Would you vote to legalize marijuana?

[Shotgun 1]

Just curious, if this issue was on the ballot, would you vote "yes" to legalize marijuana, or would you vote "no"? (this poll is only about marijuana - not any other drugs) I'm also interested in hearing why you would vote one way or the other.

(And assuming that if it was legalized, it would have the same sort of restrictions that alcohol does.)

I'm not asking whether you use or approve of the use of marijuana, just wondering how many people think it is worth keeping it illegal.

[AggieDave 6]

Yes, but I would like it to be treated like alcohol, and tax the ever loving shit out of it.

Same sort of penilities for driving under the influence, same ages, etc. It should cost significantly more then cigerettes as well.

The downside is, where does society draw the line when it comes to legization of varius drugs? The war on marijana has been lost, just like the war on alcohol was lost in the early 20th century.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

While we are slowly on the path to have it legal in this country (even Mayor Daley now has CPD writing tickets for people found with small amounts instead of arresting them), I'm not sure it is a good thing.

Personally - I've grown up around too many addictions and watched all sorts of drugs and booze ruin lives. Therefore I am bias simply because of what I have witnessed.

However, I feel that greed about a new enterprise in this country will increase crime. I know that there is an argument from every pro-drug person that could match mine, even some that make perfect sense. However...think of how common place booze is now. Think of all the issues we have as a modern society with booze - driving, mob involvment, addiction (I'm sure people will claim its not addictive)kids, taxes, etc. All of those modern day problems will carry over to marijuana as well.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[TheAnvil 0]

I would vote yes, though I actually have never partaken of the drug myself. I really think it's a state issue.

Compared with alcohol, marijuana in many respects is quite benign.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[crozby 0]

I vote No.

In the UK it is illegal to carry any more than a small amount, or to deal or to buy.

But ... it's as easy to buy weed it as it is to buy cigarettes if you know where to get it, and as long as you smoke it in your own home or are discreet when out and about you have no problems with the law whatsoever.

If it got legalised the government would only tax the hell out of it and they already steal too much of my cash as it is.

So things are just great as they are IMHO.

[ladyskydiver 0]

Yes, I would. I've never tried it and have no intentions of it. But, make it legal, put standards in place, make some jobs for people, driving under the influence laws already exist so additional ones are not necessary, add in some taxes.

Life is short! Break the rules! Forgive quickly! Kiss slowly! Love truly, Laugh uncontrollably. And never regret anything that made you smile.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

though I actually have never partaken of the drug myself. I really think it's a state issue.

Heh, I haven't either.


Although since its a drug I really don't think it should be a state issue, I really believe it should be a federal issue. If it was a state issue the federal government would pressure the states into doing what they want anyways. Remember the big ordeal about Louisiana and the drinking age?

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[flyingferret 0]

I agree with you and dave. The real issue (and in my opinion the downfall of a LOT in the US right now) is personal responsiblity. This can apply to anything, and will always affect anything that can possess negative effects.
You can be addicted to all kinds of things, the huge majority of which are not illegal, including sex. I believe the line is drawn where you begin to affect others.
You wanna ride without a helmet? Damn straight, and it is my right to do so in Texas. Just don't expect the government to pay for your actiions. This is exactly how Texas does it, you must have x amount of health insurance to ride without.
My point it that I believe the laws should be based on the danger to society, not to yourself. In this regard I see marijuana as no different than alcohol. I am sure you could argue about this, but I am think it would be accurate to say the health risks are no worse than drinking and smoking and no more addictive. As for 'drugs' alcohol is a drug, so is tobacco, and so are the millions of pills people are addicted to using a perscription.
So, I think the war has long been lost, marijuana usage among my age group is staggering really. I would interested in figures, but it seems like it would be as high as the 60s. When we are all 40something, who is going to object?

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[nubain1 0]

Legalize it. I did a paper on it in college and while doing the research I found some very interesting
reports from the USDA, UC- Berkley, The Health Dept and others. What i found was that in history,
it was legal up until the early 1930's where it was legal until the cotton industry decided to get rid
of it's maojor source of competition. the Gov't had actually paid farmers to grow it. Even George Washington grew it.
In the studies I found, it was proven that every grade of paper could be produced at 1/4 the cost
of harvesting trees and is a much faster renewable source. From seed to six foot plant in avg of 45-60 days.
The cloth made from the fiber of the stalk is more durable and holds colors longer and better than cotton
and can be made to be softer than cotton. Hence the cotton farmers desire to have it banned.
The seeds of the plant has more dietary protien and less chloesterol than soybeans.
It reduces pressure on the eyes and reduces the symptoms of glaucoma.
It reduces nuasea and increases appetite in people going through chemo therapy. It reduces anxiety in people
who suffer anxiety disorders and some forms of psychosis.

I could go on but that's enough for starters. I wish I could find that paper soI could give direct quotes and
the research case numbers.
So legalize it, Tax it and use the money for healthcare, help those who can't get insurance. Resaearch, find cures for the plauges of our times
Education, bring our schools up to the highest levels and make our schools the envy of other countries, not the but
of thier jokes.

[CrazyIvan 0]

Quote

So legalize it, Tax it and use the money for healthcare

Yup, it can be taxed, and another source of income for the government, nothing wrong with that.

__________________________________________
Blue Skies and May the Force be with you.

[flyingferret 0]

I think we will take your word on this part

Quote

increases appetite

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[lawrocket 3]

I've never tried it, but I'd vote to legalize it.

Of course, ultimately, marijuana would be grown, marketed and sold by large corporations like Haliburton or any of the large agribusiness entities. Or, even by those downright evil pharmaceutical companies.

This would take business from the urban entrepeneurs who would fall victim to the large corp, like walmart did to mom & pop.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[smiles 0]

My vote is "yes."

"Decriminalization" is the Canadian concept that may or may not pass into law. This is a process whereby possession of marijuana in very small amounts will not longer be a criminal offence.

Marijuana is a herb I enjoy.

Intellectually, the argument that marijuana should be, or continue to be prohibited is an insufficient one. The facts and common sense regarding it's use do not add up adequately enough to support violiting one's personal discretion over one's personal actions.

The negative effects are really no more damaging then a steady diet of McDonalds food, a steady intake of beer or wine ect.

Marijuana has never been proven to cause a fatal overdose, which is more than you can say for ordinary over-the-counter drugs which have. The only negative effects you can get from it, is the ordinary effects you get from smoking. So if you eat it (as funny as it sounds), the negative effects are minimal.

If the terminally ill can be pumped full of morphine, or given a bottle of percodan or vicodin to take home, it seems marijuana, or at least an extract containing the active compounds, should be available by prescription too if it can alleviate some of the symptoms of debilitating illness.

Marijuana is not on a par with drugs such as heroin and shouldn't be treated as if it were.

If marijuana were legal, money currently spent combatting cannabis could be used in ways that are far more likely to curb abuse: prevention and treatment programs for hard drugs such as heroin and methamphetamine.

Paraplegics, cancer patients, epileptics, people with AIDS, and people suffering from multiple sclerosis have in recent years been imprisoned for using marijuana as medicine. The attack on marijuana, since its origins early in this century, has in reality been a cultural war -- a moral crusade in defense of traditional values. The laws used to fight marijuana are now causing far more harm to those values than the drug itself.

Marijuana helps insomnia, lowers pain - (Many chronic sufferers of back pain, arthritis, etc. swear by it.) - increases appetite- relaxes you - increases creativity. There exists no hard evidence demonstrating any irreversible organic or mental damage from the consumption of marijuana;
Cannabis is not an addictive substance;
Marijuana is not criminogenic in that there is no evidence of a causal relationship between cannabis use and criminality; Marijuana does not make people more aggressive or violent; There have been no recorded deaths from the consumption of marijuana; Health related costs of cannabis use are negligible when compared to the costs attributable to tobacco and alcohol consumption.

SMiles

[DrunkMonkey 0]

So stop posting this drivel on the SC, call your Congresscritter, and do something about the laws you dislike...Otherwise, be prepared for the consequences of breaking the law.

And be prepared for those who disagree with you and have the advantage of the fact that it's easier to keep a law on the books versus deleting/changing one.

"small amounts"...when does it become illegal? You have to have all your ducks in a row before you engage the legislative process, lest you appear foolish.

[flyingferret 0]

Perhaps you missed the part about Canada. Now go research how Canada treats it, and you will find out she is 100% correct. You will NOT EVER get busted for smoking in Canda, only for 'commercially producing'.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2003/1110/146_print.html

Thank you for your flame, now sit down.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[quade 4]

I'm not sure. It would depend on how the laws would be written.

It kind of pisses me off that people would want to place special sin tax on it. I would think that income tax would be enough and generate quite a bit of revenue since currently the government is spending money fighting it and seeing no income tax. So the switch from deficit to revenue generating should be quite dramatic.

I think there would also need to be a provision where people could grow it for their own personal use.

I also think there would need to be some sort of instantaneous testing similar to a breathalyzer wherein the police could on the basis of that test determine if a person was or was not considered to be under the influence. I have no idea if this is even technologially feasible nor do I have any idea of where you'd set the limits, but you can't make it "legal" without setting some limits as to how much is permissible without being considered under the influence.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[AdamLanes 1]

YES, MARIJUANA NEEDS TO BE DECRIMINALIZED! Although marijuana can be taxed, I for one would grow my own, if it was legal. There are more important reasons for a change in the laws! The black market for drugs is prevalent as a direct result of the laws themselves that prohibit drugs. If drugs were legally available, then it would not be profitable for "street thugs" to sell drugs. It would not be profitable for terrorists to grow/manufacture/sell drugs if it were not for the black market!

[markd_nscr986 0]

***Of course, ultimately, marijuana would be grown, marketed and sold by large corporations like Haliburton or any of the large agribusiness entities. Or, even by those downright evil pharmaceutical companies.


I can see it now......"Try Conagra's best at a store near you"

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

It kind of pisses me off that people would want to place special sin tax on it.

That's a necessity to realistically have it legalized. One of the arguments against legalization is the assumption that use would increase. However, there have been a lot of studies that show the legal status of marijuana has little to no direct impact on who uses it or how much. However, the legality does effect the price, and the price has a direct impact on who uses it and how much. So, if it were legalized, the only way to prevent increased usage would be to keep the consumer price around the same. In a free market the price would plummet, so there needs to be an artificial price increase applied to it.

Plus, what I think they should then do is take 100% of the gov't profits from that tax and dedicate to drug prevention and treatment.

It's a win win win win win win situation.

WIN 1) No one goes to jail for a victimless crime.
WIN 2) Less people use drugs due to increased prevention and treatment measures at no additional cost
WIN 3) Criminal enterprises, including terrorist organizations that profit from marijuana sales lose a big source of income
WIN 4) Government resources dedicated to fighting marijuana crimes are no longer needed and can be scrapped or redirected elsewhere.
WIN 5) Prisons are less crowded enabling them to dedicate more resources toward violent criminals who are often paroled early and with no supervision because of overcrowding.
WIN 6) Small family farms have a new cash crop to help them stay in business.

[Duckwater 0]

Only if we legalize balck tar heroin too. Both Marijuana and Heroin are harmless as long as they are not given to in infants or taken with beer.

The same bill should criminalize Jack Daniels.

Mike

[Paulipod 0]

The only issue I would have would be the effects of passive intake! If someone's getting drunk... they arent sharing it with me...

If I wanna get high I wanna have a choice in it! so legal is ok... so long as it follows the not in public places idea...

Although it could be a money saving share option

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[Shotgun 1]

Oops, I should have put an "undecided" option in the poll.

I have mixed feelings about it as well, though I'm pretty sure I would vote to legalize it...

I don't like seeing how much money the government is spending to fight a war that apparently cannot be won (and a war that is about something that doesn't seem to be such a big concern in the first place). I would prefer some sort of law that allowed for people to grow it for their own use, but did not allow for it to be mass-produced and sold in a ready-to-use form like cigarettes and alcohol. Not sure how that would work exactly, but I think that too much convenience encourages addiction.

Quote

I also think there would need to be some sort of instantaneous testing similar to a breathalyzer wherein the police could on the basis of that test determine if a person was or was not considered to be under the influence. I have no idea if this is even technologially feasible nor do I have any idea of where you'd set the limits, but you can't make it "legal" without setting some limits as to how much is permissible without being considered under the influence.

Yes, I think that would be important.

Quote

It kind of pisses me off that people would want to place special sin tax on it. I would think that income tax would be enough and generate quite a bit of revenue since currently the government is spending money fighting it and seeing no income tax. So the switch from deficit to revenue generating should be quite dramatic.

I have no problem with the "sin tax"... Maybe they could use some of that income to fund psychological research to find out why people have addictions and how to cure them??? (which would probably do a much better job of reducing drug abuse than the "war on drugs" is doing)

[AdamLanes 1]

Quote

I also think there would need to be some sort of instantaneous testing similar to a breathalyzer wherein the police could on the basis of that test determine if a person was or was not considered to be under the influence.

There is at least one trick to tell if someone is stoned. hold a pen or similar object a couple feet in front of someone's face, and ask them to focus their eyes on it. Move the object side to side, and watch their eyes follow it. Next, slowly move the object in close to the persons nose, between their eyes. Most (if not all) sober people will automatically cross their eyes to keep focus on it. People who are high on marijuana will think they are focused on the object but actually will not cross their eyes, unless they already know this trick and consciously make an effort to cross their eyes!

[flyingferret 0]

I don't have a link to this at the moment, but I have typically read that the idea of a second hand high is mostly false or a placebo effect.
In order to get high, you have to absorb the smoke to an extent. Unless you are hanging with multiple people in a closed room, (or 10,000 people in a closed concert) I really doubt you would get any high.
But your point is valid none the less, I am sure IF it were to ever happen it would be at least as regulated as tobacco smoke, and we all now how 'quarantined' that is.

--
All the flaming and trolls of wreck dot with a pretty GUI.

[cloudseeker2001 0]

I have been to Amsterdamn and those people live damn well even without the pot!

I think it is insane we cage people for smoking a weed that grows in the woods. Don't get me worng, DUI, public intox or anything else that may harm others.....go to jail. But sit at home and burn one instead of drink one..........make it legal and tax it.

"Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance,
others mean and rueful of the western dream"