quote:

---

Originally posted by iDavid:
Now, back to pot (just say pot, it's the same thing but less of a mouthful [figuratively, not literally]). Why are you against legalization, Moc, if you know that it would screw high schools up so bad?
I'm FOR legalization. I don't think it would screw high schools up much more than it already does. But I do think that more kids (not a huge amount, but definitely more) will dull their developing intellectual skills enough to suddenly find themselves at age 25, with two kids, working at McDonalds or the local gas station. They might feel cheated. Legalization should go hand-in-hand with a giant education and outreach campaign. Scrap the DEA and use that money to offer drug treatment, better education opportunities for drug abuse victims, etc.

The only reason I can think of is that you think we should be able to choose on our own whether we want to smoke it or not, and have no interferance. Well, if that's what you think, I think that's crap. If it's not what you think, forget this part too. But if it is, then I think you are wrong because sometimes, the government knows what is good for you when you do not, and why have a government if they don't do what's good for us?
Pot is no more harmful than alcohol or nicotine. All of them will kill you if abused prodigiously. So will donuts and bacon.
As for the government: ha. HA! Did you know that almost two-thirds of the people in Congress have had prior legal troubles? Everything from drunk driving to influence peddling, spousal abuse to mail fraud. You trust those people to know what's right for you? This is not a meritocracy, it's a democracy. Gov't makes mistakes. It's up to the people to correct them.
Letting us smoke pot is not good for us.
Neither is eating cheese or breathing, for that matter. See above.
Now, I know this could be used against me and might make you people think I like dictatorships, but that is not the case. All I'm saying is, sometimes we have to give up our liberties for our own sake. It's like drug rehab (bad analogy, if Scorp is still here, but I'll use it anyway); you tell people to keep you away from something, no matter what they have to do, and they do just that. You may be angry during the process, but it's good for you anyway, and you will be glad afterwards.
You should always ALWAYS protect all of your liberties as fiercely as possible. I won't question your right to start a whacko religious cult or drink yourself to death. If you don't like pot, don't touch the stuff. If it got legalized tomorrow, I honestly doubt i'd make any use of it, but I'm still all for it.
I have not met a single old or middle aged person who smoked pot when they were young, and now wants it legalized.
As stated by various other persons, just to how many middle-aged people have you talked about pot and legalization?
I just think what you do with your life should be up to you, entirely (after reaching full sentience, anyways).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by iDavid:

OK, so you're saying that collecting taxes and enforcing laws to stop people from harming others isn't doing what's good for us? How does that make sense? Do you think they should legalize suicide, too, because the person is killing themself, not someone else?

The government primarily exists to prevent the initiation of force -- to prevent violent acts or the theft of someone's possessions. It also has a mandate to enact positive policies for public health, etc. Public drug rehab programs are positive; banning drugs is negative.
The argument that marijuana should be illegal because it's mildly unhealthy can be easily (not slippery slope here) extended to more dangerous activities such as drinking, smoking tobacco, sunbathing, not using sunscreen, eating Big Macs, etc. Should the Big Mac be banned because it's loaded with fat, sodium, and cholesterol, which cause cardiovascular illness?
Says who? Well, just every study conducted on the effects of pot... so I guess that's just an argument about whether pot is bad or not, not whether it should be legal or not.
Few studies have been conducted on the effects of cannabis. Most show a definite ability for marijuana smoking to cause respiratory problems and short-term memory loss; other than the tar, most of marijuana's negative effects vanish within a week or so of stopping smoking. The amount of tar, CO, etc. you inhale from smoking a bowl or two every week is statistically similar to the difference between Portland, OR air and New York, NY air. Worse, if you spend a lot of time outside breathing exhaust.

Of course we're allowed to choose what to give up; why do you think we have voting? And if you mean that everyone should only be allowed to decide the law for their own self, than that's anarchy. Which I've already said is impossible, and it's stupid, anyway.
Wow! The famous international geopolitical expert Sir David weighs in on the possibility and intelligence of anarchy! Bakunin would violate you with a trifurcated obelisk.
The government should not dictate a person's behavior more than is necessary to guarantee "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I don't know about you, but I'm willing to take the personal choice to sacrifice a bit of the first to gain a good deal of the latter.

Most people do want to keep pot away from them. So, again, do you want us to determine the law only for our own selves? And, again, that's anarchy.
And what you're promoting is paternalism bordering on fascism. Does that necessarily invalidate your argument? Please learn the basics of informal logic before continuing this discussion. Also, learn the difference between a victimless crime and a crime against another person. Why should it be illegal for me to harm myself? Lots of things harm me. It's not illegal to practice autoerotic asphyxiation, and I'd wager more people die from that every year than pot smoking. How about self-mutilation? Cutting? Not illegal.

I've met plenty of middle aged people who smoked pot when they were young and want it to be illegal now. I guess maybe this all just depends on who you talk to, but I have heard many middle aged people, speaking from experience, say that they want to keep pot illegal, while I have never heard one say they want it to be legal. I think that even if I have biased sources or something like that, I would at least hear one or two support legalization. Maybe not, I don't know.
Anecdotal evidence, for one, so it's mostly useful. I know a dozen or more middle-aged or older individuals who support legalizing marijuana, whether they've smoked it or not (why must they have smoked it?)
The AMA originally opposed the bill that banned marijuana, and it has never changed its stance. Since then, the AMA has been purposely neutral on the issues of legalized and medical marijuana, although it supports further studies on medical use. http://www.pdxnorml.org/AMA_opposes_1937.html
3/4 of surveyed pediatricians by the AAP favored reducing restrictions on cannabis, with 1 out of 5 supporting full legalization. http://www.aap.org/research/ps31.htm

---

quote:

---

Of course we're allowed to choose what to give up; why do you think we have voting? And if you mean that everyone should only be allowed to decide the law for their own self, than that's anarchy. Which I've already said is impossible, and it's stupid, anyway.

---