Should marijuana be completely legalized?

[Zhade]

No decriminalization down to a misdemeanor, no exceptions for medical patients - I'm talking completely legal, the same way vodka and cigarettes are legal and regulated.

What does DU think?

[NightTrain]

1. Legalize it!

What the hell, marijuana was legal through 1937. Make it legal again, goddammit!

[Zhade]

4. Indeed. We can thank Hearst and DuPont (among others) for that.

Remember, "Hemp For Victory!" during WWII was considered patriotic.

The propaganda has really affected millions - there are even DUers who wrongly think the herb is an evil, nasty thing.

More for those of us who know better, I guess!

:smoke:

(It's a joke, Mr. Ashcroft. Heh...heh?)

[kixot]

2. It would be interesting to know what effects decriminalization would have

On crime, poverty, unemployment, health care, etc. Unfortunately I don't think a respectable study has ever been made. Oh, well.

[Zhade]

8. There might be some projected studies out there.

It would be very interesting. Likely, one could follow the history of Prohibition and its repeal for parallels (and since alcohol is actually MORE harmful than marijuana...).

[Bandit]

57. A study has been done in Alaska where it was legal for 17 years

In fact this is an issue that will be on the Alaska State ballot on November 2nd. Should pot be legalized again. The Alaska Supreme Court has ruled that it is an invasion of our right to privacy for the police to enter your house for the purpose of pot. It was appealed by the state and upheld by unanimous decision. A state police officer can not get a search warrant for the purpose of marijuana. The court ruled that the health risks of pot do not out weigh the rights to privacy in our constitution. That is why it is on the ballot. Of course it is still a federal crime and every single Alaska State Trooper is a deputized federal officer.

[dave502d]

3. GOP

If they had some,might help them from lying and cheating.

[Zhade]

5. HAH! You know the old joke...

What do you call a Republican who smokes weed?

A libertarian.

:P

[tuvor]

6. If you're against legalizing pot

you should be campaigning just as hard to reintroduce prohibition.

I don't care which side of the debate you fall on, as long as you're consistent.

[Lilith Velkor]

40. ...youre with the terrorists!

The WOD has made mincemeat of our Constitution. Which side you on?

[Zhade]

42. Hell yeah! Welcome to DU, my friend.

An excellent post.

[Skip Intro]

7. Absolutely! Who am I to tell another free citizen what he/she can/can't do

with his/her own body?

Who is the government (of the people) to make these extremely personal decisions of freedom?

My body is my body, it does not belong to "the state."

[Zhade]

9. Looks like a couple of Freepers are hanging around.

You should eat some brownies, guys. You'd change your vote. :)

[tinanator]

50. hypocrisy can be chronic

they may very well be dope dealing republican policemen.

[CrispyQ]

54. Like Zonker says . . .

A life searching for the perfect hashish brownie is a life well spent!

[Djinn]

10. I'm an all or nothing

it makes no sense at all for some mind altering chemicals to be banned, others to be regulated and others still to be completely freely available.

Either make ALL drugs illegal completely (obviously a stupid move), make them all illegal without prescription (workable maybe) decriminalise them but give people fines etc or open it all up to capitalism and the free market.

Unfortunately SOME people will fuck up and live really self destructive lives whether their preferred substance is legal (alcohol) or illegal (heroin) most however are perfectly able to occasionally indulge without getting stupid no matter what the drug and would be even more able to do so were they able to trust the exact make up of the drug because it was printed in govt mandated labels on the packet like grog is.

[Zhade]

11. Excellent points.

There's a reason a lot of us call it the "war on some drugs" - it's the pills being pushed in tv ads that cure vague problems and have horrendous side effects that worry me, not pot.

[Trillo]

19. "make them all illegal without prescription (workable maybe)"

I could only support this idea if the people writing prescriptions were held responsible for 'any' harm they do. For example, back in the 50s-60s it was common for doctors to tell mothers that formula feeding was preferable to breast feeding, and at times I've read they would administer a hormone that would dry up the mother's mammary glands right after birth.

While doctors don't necessarily do this anymore, they've never accepted any responsibility for the harm they did to those babies. Many prescriptions have no doubt been written for people who were denied mother's milk through no fault of their own, and who couldn't fight off infection without the aid of a synthetic antibiotic.

Free lifetime antibiotics for all denied mother's antibodies would be an appropriate responsibility for doctors as a group to take. They haven't made that move yet, in fact, they've shut down out-of-country sources where antibiotics could be obtained without prescription.

Essentially, their wallets are much more important to them than their patients.

So this is on topic, marijuana should be completely legal.

[Djinn]

21. I'd imagine it would be similar as it is now

ie if a doctor can be proven to be negligent - ie prescribed a medication that is problematic for those with heart problems when he knew patient had such problems, or if he prescribed too high a dose etc, but doctors shouldn't be held (and couldn't be held) accuontable for something a pharma covered up, or something that was previously unknown. They're not miracle workers or mind readers.

[Trillo]

23. Are you saying that doctors should not be held responsible

for preventing mothers from breastfeeding, because they didn't know any better at the time? (I've heard this response before)

Breastfeeding was performed by mothers since the first mother. It seems mighty negligent to me to suggest there's a better way than one that worked fine for perhaps hundreds of thousands of years.

If doctors of the day didn't know better, then common sense was brainwashed out of them during their training. Isn't that negligence?

[Djinn]

24. Did I say that??

Breastfeeding is a different case - it has nothing to do with PRESCRIBING, formula can be bought anywhere and you don't need a prescription (atleast where I live anyway)

If a doctor prescribed formula I would say yes although it would be hard to prove a child was HARMED by the formula (as opposed to not helped)

I'm saying just what I said - a doctor can not be held liable for a pharma covering up side effects of a drug and can not be held liable for (example) thalidiomide causing birth defects - what do you want a GP to test every side effect of every drug on every person before he prescribes it? I think your anger would be better directed at those that allow approval of drugs on nothing but the manufacturers say so

[Trillo]

27. I didn't say you did,

that's why I asked for clarification.

My first post in this thread: I suggested that doctors likely PRESCRIBED more antibiotics over the years because many children of a certain generation were never breastfed. Here's a little more info, in answer to your question about how doctors could prevent mothers from breastfeeding, bolding added by me:

This surgery is rare today, because the same medicine used to dry up the breasts after delivery in those choosing to bottle-feed is also used to shrink up a pituitary adenoma. Ironically, this drug is no longer used to dry up the breasts after routine deliveries, because there were reports of severe complications in hypertensive women with it. In our practice we used it to dry up the breasts for over ten years without incident before we stopped prescribing it, as recommended for the FDA.
http://www.gynob.com/prl.htm

If the FDA approves of something doctors do, does that legally absolve the physicians from liability? I've read that it's all but impossible to sue the government for certain things.

[Djinn]

28. yes it does

Otherwise a GP could not ever prescribe anything ever - what exactly do you expect them to do - conduct their own tests of every drug??

If YOU feed something to your kids that you assumed was safe because it was approved for sale in the US should YOU be held liable if later on the manufacturer admits that it causes cancer? is it YOUR fault, the fault of the manufacturer or the fault of the approval body?

You will also note in the passage you supplied - that it refers to women who CHOSE to bottle feed (I know women who choose this despite knowing all the benefits of breastfeeding) This has nothing to do with negligent GP's - and nothing to do with prescription of dangerous substances.

[Trillo]

31. Another difficulty of proof!

One of the purposes of government is to provide peaceful means for people to resolve their differences … it is only then that civilization can begin.

In answer to your question, I'm not sure. On one hand, it seems unreasonable to expect doctors to test every drug, it would seem a method of centralized safety testing would be economically efficient and preferable for everyone, if that testing can be trusted. On the other hand, in a corrupt government with scandals in corporations and payoffs to legislators, wouldn't a skeptical and 'intelligent' doctor that hasn't been 'brainwashed by educators' attempt to do just that?

Back 50 years ago, a doctor was practically worshipped as a god. Today, if a parent doesn't do something a doctor tells them to do, their child can be taken from them by social services and the courts. It's something of a legal paradox: whether your doctor is being stupid, or not; versus your power to go against them.

Therfore, 50 years ago if your doctor told you it was better to bottlefeed after delivery, wouldn't most reasonable mothers agree to follow the doctor's advice?

My bottom line--it's just one more thing gone awry with the Corpor-gov relationship that's developed. The FDA is under the executive branch. So is the Education Department.


Beside supporting the legalization of marijuana, I also believe that antibiotics should be available OTC as they are in Mexico.

[Djinn]

36. this is getting a bit off topic

but it's interesting to me so I'll keep at it. Doctors can not possibly be expected to know the ins and out of every pill available they can't be expected to test them all (what with?? unless you want a GP appt to cost in the realm of a few grand each time)

Yes the "approvals" process is skewed (better here than in US I understand) and needs to be more independant but even if someone waived a magic wand and made all pharma's paragons of ethical practice there would still be isntances of bad side effects that show up maybe 30 years down the track that couldn't have been forseen - you could argue that all drugs should be kept off the market until completely tested - this'd basically eman no drug would ever be released.

"Therfore, 50 years ago if your doctor told you it was better to bottlefeed after delivery, wouldn't most reasonable mothers agree to follow the doctor's advice?

agreed but most doctors didn't tell mothers that for no reason whatsoever, many women have difficulty breast feeding or just don't like it, I'm unaware of a mass campaign to stop women breastfeeding - if this was the case then you'd still have to prove a child was sick BECAUSE of the lack of breast milk, virtually impossible to do.

Anti-biotics should NOT be available over the counter - there is already a massive problem in the developed world of over use of anti-biotics - half the time anti-biotics are prescribed for VIRAL conditions because a parent/patient INSISTS they need something. This over use leads to a situation of antibiotic resistance.

[Zhade]

37. I'm not sure this is so OT, and it's definitely made for good reading!

Very interesting side discussion. Thanks to both of you for your comments!

[Trillo]

39. Agreed--kinda off topic--my last post here!

There's another possibility with my either/or debate where I wrote "On the other hand, in a corrupt government with scandals…." that I thought of after posting.

If doctors were part of the largess, paid off themselves by a system that rewarded them in relative excess, and they wouldn't be held responsible for something they did that did a patient harm because the FDA approved it, then where's the "incentive" for doctors to be skeptical of manufacturers and government agencies?

They're certainly skeptical of the patients. Forms to fill out. Proof you can pay. Anti-lawsuit 'extra tests' to be paid for by the patients. It seems their skepticism is directed at those they're supposed to help.

Our current system is more like a system of "shut your mouth and get with the program, you'll get paid more if we get ours." This is what I wrote in my first post here: doctors are more concerned with their wallets than their patients. In fact, I have argued that the pay of all college graduates in the U.S. is in relative excess normalized for the total time spent in a classroom chair. This means that education doesn't pay off for most--just a few.

Regarding your observations about antibiotics being taken for viral conditions, I would reply that I have had viral infections and been prescribed antibiotics by doctors for secondary symptoms many times more than once. I've even been prescribed antibiotics for a viral infection due to gross negligence. No begging was ever involved, but a payoff always was--I paid for an office visit.

Antibiotic resistance due to overuse of antibiotics in people is a flawed argument. They give constant antibiotics to animals in feedlots as a preventative. People flush the most powerful antibacterials down the sewer from washing their hands, because they believe anti-bacterial soap is better. Who makes out? Not us little people.

Our whole system is based upon Greed. If you pay off the right people, you get what you think you want. Unfortunately, all people don't have equal ability to spread largess around.

This will eventually lead to the downfall of civilization if the system is not made more equitable.

But that's the whole point, isn't it?

[Djinn]

41. absolutely agree doctor payoffs are a problem

But that happens AFTER a drug is approved for use. We're probably not comparing apples adn oranges here the Aust system is VERY different, doctors are less suseptible to bribery to prescribed certain brands over other because the PBS allows cheap generic brands into the market and it's what most people end up using.

"Regarding your observations about antibiotics being taken for viral conditions, I would reply that I have had viral infections and been prescribed antibiotics by doctors for secondary symptoms many times more than once."

I'd say get a new doctor - antibiotics are useful only for bacterial infection if you had one antibiotics good if you didn't bad - if they were available over the counter people would pop them for every sniffle.

"Antibiotic resistance due to overuse of antibiotics in people is a flawed argument. They give constant antibiotics to animals in feedlots as a preventative. People flush the most powerful antibacterials down the sewer from washing their hands, because they believe anti-bacterial soap is better. Who makes out? Not us little people.

true but just because one is a problem doesn't mean the other isn't - it is NOT false, although there is limited evidence on the antibac hand wash issue compared to farming and over prescribing.

[Lovecrafty]

12. I go even further..I believe ALL paper should be made with hemp!

We used hemp as paper for hundreds of years and in this increasing digital age paper use can be drastically cut, if you work in an enviornmentally friendly company like I do!

But as to the original question: YES! I believe marijuana should be made 100% legal. Period. Tax the hell out of if you want, but at least let me grow my own! Let drug rehabilitation pay for itself by using tax revenue to fund clinics and hospitals making it easier for those that DO want to quit get clean. I believe that drug addiction should be treated, as it is in Europe, as a health issue and NOT a criminal one...The cost of police enforcement will diminish allowing pay raises for cops on the street. Its a WIN/WIN situation really, and other than on religious or "moral" grounds, I see no rational reason why marijuana (and ONLY marijuana mind you!) should remain illegal. Can someone even remotely give me a half-ass explaination?!

And now the Jefferson Airplane response:

One pill makes you larger
And one pill makes you small,
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all.
Go ask Alice
When she's ten feet tall.

And if you go chasing rabbits
And you know you're going to fall,
Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar
Has given you the call.
Call Alice
When she was just small.

When the men on the chessboard
Get up and tell you where to go
And you've just had some kind of mushroom
And your mind is moving low.
Go ask Alice
I think she'll know.

When logic and proportion
Have fallen sloppy dead,
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's "off with her head"
Remember what the dormouse said:
"Feed your head,
Feed your head"

[RebelOne]

13. It's been years since I have smoked the herb

but I do believe it should be legalized. It is much less life-threatening than alcohol. At least pot has not been known to cause liver problems.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. If we're going to decriminalize it we might as well legalize it completely

And get the tax revenue.

[ismnotwasm]

15. Absolutely

It's a ridiculous state of affairs that it's illegal. I don't use the stuff, personally, but it should be legal.

[H2O Man]

16. Legalize it.

And put on the Peter Tosh CDs.

[Zhade]

17. Okay, okay, so maybe the "shouldn't be legal" votes aren't Freepers'.

So, to those who say it should not be legal - why not? And do you speak from personal experience?

[Placebo]

18. UGH, do we HAVE TO HAVE one of these threads EVERY month?

it's been asked a million fucking times before.

[Djinn]

20. and so has every other question

I've seen the same religion threads, the same fat/thin threads, the same Israel/Palestine threads, the same abortion threads etc etc

it's still relevant so people still post

[walldude]

22. Legalization would boost the economy

get thousands of non-violent offenders out of prison, open up new options for farmers, and increase tax revenue. Plus on the user side we would get better pot cheaper without having to worry about getting arrested for something that harms noone. Unless you count all the money we are giving terrorists by smoking pot :eyes: For more information try going here www.norml.com
You know the only reason pot is still illegal is the alchohol and tobacco lobbies are too rich and powerful. They sure don't want pot legal. This is one of my main beefs with Kerry, he's for stepping up the war on drugs. He'll get my vote but for a liberal dem thats out of step with common sense...

[Pushed To The Left]

43. Kerry said he would end the raids

on medical marijuana patients. He received an "A" from Granite Staters For Medical Marijuana. Much better than Bush!! Personally, I think marijuana should be legal, and I think the drug issue should be treated as a health issue, not a legal one.

[tuvor]

26. Nice avatar.

Andy's dandy.

[sweetheart]

58. Do you come to DU for original thought?

Of course it is repeated, and the question for DU is: "Did THIS
repeat get your best and most considerate attention due to the
election?" I've repeated everything i've ever written on DU at least
twice, and that makes me an asshole in the real world... but in the
world of political pundits and voices, i am a saint next to ann coulter and o'reilly.

Rather than beating up liberals for repeating liberal ideals, perhaps
the better question is why are we all hived away in to an internet
website whilst other minorities get mainstream ridiculous focus for
their half-witted nonsense.

How do peurile men with homophobic problems get mainstream attention
for their neurotic stupidiy?

How do these drunken assholes get unquestioned right to speak their
mind on nationwide media, when they've lied to create a war, and still
some claim to have some semblance of credibility. Here in the forum
where people have been right all along, i am proud to repeat myself.

The drugs war is a war against liberals, to imprison the opposition,
because nixon, amongst other criminals, decided that those liberal
hippies who forced his criminal hand in war... should be in prison.
It is a divisive fraud, perpetrated by criminals to outlaw political
opposition. Plants that grow naturally, are natural, and should
be legal to grow and do whatever you want with. If you want to rub
your naked body with poison ivy whilst smoking eucaliptus leaves,
more power to you.

[Chovexani]

25. Legalize, tax, regulate

Our current drug policy makes zero sense to anyone who isn't a fat cat politician or for-profit prison industry lobbyist.

[cheezus]

53. yep, why should we have a cut of a billion dollar industry

legalize, HIGHLY regulate (just like alcohol (and both probably need more regulations)), and tax the fuck out of it

an bag of good weed will probably end up costing the same as now, and that's just fine.

let people grow their own, but regulate how much tax after a point.

[Spider Jerusalem]

29. Legalise all of it.

Cannabis, heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, et cetera. Almost all of the crime associated with drugs is a cause not of the drugs themselves but of their illegality and the natural consequences of that illegality, such as the existence of a high-profit black market. In fact, crimes commited by addicts to cocaine and opiates are generally a direct result of the economics of the black market, which inflate street-level prices by anywhere from 600-3000%...were drugs legal, there would be fewer robberies and burglaries by addicts, in addition to the total elimination of any drug-related offences from the legal system (except, of course, or driving under the influence, reckless endangerment, contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and the others that apply to alcohol, which is legal).

[AlFrankenFan]

30. Yes

I have Bill Maher in my signature. Need I explain more?

[JohnKleeb]

32. yeah

[ghostsofgiants]

33. Legalize it...

and tax the shit out of it.

[The Traveler]

34. Legalize it

It is absurd to think that a free citizen cannot make this decision for his/her self.

One could argue instead that a citizen not allowed to make this decision is in a real sense not free at all.

[Forkboy]

35. Nah...government weed would suck

:)

[knowbody0]

38. SWEET LEAF IS THE CREATOR'S GIFT

[ronabop]

44. Criminalize the addiction, not the drug.

Alcohol doesn't make people stupid and insane, alcohol abuse makes people stupid and insane.

Weed doesn't make people stupid and insane, weed abuse makes people stupid and insane.

Gun use doesn't make people stupid and insane, gun abuse makes people stupid and insane.

-Bop

[noiretextatique]

45. that is a part of the current problem..criminalizing a disease

resources are spent on criminalization and incarceration instead of treatment of addictions. drunk driving laws make sense, but treating alcoholism also makes sense.
i'd rather drive on the road with people who have smoked a joint vs. people who've had a few drinks...that's for sure.

[Zhade]

51. Of course, there IS no disease associated with marijuana.

NT!

[Djinn]

66. not quite true

anyone who smokes it (and the vast majority of users do) is susceptible to all the usual smoke related cancers and diseases (true that's the smoke not the THC but you still end up coughing and spluttering) there is also enough evidence now to show a link between pot and temporary psychosis and schizophrenia - NOT neccesarilly a causative link as that hasn't been established but there is a link, whether it's because people in trouble use pot to self medicate before they are diagnosed or whether it "triggers" it in people prone to schizophrenia/psychosis anyway, we don't know but there's a link definetely

[Tight_rope]

46. I don't smoke...And I don't care....Smoke all you want!...Not my business!

[Zorbet55]

47. look at it this way

it seems to be available anyway, so why not let american farmers produce it and sell it.

[Silverhair]

48. Legalize ALL drugs. Some FDA requirements on purity.

I have never used any drugs, except booze a few times many years ago as a young man. So I am not wanting it legal for me. It is the principle of freedom.

Lots of other sound reasons too that deal with economics and law enforcement.

I would also legalize most other victimless crimes, but provide some regulation for health & honesty reasons. Examples would be prostitution & gambling.

[Ezlivin]

49. Agreed. Legalize all "victimless crimes"

It is amazing that Americans are missing out on this gigantic tax base.

Instead of all that money flowing into the underground economy, it would flow into the public coffers.

I've seen several reports that say the number one crop in California and other states is marijuana. The money raised from the sale of that harvest disappears from public view. What a pity.

Other countries are way ahead of us on this and other progressive ideas.

[Zhade]

52. Quite a lot of votes in favor - I'm pleasantly surprised!

I've seen, sadly, a parroting of DEA/liquor-and-tobacco-lobby talking points in other such threads - maybe those who were less informed about marijuana have since seen through the propaganda?

That's a really positive thought. I hope it's the case!

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

55. 100% pro-legalization....

But it better come with some hefty new jobs or welfare programs from the sales taxes. Think of all the folks who will be out of business--not just the mafia, but the nice guy down the street who's always fixing his car!

[JanMichael]

56. Yes. The fact tha Alcohol and Cigs are f'ing EVERYWHERE sort...

...of makes it a compelling issue.

[MrSlayer]

59. Abso-fucking-lutely! Legalize it NOW!

Get rid of the "kingpin" element and also stops regular working people from being considered criminals.

[robertpaulsen]

60. Legalize absolutely! And Alaska shall lead the way.

Here's info on this year's ballot measure. Pot may be legal there in three weeks. Keep your fingers crossed!

http://www.regulatemarijuanainalaska.org/home/

[robertpaulsen]

61. Here's another link.

http://www.yeson2alaska.com/

[onethatcares]

62. home grown only,

no transfer for profit. worked in Alaska til the reps came to power.

[dolo amber]

63. No, because I don't smoke pot

Legalize something that would be useful to me, like smack or ecstacy.

:D

[Beware the Beast Man]

69. While we're at it, legalize cockfights and duels!

[dolo amber]

70. Huzzah!

Dope, guns, and fucking in the streets!!

[teryang]

64. marijuana and social control

by making the relatively innocuous weed illegal, police have an excuse to enter homes, cars, motel rooms, clothing, packages, etc., whenever they see a blunt in plain view, feel a baggy or film cannister during a pat down, or smell the pungent order when passing by. It subjects a huge portion of the population to arbitrary police control (search, seizure, arrest and jail) at any time.

Every month, courts derive millions upon millions in revenue to keep the criminal justice system wheels turning, not from tax revenues, but from naive pot users who get caught up in the snares of criminalized pot use. Jail populations would decline, bail bondsman would lose profits, courts would be forced to seek alternative sources of revenues, court dockets would unclog, police would twiddle their thumbs on Friday night...An alternative means to invade the privacy of citizens and obtain access to their meager earnings to support the criminal justice system would have to be found.

I've got it, lot's criminalize alcohol use.

[HEIL PRESIDENT GOD]

71. Yeah, what you said

Up to the last part!

[The Straight Story]

65. Can we smoke it in privately owned businesses if we make pot legal? n/t

[William Bloode]

67. YES!

The goverment needto quit making criminals of otherwise law abiding citizens!

It really bothers me at times to be so demonized just because i like to get high.

[indepat]

68. If not completely legalized, then at least completely decriminalized

[OnionPatch]

72. Totally legal

and also to grow your own. People shouldn't have to support the black market just to buy something they could easily grow in their back yard.
Another point I like to make is that if pot were no longer criminalized, there would be a lot more support for law enforcement. Most pot smokers (at least the gazillions of them I know) are upstanding citizens that would never dream of breaking any other laws. But it's hard to support your local police when you know they would love to bust you.
Here's an interesting website. These guys are the kind of cops I could really love.
http://www.leap.cc/

[FlyByNight]

73. Prohibition was a failure the first time around

Throwing people in jail for, what are essentially, "crimes" of choice (meaning what we choose to put into our bodies) solves nothing. Not to mention the sheer hypocrisy of it all when the US works on behalf of the tobacco industry for opening of overseas markets. Sheer madness and an utter waste of time, money and resources.