God, I wish it would happen.

Justice requires that legalisation is immediately followed by the detention, torture and execution of every police officer who's ever made a drugs arrest, every judge who's ever handed down a drugs sentence, every legislator who's contributed to a drugs law and every single person who's ever expressed any support for any level of prohibition.

If you think that's an extreme statement, you're blaming the wrong person. I didn't populate the world with criminals, I don't make their choices for them.

Prohibitionists stand in opposition to every fundamental law of human morality. Every one of them is personally responsible for violating the human rights of every person who has ever lived or will live.

There is too much to gain and from it's illegality and too much to lose with it legalized.

It ain't gonna happen. No way no how. Just be happy with the club scene if ya got your prescription.

Definitely nothing to lose by legalizing it...as evidenced by the fact that the behavior of addiction is what is harmful, and NOT marijuana as a substance especially when eaten or vaporized.

but since we can ALL still get it anytime, anywhere... I think I'll let the president worry about more pressing matters.

He'll get to this eventually.

Pot = Harmless and even beneficial. Addiction = Problematic.

>> ^gorillaman:

Prohibitionists stand in opposition to every fundamental law of human morality. Every one of them is personally responsible for violating the human rights of every person who has ever lived or will live.


I can't say I can agree with the entirety of your statement. I think that modern prohibition is rooted in good intentions (in the same vein of prohibiting the use of toxic chemicals in food products, or lead paint on candy--yes that has happened) but has been warped and skewed and stretched ever since.

Those against legalization might argue if you legalize one (previously prohibited) drug, then the flood gates will be opened up for all of the rest of them, including drugs like cocaine, crack and heroine. I disagree with the flood-gate/all-or-nothing kind of argument, or the "gateway drug" argument for that matter.

I am in favour of legalization/regulation of pot, but there are some banned substances that I think should stay banned. I don't think meth belongs in the candy isle. Does that make me a prohibitionist? Am I opposed to human morality, and responsible for violating human rights, if I don't think it should be easy for someone to get heroine or sell it to 16 year olds?

I don't think it's fair to demonize anyone who has ever made a drug law.

>> ^vairetube:
but since we can ALL still get it anytime, anywhere...

That's just not true.

Maybe where you live it's like that, but where I live, and in most of America, that's not true at all.

The pressing matter is that weed is something so benign, and something that could be fixed (legalized) so easily and quickly, that not to legalize it is the greater crime.

Well said notarobot.

I think the biggest hurdle to legalization would be finding the right answer to the question of what we do with all the prisoners who would not have been imprisoned under the revised laws. Would they be released? Or would they remain in jail since they still broke the law at the time of their crime?

legalization would save taxpayers billions, and the preponderance of the evidence shows that it is not as harmful as alcohol and tobacco.

^ Flood - release them of course.

>> ^notarobot:
I don't think it's fair to demonize anyone who has ever made a drug law.

Have you heard of Harry Anslinger?

Drug laws had less to do with protecting people than they had to do with protecting industries and oppressing minorities.

>> ^jwray:
legalization would save taxpayers billions, and the preponderance of the evidence shows that it is not as harmful as alcohol and tobacco.


And put the people that survive on that tax money out of work. That's the only drawback. Draconian pot laws keep jails full and law enforcement busy, at that employs many people.

The alcohol and tobacco industries have billions of dollars to spend preventing the legalization of pot. Not to mention the oil, timber and cotton industries wanting to keep industrial hemp outlawed as well.

There's very little money to be made if you legalize weed as a drug. We're talking about a plant that requires little effort to grow and process to make a usable substance. If it were legal the majority of pot heads would just grow their own at home, only thing stopping most of them from doing it now is the risk of getting caught and being sentenced to a mandatory 20 years.

The hemp industry though would be a boon to the economy. Hemp oil could replace foreign oil. Hemp fiber could produce quality paper and textiles. And on the environmental side, hemp plants absorb a lot of carbon from the atmosphere. There was a time when hemp was the US's largest cash crop, there's no reason why it shouldn't be again. And after learning about the corn industry, it'd probably wouldn't hurt to replace much of the corn crops with hemp fields.

I don't know man, I'm partial to the "flood-gate" theory myself. If all drugs were legalized tomorrow I doubt your average Joe would spark up a meth lab or start snorting cocaine. The real question that should be raised here is whether or not the Government should have a hand in regulating what we take recreationally or otherwise.

Should we have the freedom to put whatever it is we want in our own bodies? I'm still unsure.

>> ^notarobot:
>> ^gorillaman:
Prohibitionists stand in opposition to every fundamental law of human morality. Every one of them is personally responsible for violating the human rights of every person who has ever lived or will live.

I can't say I can agree with the entirety of your statement. I think that modern prohibition is rooted in good intentions (in the same vein of prohibiting the use of toxic chemicals in food products, or lead paint on candy--yes that has happened) but has been warped and skewed and stretched ever since.
Those against legalization might argue if you legalize one (previously prohibited) drug, then the flood gates will be opened up for all of the rest of them, including drugs like cocaine, crack and heroine. I disagree with the flood-gate/all-or-nothing kind of argument, or the "gateway drug" argument for that matter.
I am in favour of legalization/regulation of pot, but there are some banned substances that I think should stay banned. I don't think meth belongs in the candy isle. Does that make me a prohibitionist? Am I opposed to human morality, and responsible for violating human rights, if I don't think it should be easy for someone to get heroine or sell it to 16 year olds?
I don't think it's fair to demonize anyone who has ever made a drug law.

Gorillaman, I wonder if there's any use to taking a moralist instead of a practical slant on this issue.

It's true it doesn't appear to make any sense to prohibit marijuana use, but choosing to use it is still a waste of time, and the people who do so tend to be underachievers. There are certainly exceptions to that rule, but people who desire to contribute meaningfully to society are too busy to purposely cloud their mind / reduce their intelligence.

Hollywood Bob said "And put the people that survive on that tax money out of work. That's the only drawback. Draconian pot laws keep jails full and law enforcement busy, at that employs many people."

That sounds like a "broken window fallacy." If these people weren't doing unnecessary work, they'd be doing work that society actually has need for, which enriches everyone.

The parable describes a shopkeeper whose window is broken by a little boy. Everyone sympathizes with the man whose window was broken, but pretty soon they start to suggest that the broken window makes work for the glazier, who will then buy bread, benefiting the baker, who will then buy shoes, benefiting the cobbler, etc. Finally, the onlookers conclude that the little boy was not guilty of vandalism; instead he was a public benefactor, creating economic benefits for everyone in town.

>> ^chilaxe:
Hollywood Bob said "And put the people that survive on that tax money out of work. That's the only drawback. Draconian pot laws keep jails full and law enforcement busy, at that employs many people."
That sounds like a "broken window fallacy." If these people weren't doing unnecessary work, they'd be doing work that society actually has need for, which enriches everyone.


I think we all know what a broken window fallacy is, but in this situation I don't think it fits. We're not talking about the good that can be done at the expense of someone else, but rather an entire system that is already in place, that legalization would upset. Sure the people that would lose their jobs would find other work elsewhere but that takes time, and unemployment is bad enough without adding a surplus of prison guards and cops to it. So yeah, that's a big drawback to legalizing pot.

Personally I couldn't care less if we loosed an army of cops terrified they'll lose their jobs, hell bent on nailing everyone for the slightest possible infractions, to prove their worth.

The entire industry devoted to enforcement against MJ consumes a vast amount of resources while accomplishing nothing. Those cops might as well be on welfare so that they could do something more productive with their time like reading a book.

Since when is Pot addictive? Last I knew THC had zero chance of forming a chemical addiction.

>> ^Xaielao:
Since when is Pot addictive? Last I knew THC had zero chance of forming a chemical addiction.


As addiction is becoming better understood, there is an increasing gap between "addiction" and "physical dependence". The more recent definition of addiction is "anything that someone continues to do despite negative consequences". People can become "addicted" to any action, such as gambling, video games, or even checking e-mail. It is a psychological issue, not a chemical one (well, not directly chemical at least).

People can become addicted to marijuana without the presence of physical dependence. People become addicted to World of Warcraft as well. The old definition of addiction included physical dependence, but that was because of a lack of understanding on the subject.

Of course substances that cause a high degree of physical dependence (ex- meth) can lead to rapid habituation. Physical dependence can certainly lead to addiction, but it is not a requisite.






Edit: As an aside, it is also worth noting that many psychedelics (lsd, psilocybin, etc) actually diminish the possibility of habituation. They cause a very rapid tolerance, meaning that taking the same amount two days in a row could lead to only half the effect on the second day. This tolerance also disappears quickly, so after 5-7 days you have no tolerance at all. This basically means that taking these substances on a daily basis quickly leads to them having no effect, though they could still be enjoyed on a "weekly" basis.

"Sure the people that would lose their jobs would find other work elsewhere but that takes time, and unemployment is bad enough without adding a surplus of prison guards and cops to it."

I think short term, one-time costs would have to be pretty big in order to be bigger than the continual long term costs over centuries.

Younglings, you forget that aside from all the health risks, smoking pot also leads to harder drugs. Legalize pot and you immediately have a much bigger market for crack, heroin, and meth. This country is in enough trouble as it is without going down that road.

And anyone who smokes pot is an immature piece of trash. Yup, I said it.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^vairetube:
but since we can ALL still get it anytime, anywhere...
That's just not true.
Maybe where you live it's like that, but where I live, and in most of America, that's not true at all.
The pressing matter is that weed is something so benign, and something that could be fixed (legalized) so easily and quickly, that not to legalize it is the greater crime.


Sorry, what i meant to say was, IF you're cool you can get it anywhere, anytime.

Also, you realize it's a plant, correct? It's funny, like, you can even grow it yourself.. it doesnt come from some other country. People grow it EVERYWHERE to make quick money, so...

in most of america that's not true? now THAT is simply not true In fact the opposite is true. Put me anywhere in America and I can get you weed the same day... it's called "finding the stoners". Sorry Rougy

PS: Fuck you BillO. I vaporize and eat it you ignorant fuck.

an immature piece of trash is someone who thinks being infamous on a website is actually an accomplishment.

ps: my 'habit' went from all day every day, to maybe at night if i happen to be lucky enough to have time to play the game of "find the stoners". it's about self control, and that of course varies by person, as evidenced by BillO=QM

Don't let BillO get you riled up. His posts are just a failed attempt at humor (kinda like Fox News imo). =)

I'm high right now.

And put the people that survive on that tax money out of work. That's the only drawback. Draconian pot laws keep jails full and law enforcement busy, at that employs many people.



I doubt it will put many out of work. There would still be plenty of other drugs to go after. Most law enforcement is aimed at meth labs and such. People would simply be reassigned to other endeavors.

As far as prisons, we already have more inmates than space, and we certainly don't have enough prison employees as it is. Releasing non-violent weed smokers would solve prison problems, not cause them.

Also, think of all the money we could save by not having to house and feed weed smokers, on top of all the tax money we spend prosecuting them. Not only would it save money, but we could tax marijuana sales like we do with alcohol. Even with the tax, legal weed would be cheaper than illegal weed, meaning people wouldn't have to spend as much of their income on it.

I really can't see many (if any) negative side effects from legalizing marijuana.

The U.S. judicial system is broken. The U.S.A. incarcerates more people than any nation per capita, surpassing China and The Soviet Union. The onset of all anti-drug laws in this country stem from racism and profit; i.e opium in California and marijuana in the deep South.
Nixon made drugs Public Enemy #1 in an effort to hoodwink the population from focusing on Vietnam. The 80s saw a drastic increase in resources to combat a ghost problem. Minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws ushered in the prison-industrial complex nation we live in today. Fortunately, minimum mandatory sentencing and three-strike laws are unraveling.
The waste of money to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders is staggering and shameful. Something must be done hastily.

If Obama doesn't want to legalize marijuana on a national level, at least he could say "This is a states' right issue" and let states decide.

At which point, Washington and California's economies would make China look like Detroit.

"I'm a doctor."

"I'm a lawyer."

"I'm a student."

"I'm a representative."

"I have cancer."

One of these things is not like the other.

>> ^MrFisk:
The U.S. judicial system is broken. The U.S.A. incarcerates more people than any nation per capita, surpassing China and The Soviet Union.



That isn't a judicial system issue, it's a legislative issue. Personally I think the courts work better than the other two branches of government in most cases.

Weed being illegal and mandatory minimum sentences are things that the courts cannot control. They have the power to declare laws unconstitutional, but even then it requires a supreme court case... judges can't just decide that on their own.

>> ^BillOreilly:
Younglings, you forget that aside from all the health risks, smoking pot also leads to harder drugs. Legalize pot and you immediately have a much bigger market for crack, heroin, and meth. This country is in enough trouble as it is without going down that road.
And anyone who smokes pot is an immature piece of trash. Yup, I said it.

It's true. Pot does lead to harder drugs because people start with pot. You know what else leads to harder drugs? Milk. Almost everybody who does drugs has at one time, drank milk.

I always ask somebody who combats lifting prohibition with the argument "if they make it legal, everybody will be on meth, crack, etc..." with the question, "if it were legal, would you do it?" Furthermore, advances in modern medicine has made it possible to put you in a controlled coma and force the drugs out of your system over 24 hrs, thus flushing the physical need to do more. That, coupled with some rehabilitation therapy and some persuaded changes of an ex-addicts lifestyle, would be a far more useful and cost effective method than imprisonment.

If i want to grow a plant, i should be allowed to grow a fucking plant.

If you are curious about how marijuana became illegal then check this out:
http://www.videosift.com/video/How-Marijuana-became-illegal

It is a section of the History Channel series "Hooked - Illegal Drugs And How They Got That Way."

If the cost of keeping someone employed is ruining the life of someone else for a non-harmful action, then that's way too high a price to pay.

To even take into consideration the law enforcement employees that would lose their jobs if pot were to be legalized is ridiculous in my opinion.

"I'm sorry, you have to go to jail for growing pot because we wouldn't want to have to fire Bob over there."

>> ^rougy:
>>^notarobot:
I don't think it's fair to demonize anyone who has ever made a drug law.
Have you heard of Harry Anslinger?
Drug laws had less to do with protecting people than they had to do with protecting industries and oppressing minorities.


I had actually not heard of Harry Anslinger before, Rougy. Thanks for pointing him out and for the link. While it can be said that industry was quick to try to use the food safety laws for its advantage, I still think that Anslinger is an example of trying to twist those laws beyond their initial intentions of looking after the health of common folk.

I do still think that there are drug laws made for the benefit of the common good, but I do have to agree with that an unfortunate majority of the laws surrounding drugs the past century or so have been for the benefit of industry.

[edit] I think in my original comment I meant to say "I don't think it's fair to demonize everyone who has ever made a drug law." There are some people who had different interests then the common good in making some of the rules we now live by.

>> ^gorillaman:
Justice requires that legalisation is immediately followed by the detention, torture and execution of every police officer who's ever made a drugs arrest, every judge who's ever handed down a drugs sentence, every legislator who's contributed to a drugs law and every single person who's ever expressed any support for any level of prohibition.

If you think that's an extreme statement, you're blaming the wrong person. I didn't populate the world with criminals, I don't make their choices for them.
Prohibitionists stand in opposition to every fundamental law of human morality. Every one of them is personally responsible for violating the human rights of every person who has ever lived or will live.


I love the part when you say you're not responsible for your own words... very mature of you.

You talk about morality in the same breath as you call for the "torture and execution" of thousands upon thousands of people. That's called hypocrisy. Calling for the legalization of drugs is fine; I agree with that sentiment and, even if I didn't, it's your right to voice it; but if you think mass murder will help in some way then this might not be the country for you. Try North Korea.

>> ^Flood:
To even take into consideration the law enforcement employees that would lose their jobs if pot were to be legalized is ridiculous in my opinion.
"I'm sorry, you have to go to jail for growing pot because we wouldn't want to have to fire Bob over there."


Agreed. That's a terrible argument. There are plenty of other things they could be doing on the job - it means the tax $$ used to provide their salaries and benefits is used more efficiently and effectively, because the manpower will be freed up to pursue more important matters.

On the other hand, pot makes me lazy, and I think most users will agree. It's that issue of productivity that worries me about the economy, but that absolutely does NOT justify its continued prohibition - if that were the case, then TV, weekends, massages, good sex, and VideoSift should also be banned.

>> ^rottenseed:
I always ask somebody who combats lifting prohibition with the argument "if they make it legal, everybody will be on meth, crack, etc..." with the question, "if it were legal, would you do it?"

I'm partial to the "so what?" argument. If you're stupid enough to smoke crack, you're supposed to die.

>> ^BillOreilly:
Younglings, you forget that aside from all the health risks, smoking pot also leads to harder drugs. Legalize pot and you immediately have a much bigger market for crack, heroin, and meth. This country is in enough trouble as it is without going down that road.
And anyone who smokes pot is an immature piece of trash. Yup, I said it.


The only thing you got right is that smoking pot is a health risk. But then again, so is driving at 55 mph. Get your facts straight. Alcohol is more of a gateway drug than pot ever could be. Your stupidity and illogical deduction is absolutely mind-numbing; more so than smoking a joint could ever achieve. I actually feel dumber after having read your post. I put forth that we should enact a law against the incoherent ramblings of the older generation, who 1) cannot use their own faculties to critically think for themselves and 2) do nothing but use condescension as a means of artificially inflating their ego.

Time to go back to sleep, BillO. Here's some warm milk. (Shhh, I slipped some brandy in it for him.)

>> ^J-Rova:
>> ^Flood:
On the other hand, pot makes me lazy, and I think most users will agree.


It depends on the weed. Sativa strains are very energetic and cerebral... they produce the exact opposite of laziness. Indica strains are the ones that tend to make people sit there doing nothing.

I had a pure Sativa strain a while back. It was one of the most motivating substances I have ingested. Even as a fairly experienced smoker at the time, I could not stop smiling on this stuff, nor could I sit still. I think I cleaned my entire house because of that weed. Unfortunately, I have not found the same quality of effect since then. =(

Just to clarify my earlier statements since it appears as though some people think I was stating that job losses were a legitimate reason to maintain the prohibition on weed.

If you believe that legalizing marijuana will save tax payer money, it's not hard to see how there will be people affected by the reallocation of those funds and that there is a high likelihood that many of those people will be looking for a new job. This may not be the situation everywhere, but in localities that have a large portion of their police staff devoted to policing marijuana crimes(like a lot of places in Florida), it's a strong possibility that there well be jobs lost.

I do not feel this is a valid reason to continue prohibiting marijuana, merely a drawback to legalization. It's important to realize that there will likely be consequences to ending prohibition on weed.

Furthermore, how in the blue hell can you put forth an argument against the legalisation of pot based on law enforcement redundancy? It's exactly the same as if we'd continued capital punishment because ridding ourselves of it would put hangmen out of business, not to mention all the large ceremonial axes that would suddenly go unsold. Then whetstones to sharpen them, gallows and rope sales would go down rapidly, gallows builders would have to retrain and possibly go on unemployment, our jails would get fuller, it's all a terrible terrible idea.

You need to have your head examined pal. There are SO many reasons for legalisation of cannibis, and i've yet to hear one against it other than "i don't like it" which often equates to "i don't know anything about it".

All this talk about addiction is fine, but what about alcohol addiction? What about tobacco addiction? You really, really need to think about that in detail and just exactly what the differences between tobacco and pot are. Pot is actually better for your long term health than tobacco, less easily habit forming, and there are no real solid proofs anywhere of mental health issues that i've come across to date. So it's better for you than tobacco, but it makes you giggle and/or trip out a little.

So does salvia, and THAT'S FUCKING LEGAL, WHERE IS THE FUCKING SENSE?

The next argument against pot we'll see is the "strong strains such as skunk are blah blah blah" well you can shove that right up your arse too. I've never tried skunk, never tried any kind of "super strong" strain of it. I've smoked some basic run of the mill weed which i could grow for myself, and i had an absolutely fantastic time doing it. I also alleviated a migraine with it. Never hurt anyone, never hurt myself, never woke up feeling like a sack of vomit and diareah unlike some legal social drugs, never stole anything in my life, never considered harder drugs (other than i'd love to try LSD in a controlled environment with supervision), and i'm pretty damn intelligent to boot.

Spare us all the bullshit and get right down to the truth - you're scared of something you don't understand and have never experienced, and why are you scared? Because that's how you've been brought up, indoctrinated, call it what you will.

As said before, if marijuana becomes legal then the people devoted to enforcing the current laws will be reassigned, not fired.

There are plenty of drugs that would still be illegal, and there still wouldn't be enough people to enforce their prohibition effectively.

Until pot is legal, we don't live in a free society. That's my litmus test. There is no good reason it should be illegal to consume it or sell it.

It seems obvious to me it's all about supporting the legal system as well as catering to the alcohol and tobacco lobby. Because if people could grow their own pot plants without worrying they'd be arrested for it, people would spend a LOT less money on booze.

It's a plant. It grows like a weed. It gets you high, which means different things to different people at different times, but mostly means "you become more introspective, open-minded, sensitive, everything is more interesting, and then you want a snack." If that's a horrible scourge that needs to be eliminated, well fuck me I must have been born in Bizarro world. Compare this to alcohol which causes people to lose their motor skills, drop their inhibitions, and surrender to their id.

People who say things like "if you smoke pot you are immature" or "well it's stupid to smoke something that rots your brain cells" can suck my fucking cock.

Younglings, you forget that aside from all the health risks, smoking pot also leads to harder drugs.

Uh, no. Pot is not a gateway drug. It has its price and bodily penalty for using, but so does eating ham or sticking your wang in a mousetrap.

Legalize pot and you immediately have a much bigger market for crack, heroin, and meth. This country is in enough trouble as it is without going down that road.

I'd rather have cops going after child rapists and murderers than heroin addicts. There's always going to be a percentage of people with addictive personalities as well as people beyond redemption. All anyone else can do is offer help, but a user has to want to help herself or it won't work. It's ridiculous to think that all the people who have never tried illegal drugs are only waiting for them to be legalized.

And anyone who smokes pot is an immature piece of trash. Yup, I said it.

1) Don't knock it till you try it.

2) Your TV is more of a life-destroying drug than pot.

3) Yes We Cannabis.

Everything should be legal and pricy and taxy (oh yeah Obama will tax your drugs crazy). So pot consumers just think about it when the high will be finally gone.

The moral issues surrounding substance abuse is only valid when it comes to drugs harming anyone else besides the one consuming them.

Why should anyone care if you're looking for good flavours, good sensations, a pitiful slow suicide, or a dumb social status, or whatever, if not for the fact that the side effect may be harming others while doing so?
That's right, no one should.
Instead of practicing prohibition, laws should be remarkingly severe in the punition of this kind of harm.
You killed someone while drunk-driving, you're baby-sitting and the kid dies during bath time because you weren't aware? You'd know what's coming - death.
Your smoke got into the lungs of a nearby citizen? Prepare to be shocked randomly by strangers during the day. Your vodka-fueled vomit got into the pants and shoes of someone else? Expect big smelly piles of sht mixed with semen and bits of dead skin being thrown at you whenever you suspect it may happen. And so on.

Join me in a healthy orgy with tested-only sexy people?

Wow, all you younglings must know deep in your hearts that what I say is fact, judging by all of the pitiful responses. I guess drugs numb the mind, making coherence impossible. Someday, some of you will grow up and take my advice. Until then, go ahead, smoke your lives away, thankfully I'm not breathing it in.

First, did I just upvote a QM comment?

Second, I don't think legalization will happen any time soon across all states. The police and DEA have too much funding created fighting the war on drugs and sustains alot of people, these are the same people who happen to be in government and they wouldn't be too happy losing their jobs over what they will claim will just make our children high, destroy society and instigate more crime. The usual alarmist bullshit.

But you know. Know hope.

>> ^BillOreilly:
Wow, all you younglings must know deep in your hearts that what I say is fact, judging by all of the pitiful responses. I guess drugs numb the mind, making coherence impossible. Someday, some of you will grow up and take my advice. Until then, go ahead, smoke your lives away, thankfully I'm not breathing it in.

Calling us younglings doesn't make "us" look naive and idealistic, it makes you look archaic and rigid. Yea, so a "talkie" with a hot dog and a pop only cost a nickel when you were growing up...great, now go make sure your life-alert has fresh batteries.

Billo's just a parody, people, when will we all come to realise!? Don't let him 'rile' you

>> ^quantumushroom:
Younglings, you forget that aside from all the health risks, smoking pot also leads to harder drugs.
Uh, no. Pot is not a gateway drug. It has its price and bodily penalty for using, but so does eating ham or sticking your wang in a mousetrap.
Legalize pot and you immediately have a much bigger market for crack, heroin, and meth. This country is in enough trouble as it is without going down that road.
I'd rather have cops going after child rapists and murderers than heroin addicts. There's always going to be a percentage of people with addictive personalities as well as people beyond redemption. All anyone else can do is offer help, but a user has to want to help herself or it won't work. It's ridiculous to think that all the people who have never tried illegal drugs are only waiting for them to be legalized.
And anyone who smokes pot is an immature piece of trash. Yup, I said it.
1) Don't knock it till you try it.
2) Your TV is more of a life-destroying drug than pot.
3) Yes We Cannabis.


It's so weird to see QM on the majority side of an argument.

>> ^BillOreilly:
Younglings, you forget that aside from all the health risks, smoking pot also leads to harder drugs. Legalize pot and you immediately have a much bigger market for crack, heroin, and meth. This country is in enough trouble as it is without going down that road.
And anyone who smokes pot is an immature piece of trash. Yup, I said it.


An anti troll impersonating a regular troll. I like it.

Like alcohol. Look at all the trouble legalizing that did...

>> ^BillOreilly:
Younglings, you forget that aside from all the health risks, smoking pot also leads to harder drugs. Legalize pot and you immediately have a much bigger market for crack, heroin, and meth. This country is in enough trouble as it is without going down that road.
And anyone who smokes pot is an immature piece of trash. Yup, I said it.

This depends on the crime. Some minor crimes like possession could be dealt with like that, but the harsher ones, like importing tons of the stuff, would still require appropriate response, in my opinion. They did break the law and severely, so they should be "punished" as the law prescribed. It sucks for those who have been judged before the laws were changed, but those are the breaks.

>> ^rougy:
^ Flood - release them of course.

^Because the state is always right and obedience is more important than morality.

^g, get used to the fact that your sense of morality is not universally shared. The vast majority of people will not consider it to be "moral" to import large quantities of an illegal substance. Even if that substance has no reason to be prohibited. Unless maybe that substance had direct, life saving results. Fly penicillin into a third world country that's being terrorized by a ruthless dictator, ok you could call that moral. But for cannabis, if you want to fight the absurdity of prohibition, fight with politics.

However, that would probably not be a problem, since people who import illegal substances are often breaking a number of laws to do so.

Reduced sentences may be appropriate, but it would entirely depend on the circumstances.

WTF was that bullshit about millions of jobs? lol

Anyway, good luck!

And yes, it would totally work.

My sense of morality is universally shared by human beings.

First world countries may not be terrorised by dictators, but are terrorised nonetheless, by governments just as corrupt. You fight the crime of prohibition like any other, by punishing the criminals; not by crawling up to your oppressors and begging, "Please sir, may I have my rights back?"

>> ^MaxWilder:
^g, get used to the fact that your sense of morality is not universally shared. The vast majority of people will not consider it to be "moral" to import large quantities of an illegal substance. Even if that substance has no reason to be prohibited. Unless maybe that substance had direct, life saving results. Fly penicillin into a third world country that's being terrorized by a ruthless dictator, ok you could call that moral. But for cannabis, if you want to fight the absurdity of prohibition, fight with politics.
However, that would probably not be a problem, since people who import illegal substances are often breaking a number of laws to do so.
Reduced sentences may be appropriate, but it would entirely depend on the circumstances.

Gateway drug theory is retarded. I live in the Netherlands and I can get my weed in a shop. Therefor I don't know any dealers, so it is much harder to score other drugs. A few places in the Netherlands kicked out the coffeeshops and dealers came to the streets, they also carry harder drugs and don't mind to push them.

I say all drugs should be legal. Prohibition has never worked and will never work. As long as you educate people on the drugs and provide them safely, people have to take their own responsibility, otherwise there is no free society. I'm not saying you should be able to get your drugs in the supermarket. But think along the lines of a recreational pharmacy that provides warnings and side effects leaflets like with any drug.

Another example from the Netherlands is with heroin prescription. The long term homeless addicts in my city have been given their drugs freely and have been provided with a place to stay. The program is so successful that they had to close wards because so many addicts had quit. Most addicts nowadays are the really old people who have been using it most of their lives, we are currently planning retirement homes for the addicts.

In the end it doesn't matter how much the "government" wants or needs marijuana to be illegal, it will be legalized when a large majority of people want it to be legal.

Most of those resisting legalization are members of the older generations... as they are replaced with members of the younger generations the percentage of people who do not support prohibition will increase. The government won't be able to keep it illegal when 75%+ of people disagree with the prohibition (eventually).

Sure, the government can try a campaign of propaganda, but the reason that was successful in the past is because the population didn't have effortless access to information at the time. Now when people see a claim about how something is dangerous then all they have to do is look around the net to see if medical literature confirms or refutes the claim.

Marijuana will eventually be legal in the USA. People may think that the DEA or law enforcement have too much at stake to allow that, but they won't be the ones controlling it... it will be the voters who will eventually overturn the current norm.

if you are going to legalize something, why not understand why it should be so?

>> ^BillOreilly:
Younglings, you forget that aside from all the health risks, smoking pot also leads to harder drugs. Legalize pot and you immediately have a much bigger market for crack, heroin, and meth. This country is in enough trouble as it is without going down that road.
And anyone who smokes pot is an immature piece of trash. Yup, I said it.


This may be hard for you to grasp...but pot is not a gateway drug ok? If anything is a gateway drug it's alcohol.

BTW...how much control do you want the government to have over it's people anyways? Don't you think when we have to outlaw nature that we have gone to far?

great, i'm looking forward for all those potheads on the streets, each one driving around in 3000 pounds of steel. bad enough we have all the drinkers.

>> ^conan:
great, i'm looking forward for all those potheads on the streets, each one driving around in 3000 pounds of steel. bad enough we have all the drinkers.

Tests have been done showing that people who are high drive as well as sober people. Of course you shouldn't be high and drive, but at least it will be a lot less bad than drinking and driving. Also people drive high now as well, there won't be much difference when you legalize it.

>> ^Trancecoach:
There is too much to gain and from it's illegality and too much to lose with it legalized.
It ain't gonna happen. No way no how. Just be happy with the club scene if ya got your prescription.


Clearly, you guys are merely hatin' on the messenger.

*length=00:01:00

The duration of this video has been updated from unknown to 1:00 - length declared by critical_d.