but if you want to do that, you need to provide hard evidence that marijuana usage increases unemployment. But then again, legalizing it and taxing it would pay for that.

As for alcohol being ingrained in our society, I'm guessing you think it should be illegal but that such a law is impractical, which is why you are not in favor of the prohibition of alcohol. That's what pretty much everything you have said here implies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if it were possible to effectively ban alcohol, should we do so? Your logic would certainly suggest we should. As I've stated before, if we wanted to, we could almost get rid of alcohol in this society. Without bars to go to and if it were illegal to have drank at all (police could brethalize you if they thought you had, and it's easy to know when someone's been drinking), I guarantee you hardly anyone would drink anymore. Wouldn't that be a good thing? We would reduce the amount of consumption of the "demerit good," which is "good for society."

If you do agree with this and secretly think alcohol should be banned (and that the only reason we don't/shouldn't is because it wouldn't work), I'm sorry buddy but you need to lighten up. It's Saturday night, go out and get a drink and relax a little bit. Heck, get wasted if you want to, as long as you don't drive. You can be a drunken idiot and puke in the streets just like so many other Englishmen. You know why? Because we live in a free society that allows to make bad, immoral decisions because it believes in our RIGHT to do so.



We've been having all of this debate about the legality of it, but we haven't adequately discussed the fundamental assumptions on which what we're arguing about lies. If we're talking about legality, we need to discuss what should be illegal and what shouldn't. I'm not sure where you are politically, but I'm assuming you're a "liberal" in the classical sense of the word (ignore the modern political implications of that loaded term, but I assume you believe in individual rights, the process of law, and that if you read John Locke you would agree with a lot of what he said).

The idea behind a liberal society is that we are free to make our own choices as long as we don't infringe upon the rights of others. Can I smoke tobacco? Yes. Can I drink alcohol? Yes. Can I eat a horrible diet and never exercise? Yes. Can I be a total *******? Yes, as long as I'm not infringing upon the rights of others. Can I murder someone? No, it infringes upon their right to life. Can I steal their ****? No, it infringes upon their right of property. Can the government ban Scientology, even though it is a cult with devious intentions that is bad for society? No, because that infringes upon our right to choose our own religion.

So can the government ban me from smoking weed in my room or alone in the park? Many countries have already realized the ridiculousness of weed criminalization and are turning around (Netherlands, Canada, a numerous number of countries including Argentina have decriminalized it, heck even the US of all places is extremely weed tolerant, and in countries where it is illegal, most police don't care). Of course if I do something on marijuana that infringes upon the rights of others, than I get into trouble, but that is because I infringed upon the rights of others, and will get in trouble for that particular act. If I am paranoid and kill someone (has happened before in history), than I get in trouble because I infringed upon their right to life, and that's what I should go to prison for. Not smoking weed.

Not once have you proved in this thread at any moment that smoking weed infringes upon the rights of others, and this is the only instance when we are supposed to make a behavior illegal. Now I do think that in extreme cases you should prohibit something that doesn't infringe upon the rights of others if it is clearly something terrible with no positive consequences and very, very destructive to society...meth/heroin would be included in this category. But weed is not NEARLY this extreme and can have many positive impacts (I know a lot of people that benefit from weed, and included in this group are people that attend some of the top graduate schools in the US), unlike the previous examples. Of course you might lump weed into this category of "drugs" alongside heroin and meth, and if you do, I'd say that mostly has to do with the fact that you've never tried it and because you've listened to much to propaganda that believes meth and weed are pretty much the same thing.

If weed were discovered today, doctors would say it was a miracle drug and it certainly wouldn't be banned.

That must have taken you an hour to type and quote all that!

 

[curtis290]

Never touched the stuff but know a lot of people who do it ,
I am still in two minds over to try it or not tbf

If the situation arises, you'll know what to do. A lot of people don't even get high though their first few times because they're not used to smoking (probably wouldn't be the case if you smoke tobacco). And those that do, well some people really like it, but for a lot of people, it's really intense your first few times. I really liked it, but I can definitely see how a lot of people would hate it. Having said that, you get used to it if you try it a few times and it's usually much more enjoyable and more manageable, but I can see how a lot of people wouldn't think it was worth going through that initial period.

But I do recommend it, it's great stuff. Very relaxing, makes you feel good, makes common tasks more enjoyable, and makes the banalities of life downright hilarious.

 

[Chaz Sexington]

It's late and I don't have time to pull out sources, but a google search or wikipedia page should do the trick for you. You are right that the religious right nowadays has something to do with it (although in America they don't even care that much about it anymore), but I'm talking about how the laws originated. With the case of weed, it was Mexicans, with opium it was Asians, and I already discussed crack/cocaine policy. This isn't me talking and I didn't come up with these arguments, and the first time I heard it was from a well-renowned political science professor.

That white people got addicted what was I was getting at, but yeah.

The second link doesn't provide any evidence that it is chemically addictive, so you might want to check that. More importantly, it ISN'T. You do NOT get withdrawal if you stop using it. I have talked to doctors and bio professors that will confirm this. As for brain damage, again, short-term loss of memory has been proven, but no long-term effects about brain damage. However, I think there are long-term effects if you smoke every day for decades.

Sigh. I was talking about cannabinoid receptors, which much like nicotinic receptors need stimulation. Open up Vander's Human Physiology it'll show you how many become addicted to the use of weed (which is less than alcohol).

When did I say they weren't responsible for their choices? There is a huge job shortage right now, and some people will sell weed because they have no other option other than go on welfare. I'm pointing out the fact that this shouldn't be illegal. So I'm not sure what your argument is.

Certainly, it shouldn't be illegal. Like you've said, supply/demand and people will do what they want.

Well we're talking about America/western Europe, where most people smoke weed, so it's relevant.

Uh, I was agreeing with you.

It's true that people are stupid, but this doesn't mean we always have to regulate their behavior.

Protect people from themselves.

No, your argument is the horrific. I'm sure since there are countless psychological studies, we completely understand the human mind, don't we? Just because we have studied something doesn't mean we fully understand it...no scientist will seriously tell you they fully understand weed. More importantly, it is a psychoactive and anything that ineracts with the human mind is confusing to us and something we won't understand. And I suppose that you think you can read a bunch of chemists' reports on alcohol and know exactly what it's like to be drunk? I don't know if you've been high or not, but it's something you have to do to have a good grasp of. And a lot of people on this thread are making arguments about how evil weed is and about its effects when they haven't experienced it and really don't know what it's like.

Naturally we don't know everything, but as it's illegal, studying it is hampered. And I'm not sure I would understand any more of the chemical reactions or damage caused if I smoked it...

Did you even listen to what I said? Where did I say the 40 year old would have a completely objective view on marriage? I was making the very obvious point that with some things, experience counts, which is why the 40 year old who has been married twice will know more about marriage than the 13 year old...I didn't say Joel could have NO opinion on the effects of weed since he hadn't tried it, or that my opinion was 100% objective because I have tried it. But if we're going to listen to two people talk about the effects of weed, I'm assuming most people would give my opinion more weight than Joel's since I have tried it. I can tell you what it's like to be high, while Joel can't. Did I say Joel can't have an opinion about weed? Of course not. But if you seriously think that a 13 year old girl's opinion on motherhood is as valid as a 45 year old mother of 3's, than you're very dense.

Experience in the WRONG FIELD. A pot smoker who has no biochemical, neurological or physiological background is completely inept at explaining how pot works on that level. Sure, he could tell us about experiences, but it wouldn't be able to tell us anything that we could use.

 

[vodka_mad_tommy]

I think weed like anything is good in moderation. I have plenty of friends who smoke in the evenings and weekends but still work the 9-5 with no problems, like i have friends who drink and manage to do the same thing. Its when all you do all day is smoke weed or get drunk, it becomes a problem. Of course there are much harder drugs to try than weed or alcohol and I am sure in moderation they are fun and the negative effects can be reduced. I know people who take pills, coke and ketamine, and they are all still fully functioning members of society, one being an architect and the other a lawyer. They use in moderation and take calculated risks. Of course drugs can be dangerous, but you cannot guarantee they will kill you, much like you can not guarantee they wont.

P.S. Weed is sick yo!

 

[curtis290]

@Curtis290, your fingers must be killing.

That must have taken you an hour to type and quote all that!

Yeah, it was actually more like an hour and a half. I'm pretty ****** too, it's 4am and I was supposed to go to bed long ago. Not sure why I did, I should have gone to bed, but I do feel passionately about the issue and think it's ludicrous that people insist on trying to regulate my own private, personal behaviors. Imagine if the government said you couldn't have premarital *** (and this is the case in some countries)...you'd be furious. Of course there would always be ways to get around it, but with weed, well if the government does a good enough job, it can totally eradicate it. That's how it is in the country I live in (it's almost nonexistent), and it sucks. One of the main reasons I spent so much time writing that. Now if I had weed, I would have been doing something else, and I would have gone to sleep long ago. One of the other great effects of weed: it cures insomnia and doesn't involve a bunch of weird chemicals that make you feel like **** in the morning. I'm telling you it's a miracle herb.

---------- Post added at 05:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:12 PM ----------

Sigh. I was talking about cannabinoid receptors, which much like nicotinic receptors need stimulation. Open up Vander's Human Physiology it'll show you how many become addicted to the use of weed (which is less than alcohol).

I'm not aware of the physiology of it, but I've talked to bio professors about this, and again, why don't you get any withdrawal symptoms? I don't deny the fact that these receptors are used to the cannaboids, and when you stop smoking weed, it will "throw off" your mind and body, but there is no withdrawal. Your body doesn't "need" it in the same way that it needs tobacco and heroin/morphine when you get used to those. I have been a tobacco and weed smoker, and I know that there is a difference between the two in terms of addiction.

Protect people from themselves.

Luckily in a liberal society we don't do this much. That's why I can eat the unhealthy food that I want and smoke tobacco.

Naturally we don't know everything, but as it's illegal, studying it is hampered. And I'm not sure I would understand any more of the chemical reactions or damage caused if I smoked it...

Experience in the WRONG FIELD. A pot smoker who has no biochemical, neurological or physiological background is completely inept at explaining how pot works on that level. Sure, he could tell us about experiences, but it wouldn't be able to tell us anything that we could use.

I never said smoking would help you understand the science of it (although it would, I think), but if we're talking about the "effects" of the drug and how this relates to society, that's something that experience counts for. Which is what we were talking about. People like Joel are mainly making their arguments from the standpoint of the "social good" and the negative effects weed has on you (laziness, etc.), but these are things that weed smokers know more about than non-weed smokers.

 

[A* Manager]

There are waaaaay too many words on this thread!
I think my heads going to explode

 

[Chris]

Certainly not for me. Even though it may be absolutely harmless in some cases, and even remedial at times, the fact it is an illegal drug is off-putting but mainly the possible side-effects it can cause.