@jamil: protections, man, protections. read the past 5 pages.
@moultano: As has been mentioned, the civil rights movement and marijuana legalization are *far* different issues. And police state? give me a break. That's what the right to bear arms is for. Breaking the law isn't a good thing when it's merely for personal pleasure. [sweeping generalization] It's probably easier for the government to create a police state when everyone is toked up anyway. [/sweeping generalization]
anyway, civil disobedience doesn't really have an effect unless a lot of people are doing it at the same time. So basically you're just being arrested for nothing. Show me how challenging the law in court is inferior to civil disobedience, and I'll conceed the point.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 24 2004, 05:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 24 2004, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> @moultano: As has been mentioned, the civil rights movement and marijuana legalization are *far* different issues. And police state? give me a break. That's what the right to bear arms is for. Breaking the law isn't a good thing when it's merely for personal pleasure. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm making the case that breaking the law isn't inherently immoral. The case I'm making at the moment has nothing to do with marijuana. You guys are contending that something being illegal makes it less moral, regardless of the action, and I'm arguing that the legal status of an act has no bearing on its morality.
Once that's established, it can no longer be applied to marijuana, but that's not what I'm arguing at the moment.
Honestly, I think it doesn't matter if pot is legalized because people who want to smoke smoke and they will not be stopped. That's a hell of a lot of people, I guess they're all irresponsible criminals because they like weed.
@moultano: As has been mentioned, the civil rights movement and marijuana legalization are *far* different issues. And police state? give me a break. That's what the right to bear arms is for. Breaking the law isn't a good thing when it's merely for personal pleasure. [sweeping generalization] It's probably easier for the government to create a police state when everyone is toked up anyway. [/sweeping generalization]
anyway, civil disobedience doesn't really have an effect unless a lot of people are doing it at the same time. So basically you're just being arrested for nothing. Show me how challenging the law in court is inferior to civil disobedience, and I'll conceed the point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Only protections? Earlier you claimed protections and freedoms. I'll forgive you for that.
I feel like bringing you down a couple more pegs. Civil disobedience inevitably requires a wide people's movement, but at first it takes one person to get rolling. Refer to Ghandi, Rosa Parks, et al. These individuals were disenfranchised by the government in power and legal avenues to change the system were ineffective because of systemmic partisan beliefs or a lack of political will. Placing complete faith in the political process is naivety with a capital N, and desertion of the spirit of democracy. "By the people, for the people", as opposed to "by corrupt politicians, for big business".
you are wrong. Legal challenges are *always* to be the first resort, not last. You wait for that result, and then if you disagree with that, you either sit down and shut up, or you start protesting.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These individuals were disenfranchised by the government in power and legal avenues to change the system were ineffective because of systemmic partisan beliefs or a lack of political will. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
excuse me? Pot smokers are hardly "disenfranchised"
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 25 2004, 01:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 25 2004, 01:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> my bad. convicted felons don't get to vote.
i feel so sorry for them, man. i really do, i mean we're being so *utterly unfair* to them. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It seems you are not familiar with the voting system of your own country. It is true that convicted felons do not retain the right to vote, but in many states a criminal record is what bars a person the right to vote. This is completely unfair, as it is the basic idea behind the entire judicial system that once a man has done his time, he has paid his debt to the public and gets another chance.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And you know what? I'm sure pot smokers would love to see themselves compared to convicted murderers and rapists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where have you been? We've been compared to murderers by the anti-drug coalitions for as long as a movement for legalization has been around.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 24 2004, 12:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 24 2004, 12:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Breaking said laws are a sign of irresponsibility - be it breaking it by drinking under age, by drinking and driving, by having relations with animals, by smoking cigaretts underage, or by smoking illegal drugs. By doing so, you are showing irresponsibility.
Breaking laws is not responsible behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Drinking and driving is irresponsible because driving while inebriated is liable to get yourself and (more importantly) someone else killed. Getting down and dirty with your pet shows irresponsibility, since it's not very likely that it'll be a willing partner, and so you can't be trusted with it; you're not acting in its best interests, to say the least. Selling booze and cigs to an underage kid is irresponsible.
Drinking or smoking cigerretes/cannabis per se is not irresponsible. It is if you crash into someone on a high <i>because of the high</i> (for example), but if you're doing it for youself, it's just illegal.
Having a spliff on a Sunday afternoon is not irresponsible. No-one else is being harmed, most likely. I very much doubt that if cannabis was made legal that it wouldn't be subject to law. There'd still be a minimum age, probably a don't drive-on-high law, limited to smoking bars/rooms etc.
<!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+Sep 25 2004, 03:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ Sep 25 2004, 03:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It seems you are not familiar with the voting system of your own country. It is true that convicted felons do not retain the right to vote, but in many states a criminal record is what bars a person the right to vote. This is completely unfair, as it is the basic idea behind the entire judicial system that once a man has done his time, he has paid his debt to the public and gets another chance. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> um...
a criminal record... of <i>being a convicted felon</i>. i am familiar enough with the law, thanks.
<!--QuoteBegin-Wheeee+Sep 25 2004, 11:47 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Wheeee @ Sep 25 2004, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> a criminal record... of <i>being a convicted felon</i>. i am familiar enough with the law, thanks. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 14th Amendment permits states to deny the vote "for participation in rebellion, or other crime." And it can be argued that prisoners should not vote; after all, the purpose of prison is to deny freedom. But with ex-cons, the argument shifts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ex-Con != Con.
Let me reiterate. The judicial system is there for just punishment, not revenge. Having a criminal record is no reason to be derived of the power to vote. Being in prison is.
To quote the article I posted: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 14th Amendment permits states to deny the vote "for participation in rebellion, or other crime." And it can be argued that prisoners should not vote; after all, the purpose of prison is to deny freedom. But with ex-cons, the argument shifts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Sep 24 2004, 04:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 24 2004, 04:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...dpost&p=1247865' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...dpost&p=1247865</a> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The nature of pot however isn't inherently violent. And theres plenty of reasons Vegas has such a crime rate - which are only an indirect result of their gambling laws (or lack thereof). Or the nature of gambling for that matter.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Frankenstein+Sep 25 2004, 11:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Frankenstein @ Sep 25 2004, 11:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Smoking pot is the wrong thing to do, and every one of you know that. Its funny what ppl will say to get what they want isn't it??? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not true whatsoever, and making useless contributions of this form is a good way to get yourself restricted from the discussion forums.
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Sep 25 2004, 11:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 25 2004, 11:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The day Marijuana is legalized in America is the day Satan asks to borrow my ice skates. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> And this is relevant for this particular discussion how, may I ask?
<!--QuoteBegin-Scinet+Sep 26 2004, 02:53 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Scinet @ Sep 26 2004, 02:53 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+Sep 25 2004, 11:38 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (DarkATi @ Sep 25 2004, 11:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The day Marijuana is legalized in America is the day Satan asks to borrow my ice skates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And this is relevant for this particular discussion how, may I ask? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> It ain't gonna happen, is what I meant. In my opinion of course, I don't believe Marijuana will be legalized, ar least not any time soon anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin-Forlorn+Sep 24 2004, 11:14 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Forlorn @ Sep 24 2004, 11:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><a href='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=81102&view=findpost&p=1247865' target='_blank'>http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/in...dpost&p=1247865</a><!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't agree, Forlorn. Being illegal is what causes much of the drug-related crime. Take alcohol: Alcohol is fairly inexpensive, and is not illegal to buy. Crime is only connected to the USE of alcohol, not acquiring it. I said legalization would lead to a DECREASE in drug-related crime, as the drugs would be legal to buy and cheaper as well, thus not forcing you into crime to pay for 'em. The prohibition in American lead to a marked increase in crime as the underworld busied itself with distilling booze. I'm certain that legalizing for instance marijuana would lead to a decrease in marijuana-related crime.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Sep 26 2004, 08:36 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Sep 26 2004, 08:36 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm certain that legalizing for instance marijuana would lead to a decrease in marijuana-related crime. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, this statement makes as much sense as "I'm certain that legalizing for instance murder would lead to a decrease in murder-related crime."
He means that indirect crime linked to cannabis use would go down. However, I would have thought that wouldn't apply as much to cannabis as it would do to higher-class drugs such as heroin.
I see slight differences between drug use and murder. Both are punishable by law, but that's where the likeness ends. Murder is a crime in itself, rightfully so. But you can commit a murder without committing any other crime. The gun I shot my neighbour with? Legally purchased. The knife I stabbed my sister with? Kitchen knife, normally used for cutting vegetables with. Then there's the broken bottle with jagged edges, the rat poison, the axe in my garden shed... at least bodies make good fertilizer. No, the problems arose when my supply of cocaine ran out. You see, I'd been fired long ago, of course. Maybe it was because I told my boss I wanted to snort a line off his bare a... Well, nevermind. Either way, my cocaine had run out, and so had my funds. No matter, my neighbour was dead, and I knew that his widow was staying with her sister. So I broke a window and stole their TV. And that's why the cops busted me. Oh well, I'll be fine as long as they don't start digging in my garden...
Drugs are hideously expensive because of the risks involved in trafficking them, and because the drug czars know they can charge their desperate customers anything they want. Legalization would make the trafficking riskless, would encourage free competition, would severely reduce the prices of drugs. I wouldn't have had to steal my neighbour's television. Get what I'm saying?
And yes, I'm aware of the problems inherent in highly addictive drugs being legal. I'm not calling for anything. I'm just saying it would have a positive effect on crime rates. At least in the short run.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Drugs are hideously expensive because of the risks involved in trafficking them, and because the drug czars know they can charge their desperate customers anything they want. Legalization would make the trafficking riskless, would encourage free competition, would severely reduce the prices of drugs. I wouldn't have had to steal my neighbour's television. Get what I'm saying?
And yes, I'm aware of the problems inherent in highly addictive drugs being legal. I'm not calling for anything. I'm just saying it would have a positive effect on crime rates. At least in the short run.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait wait wait, desperate customers? I thought everyone smoking the wacky tobaccy was just doing it to relax, not because they were addicted, not because they desperately need it.
The fact that they are willing to flaunt the law, risking fines and police wrath to sustain their habit/practise goes a long way to convincing me there is a lot more to marijuana than just a recreational puff on the weekend.
Combine that with multiple bad experiences and ruined lives that I've observed, and I'll hate the leaf till the day I die.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited September 2004
<!--QuoteBegin-Marine01+Sep 27 2004, 06:48 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine01 @ Sep 27 2004, 06:48 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Wait wait wait, desperate customers? I thought everyone smoking the wacky tobaccy was just doing it to relax, not because they were addicted, not because they desperately need it.
The fact that they are willing to flaunt the law, risking fines and police wrath to sustain their habit/practise goes a long way to convincing me there is a lot more to marijuana than just a recreational puff on the weekend.
Combine that with multiple bad experiences and ruined lives that I've observed, and I'll hate the leaf till the day I die. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Way to go, out of context quoting. He was talking about cocaine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The fact that they are willing to flaunt the law, risking fines and police wrath to sustain their habit/practise goes a long way to convincing me there is a lot more to marijuana than just a recreational puff on the weekend. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you going to start contending that <i>speeding</i> is chemically addictive? Most people don't give a **** about the law as an institution. They ignore the laws they don't think are necessary, and try not to get caught.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Combine that with multiple bad experiences and ruined lives that I've observed, and I'll hate the leaf till the day I die. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Most of my highschool smoked pot, and it didn't prevent anyone from going to prestigous colleges and making something of their lives. There were people who didn't go anywhere, as there always are, but excessive marijuana use was a symptom, and not the cause. I don't know anything about the situations you are describing, but its sounding like for you marijuana is a scapegoat these people's failings, which I suspect would have existed with or without marijuana. In our culture, it is very easy to entertain yourself without doing anything productive whatsoever, and as a result, some people never do anything productive.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Sep 27 2004, 04:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Sep 27 2004, 04:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I see slight differences between drug use and murder. Both are punishable by law, but that's where the likeness ends. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just because you see the difference, doesn't mean there is a difference.
The point is, and the point I'm still trying to make is that laws are there to ban morally irreprehensible crimes. Again, if we think they are fine <b>morally</b>, then we will not make it illegal.
This is why we punish murder, because we do not find it good morally.
The same goes for mary jane. So really, saying legalizing mary jane is going to lower mary jane related crimes makes about as much sense as legalizing murder and saying it's gonna lower murder related crimes.
In other words: Your argument doesn't work. Laws are subective to our morals. Therefore, if you are going to argue to legalize something, you do not do it on a rational sense but an emotional and irrational one.
Because if I can rationalize murder through legaliztion then you obviously do not want to rationalize cannabis through legalization.
The majority of laws are there to protect people from those who would do them harm, intentionally or otherwise. They are not a moral code. You cannot convince me that legalising murder is fine, since there is a victim. If I wanted to murder you, you would most likely find it inconvenient. You cannot convince me that speeding is fine, since there is a good chance of someone being a victim. If I speed, and I drive into your car at a hundred and ten miles per hour, you're a victim. If we're sitting in the non-smoking section of a restaurant together, and I'm breathing smoke into your face while having a cig, you're a victim.
If I'm having a joint in my living room, who is the victim? It's as harmless as having a cig or a shot of vodka.
The victim is all the families being bullied by drug lords, the drug trafficers, society as a whole, me (my taxes) - those who died from "drug related deaths" - lotta victims.
*found another recent victim*
BLANTYRE, Malawi (Reuters) - A Malawian man believed to be high on marijuana beheaded two women with an axe Friday, police in the southern African country said.
The man, in his mid-20s, beheaded a 52-year-old woman while she worked in her garden with her daughter and did the same to a 68-year-old friend who came to the daughter's aid, police spokesman Kelvin Maigwa told Reuters.
"The unsuspecting woman greeted the stranger who, instead, threw the axe at her, aiming at the chest," Maigwa said.
He said police found marijuana, or hemp, when they searched the suspect's home.
"The house was full of stench from recently smoked hemp. We believe he had an overdose of the hemp that made him go berserk," Maigwa said, adding that the walls of the house bore quotations from famous reggae songs.
Police have launched a manhunt for the killer, who fled into the bush after the attacks.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 27 2004, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 27 2004, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The victim is all the families being bullied by drug lords, the drug trafficers, society as a whole, me (my taxes) - those who died from "drug related deaths" - lotta victims. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Most of those things listed aren't victims of cannabis, but are a result of cannabis being illegal or human nature.
- The black market would be crushed if they were undercut by legal sources.
- I'm not sure why drug trafficers are victims at the moment; could you elaborate, please?
- "Society as a whole" does not suffer, since those who use it intelligently (i.e. don't binge-high) benefit and those who don't are likely to destroy themselves regardless; they decided to take cannabis.
- I think Scinet's already covered taxes (you're already paying for it etc. as well as the fact that cannabis would be subject to tax).
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Sep 27 2004, 10:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Sep 27 2004, 10:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The majority of laws are there to protect people from those who would do them harm, intentionally or otherwise. They are not a moral code. You cannot convince me that legalising murder is fine, since there is a victim. If I wanted to murder you, you would most likely find it inconvenient. You cannot convince me that speeding is fine, since there is a good chance of someone being a victim. If I speed, and I drive into your car at a hundred and ten miles per hour, you're a victim. If we're sitting in the non-smoking section of a restaurant together, and I'm breathing smoke into your face while having a cig, you're a victim.
If I'm having a joint in my living room, who is the victim? It's as harmless as having a cig or a shot of vodka. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Well you could argue that laws don't exist for the sole purpose of keeping people from getting hurt in some fashion or another. There are plenty of stupid crazy laws still around which are around that undoubtedly are never broken. "Not allowed to tie a Giraffe to a light post" sorts of things.
I'll agree with you one one thing. If laws were ever meant to represent moral code, it has long since disappeared. It was probably originally set up around to uphold moral code, but disappeared into the realm of politics and adding loopholes and more laws to compensate for those loopholes etc. etc.
The reason there is a law against smoking marijuana for me is far from definite. Seems to me somewhat to a more accepted "prohibition" like in the 1920s. The problem in the 1920s was not the alcohol, but the illegal atmosphere that quickly engulfed any association with alcohol. LIKEWISE WITH MARIJUANA.
If there is a problem, it is the fact that drug dealers are making a hell of a lot of money because THEY are the only ones that can pull off an across-the-border smuggling of marijuana, hence they monopolize. If it were legal, there would be no monopoly, and all the mafia crap that comes along with marijuana would quickly be thrown out the window.
I still have a problem with accepting that a pot-head smoking marijuana is the side effect, not the cause of his tendencies. The human brain is a marvelous and strange instrument, and if the brain receives overwhelming pleasure sensations, regardless of moral consequence, it will want more. You see this with fat kids wanting more sugar, or people with half their jaw missing because of cancer that still want to smoke. For some people, the preciseness of the problem is that the impulse to have more is stronger than their will to do what it is right. I have never smoked, but as far as I know, I might be one of those people. So if I am allowed to smoke, I might inexorably end up as a pothead for example. Therefore, I believe marijuana causes potheads, not the other way around.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe_Muffassa+Sep 27 2004, 10:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe_Muffassa @ Sep 27 2004, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The victim is all the families being bullied by drug lords, the drug trafficers, society as a whole, me (my taxes) - those who died from "drug related deaths" - lotta victims.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> If I grow my own bush, there is no victim (besides the bush that I am insensitively cutting down to provide me with recreational fun, how insensitive of me). And believe me, if I could have grown my own without having to fear the authority's retribution for the last eight years, I would have done so, and in that way I would have not given a single penny to a drug dealer.
The point is that all the actions and consequences of international drug trade organizations are mostly results of it being an unlawful trade. The same was for alcohol during the american prohibition. Gangsters profited well from running booze from Canada to the US and violence was ever persisitent in that business. Remember that a not-so-bright, scarfaced mobster named Capone held basically an entire city in fear with the money (and resulting power) garnered by selling goods that were prohibited by the government but had a huge public demand anyway.
The same goes for the hard drugs now. Cannabis (whether raw or processed as in hashish) is a low profit drug, it's proceeds not comparing favourably even with smuggled cigarettes these days. Those that link cannabis to the drug trade know precious little about the economics of the business. The profit in drug trade is in high price, fast turnover, and heavy addiction. This rules out cannabis, mescaline, khat and LSD. All of them are still sold on the street, because they have their user base, but for example, a heavy LSD user is a rarity, simply because one cannot do even the most basic functions like go buy a carton of milk from the shop when the rush takes over. Ecstacy differs from the above in that it has huge demand and is easy to produce without extensive gear. It can also be produced on-site and needs not necessarily be smuggled.
The high profit ones are heroin, amphetamines (and their substitutes) and cocaine. These are highly addictive and costly, making them the ideal product with which to extract profits that are unbeforeseen except in illegal arms trade. For most people making their income from selling illegal drugs the cash comes from the three abovementioned substances. The other stuff is just sold on the side. In Finland it is usually not a good idea to buy hashis from people who mostly deal in amphetamines (which are way more used than heroin or cocaine here), because the quality is appalling. Those few who deal exclusively in cannabis-related products usually have higher grade merchandise, simply because they have an interest in the quality itself. For the bigger dealers and speed abusers cannabis is just something to pass time with while loading the syringe again.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still have a problem with accepting that a pot-head smoking marijuana is the side effect, not the cause of his tendencies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> While I wholeheartedly agree with people having trouble controlling their impulses - a problem that affects most of our society - usually overuse of intoxicants, whatever their brand may be, signifies other trouble. Usually even alcoholism is the result of something entirely else than simply liking the drink. For some it may be job stress, for others relationships gone bad, and for some it may be simply that they have nothing else to do even if they might want to.
<!--QuoteBegin-Snidely+Sep 27 2004, 10:27 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Snidely @ Sep 27 2004, 10:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The majority of laws are there to protect people from those who would do them harm, intentionally or otherwise. They are not a moral code. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, yes it is a moral code because if we all though murder was morally acceptable it wouldn't be a law.
There really is nothing to debate here. Victim's are all about morals.
Comments
@moultano: As has been mentioned, the civil rights movement and marijuana legalization are *far* different issues. And police state? give me a break. That's what the right to bear arms is for. Breaking the law isn't a good thing when it's merely for personal pleasure. [sweeping generalization] It's probably easier for the government to create a police state when everyone is toked up anyway. [/sweeping generalization]
anyway, civil disobedience doesn't really have an effect unless a lot of people are doing it at the same time. So basically you're just being arrested for nothing. Show me how challenging the law in court is inferior to civil disobedience, and I'll conceed the point.
I'm making the case that breaking the law isn't inherently immoral. The case I'm making at the moment has nothing to do with marijuana. You guys are contending that something being illegal makes it less moral, regardless of the action, and I'm arguing that the legal status of an act has no bearing on its morality.
Once that's established, it can no longer be applied to marijuana, but that's not what I'm arguing at the moment.
@moultano: As has been mentioned, the civil rights movement and marijuana legalization are *far* different issues. And police state? give me a break. That's what the right to bear arms is for. Breaking the law isn't a good thing when it's merely for personal pleasure. [sweeping generalization] It's probably easier for the government to create a police state when everyone is toked up anyway. [/sweeping generalization]
anyway, civil disobedience doesn't really have an effect unless a lot of people are doing it at the same time. So basically you're just being arrested for nothing. Show me how challenging the law in court is inferior to civil disobedience, and I'll conceed the point. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Only protections? Earlier you claimed protections and freedoms. I'll forgive you for that.
I feel like bringing you down a couple more pegs. Civil disobedience inevitably requires a wide people's movement, but at first it takes one person to get rolling. Refer to Ghandi, Rosa Parks, et al. These individuals were disenfranchised by the government in power and legal avenues to change the system were ineffective because of systemmic partisan beliefs or a lack of political will. Placing complete faith in the political process is naivety with a capital N, and desertion of the spirit of democracy. "By the people, for the people", as opposed to "by corrupt politicians, for big business".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->These individuals were disenfranchised by the government in power and legal avenues to change the system were ineffective because of systemmic partisan beliefs or a lack of political will. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
excuse me? Pot smokers are hardly "disenfranchised"
thanks.
i feel so sorry for them, man. i really do, i mean we're being so *utterly unfair* to them.
And you know what? I'm sure pot smokers would love to see themselves compared to convicted murderers and rapists.
[/sarcasm]
i feel so sorry for them, man. i really do, i mean we're being so *utterly unfair* to them.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It seems you are not familiar with the voting system of your own country. It is true that convicted felons do not retain the right to vote, but in many states a criminal record is what bars a person the right to vote. This is completely unfair, as it is the basic idea behind the entire judicial system that once a man has done his time, he has paid his debt to the public and gets another chance.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html' target='_blank'>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Aug17.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And you know what? I'm sure pot smokers would love to see themselves compared to convicted murderers and rapists.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where have you been? We've been compared to murderers by the anti-drug coalitions for as long as a movement for legalization has been around.
Breaking laws is not responsible behavior. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Drinking and driving is irresponsible because driving while inebriated is liable to get yourself and (more importantly) someone else killed. Getting down and dirty with your pet shows irresponsibility, since it's not very likely that it'll be a willing partner, and so you can't be trusted with it; you're not acting in its best interests, to say the least. Selling booze and cigs to an underage kid is irresponsible.
Drinking or smoking cigerretes/cannabis per se is not irresponsible. It is if you crash into someone on a high <i>because of the high</i> (for example), but if you're doing it for youself, it's just illegal.
Having a spliff on a Sunday afternoon is not irresponsible. No-one else is being harmed, most likely. I very much doubt that if cannabis was made legal that it wouldn't be subject to law. There'd still be a minimum age, probably a don't drive-on-high law, limited to smoking bars/rooms etc.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
um...
a criminal record... of <i>being a convicted felon</i>. i am familiar enough with the law, thanks.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 14th Amendment permits states to deny the vote "for participation in rebellion, or other crime." And it can be argued that prisoners should not vote; after all, the purpose of prison is to deny freedom. But with ex-cons, the argument shifts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
ex-Con != Con.
Let me reiterate. The judicial system is there for just punishment, not revenge. Having a criminal record is no reason to be derived of the power to vote. Being in prison is.
To quote the article I posted:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The 14th Amendment permits states to deny the vote "for participation in rebellion, or other crime." And it can be argued that prisoners should not vote; after all, the purpose of prison is to deny freedom. But with ex-cons, the argument shifts.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The nature of pot however isn't inherently violent. And theres plenty of reasons Vegas has such a crime rate - which are only an indirect result of their gambling laws (or lack thereof). Or the nature of gambling for that matter.
~ DarkATi
That's not true whatsoever, and making useless contributions of this form is a good way to get yourself restricted from the discussion forums.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is relevant for this particular discussion how, may I ask?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And this is relevant for this particular discussion how, may I ask? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
It ain't gonna happen, is what I meant. In my opinion of course, I don't believe Marijuana will be legalized, ar least not any time soon anyway.
~ DarkATi
I don't agree, Forlorn. Being illegal is what causes much of the drug-related crime. Take alcohol: Alcohol is fairly inexpensive, and is not illegal to buy. Crime is only connected to the USE of alcohol, not acquiring it. I said legalization would lead to a DECREASE in drug-related crime, as the drugs would be legal to buy and cheaper as well, thus not forcing you into crime to pay for 'em. The prohibition in American lead to a marked increase in crime as the underworld busied itself with distilling booze. I'm certain that legalizing for instance marijuana would lead to a decrease in marijuana-related crime.
Again, this statement makes as much sense as "I'm certain that legalizing for instance murder would lead to a decrease in murder-related crime."
You can lower any crime by leagalizing it.
Murder is a crime in itself, rightfully so. But you can commit a murder without committing any other crime. The gun I shot my neighbour with? Legally purchased. The knife I stabbed my sister with? Kitchen knife, normally used for cutting vegetables with. Then there's the broken bottle with jagged edges, the rat poison, the axe in my garden shed... at least bodies make good fertilizer.
No, the problems arose when my supply of cocaine ran out. You see, I'd been fired long ago, of course. Maybe it was because I told my boss I wanted to snort a line off his bare a... Well, nevermind. Either way, my cocaine had run out, and so had my funds. No matter, my neighbour was dead, and I knew that his widow was staying with her sister. So I broke a window and stole their TV. And that's why the cops busted me. Oh well, I'll be fine as long as they don't start digging in my garden...
Drugs are hideously expensive because of the risks involved in trafficking them, and because the drug czars know they can charge their desperate customers anything they want. Legalization would make the trafficking riskless, would encourage free competition, would severely reduce the prices of drugs. I wouldn't have had to steal my neighbour's television. Get what I'm saying?
And yes, I'm aware of the problems inherent in highly addictive drugs being legal. I'm not calling for anything. I'm just saying it would have a positive effect on crime rates. At least in the short run.
And yes, I'm aware of the problems inherent in highly addictive drugs being legal. I'm not calling for anything. I'm just saying it would have a positive effect on crime rates. At least in the short run.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Wait wait wait, desperate customers? I thought everyone smoking the wacky tobaccy was just doing it to relax, not because they were addicted, not because they desperately need it.
The fact that they are willing to flaunt the law, risking fines and police wrath to sustain their habit/practise goes a long way to convincing me there is a lot more to marijuana than just a recreational puff on the weekend.
Combine that with multiple bad experiences and ruined lives that I've observed, and I'll hate the leaf till the day I die.
The fact that they are willing to flaunt the law, risking fines and police wrath to sustain their habit/practise goes a long way to convincing me there is a lot more to marijuana than just a recreational puff on the weekend.
Combine that with multiple bad experiences and ruined lives that I've observed, and I'll hate the leaf till the day I die. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Way to go, out of context quoting. He was talking about cocaine.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The fact that they are willing to flaunt the law, risking fines and police wrath to sustain their habit/practise goes a long way to convincing me there is a lot more to marijuana than just a recreational puff on the weekend.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you going to start contending that <i>speeding</i> is chemically addictive? Most people don't give a **** about the law as an institution. They ignore the laws they don't think are necessary, and try not to get caught.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Combine that with multiple bad experiences and ruined lives that I've observed, and I'll hate the leaf till the day I die. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most of my highschool smoked pot, and it didn't prevent anyone from going to prestigous colleges and making something of their lives. There were people who didn't go anywhere, as there always are, but excessive marijuana use was a symptom, and not the cause. I don't know anything about the situations you are describing, but its sounding like for you marijuana is a scapegoat these people's failings, which I suspect would have existed with or without marijuana. In our culture, it is very easy to entertain yourself without doing anything productive whatsoever, and as a result, some people never do anything productive.
Just because you see the difference, doesn't mean there is a difference.
The point is, and the point I'm still trying to make is that laws are there to ban morally irreprehensible crimes. Again, if we think they are fine <b>morally</b>, then we will not make it illegal.
This is why we punish murder, because we do not find it good morally.
The same goes for mary jane. So really, saying legalizing mary jane is going to lower mary jane related crimes makes about as much sense as legalizing murder and saying it's gonna lower murder related crimes.
In other words: Your argument doesn't work. Laws are subective to our morals. Therefore, if you are going to argue to legalize something, you do not do it on a rational sense but an emotional and irrational one.
Because if I can rationalize murder through legaliztion then you obviously do not want to rationalize cannabis through legalization.
If I'm having a joint in my living room, who is the victim? It's as harmless as having a cig or a shot of vodka.
*found another recent victim*
BLANTYRE, Malawi (Reuters) - A Malawian man believed to be high on marijuana beheaded two women with an axe Friday, police in the southern African country said.
The man, in his mid-20s, beheaded a 52-year-old woman while she worked in her garden with her daughter and did the same to a 68-year-old friend who came to the daughter's aid, police spokesman Kelvin Maigwa told Reuters.
"The unsuspecting woman greeted the stranger who, instead, threw the axe at her, aiming at the chest," Maigwa said.
He said police found marijuana, or hemp, when they searched the suspect's home.
"The house was full of stench from recently smoked hemp. We believe he had an overdose of the hemp that made him go berserk," Maigwa said, adding that the walls of the house bore quotations from famous reggae songs.
Police have launched a manhunt for the killer, who fled into the bush after the attacks.
Most of those things listed aren't victims of cannabis, but are a result of cannabis being illegal or human nature.
- The black market would be crushed if they were undercut by legal sources.
- I'm not sure why drug trafficers are victims at the moment; could you elaborate, please?
- "Society as a whole" does not suffer, since those who use it intelligently (i.e. don't binge-high) benefit and those who don't are likely to destroy themselves regardless; they decided to take cannabis.
- I think Scinet's already covered taxes (you're already paying for it etc. as well as the fact that cannabis would be subject to tax).
- This is a combination of issues one and three.
If I'm having a joint in my living room, who is the victim? It's as harmless as having a cig or a shot of vodka. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you could argue that laws don't exist for the sole purpose of keeping people from getting hurt in some fashion or another. There are plenty of stupid crazy laws still around which are around that undoubtedly are never broken. "Not allowed to tie a Giraffe to a light post" sorts of things.
I'll agree with you one one thing. If laws were ever meant to represent moral code, it has long since disappeared. It was probably originally set up around to uphold moral code, but disappeared into the realm of politics and adding loopholes and more laws to compensate for those loopholes etc. etc.
The reason there is a law against smoking marijuana for me is far from definite. Seems to me somewhat to a more accepted "prohibition" like in the 1920s. The problem in the 1920s was not the alcohol, but the illegal atmosphere that quickly engulfed any association with alcohol. LIKEWISE WITH MARIJUANA.
If there is a problem, it is the fact that drug dealers are making a hell of a lot of money because THEY are the only ones that can pull off an across-the-border smuggling of marijuana, hence they monopolize. If it were legal, there would be no monopoly, and all the mafia crap that comes along with marijuana would quickly be thrown out the window.
I still have a problem with accepting that a pot-head smoking marijuana is the side effect, not the cause of his tendencies. The human brain is a marvelous and strange instrument, and if the brain receives overwhelming pleasure sensations, regardless of moral consequence, it will want more. You see this with fat kids wanting more sugar, or people with half their jaw missing because of cancer that still want to smoke. For some people, the preciseness of the problem is that the impulse to have more is stronger than their will to do what it is right. I have never smoked, but as far as I know, I might be one of those people. So if I am allowed to smoke, I might inexorably end up as a pothead for example. Therefore, I believe marijuana causes potheads, not the other way around.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
If I grow my own bush, there is no victim (besides the bush that I am insensitively cutting down to provide me with recreational fun, how insensitive of me). And believe me, if I could have grown my own without having to fear the authority's retribution for the last eight years, I would have done so, and in that way I would have not given a single penny to a drug dealer.
The point is that all the actions and consequences of international drug trade organizations are mostly results of it being an unlawful trade. The same was for alcohol during the american prohibition. Gangsters profited well from running booze from Canada to the US and violence was ever persisitent in that business. Remember that a not-so-bright, scarfaced mobster named Capone held basically an entire city in fear with the money (and resulting power) garnered by selling goods that were prohibited by the government but had a huge public demand anyway.
The same goes for the hard drugs now. Cannabis (whether raw or processed as in hashish) is a low profit drug, it's proceeds not comparing favourably even with smuggled cigarettes these days. Those that link cannabis to the drug trade know precious little about the economics of the business. The profit in drug trade is in high price, fast turnover, and heavy addiction. This rules out cannabis, mescaline, khat and LSD. All of them are still sold on the street, because they have their user base, but for example, a heavy LSD user is a rarity, simply because one cannot do even the most basic functions like go buy a carton of milk from the shop when the rush takes over. Ecstacy differs from the above in that it has huge demand and is easy to produce without extensive gear. It can also be produced on-site and needs not necessarily be smuggled.
The high profit ones are heroin, amphetamines (and their substitutes) and cocaine. These are highly addictive and costly, making them the ideal product with which to extract profits that are unbeforeseen except in illegal arms trade. For most people making their income from selling illegal drugs the cash comes from the three abovementioned substances. The other stuff is just sold on the side. In Finland it is usually not a good idea to buy hashis from people who mostly deal in amphetamines (which are way more used than heroin or cocaine here), because the quality is appalling. Those few who deal exclusively in cannabis-related products usually have higher grade merchandise, simply because they have an interest in the quality itself. For the bigger dealers and speed abusers cannabis is just something to pass time with while loading the syringe again.
<!--QuoteBegin-Hawkeye+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Hawkeye)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I still have a problem with accepting that a pot-head smoking marijuana is the side effect, not the cause of his tendencies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While I wholeheartedly agree with people having trouble controlling their impulses - a problem that affects most of our society - usually overuse of intoxicants, whatever their brand may be, signifies other trouble. Usually even alcoholism is the result of something entirely else than simply liking the drink. For some it may be job stress, for others relationships gone bad, and for some it may be simply that they have nothing else to do even if they might want to.
Yes, yes it is a moral code because if we all though murder was morally acceptable it wouldn't be a law.
There really is nothing to debate here. Victim's are all about morals.