Marijuana
- Thread starter Dragon
- Start date
But it's not really a good point. Plenty of activities have side effects that endanger others. By the same logic, we should ban driving, people with lower income from having dependent, owning guns and other risky activities. It's just invalid. It doesn't suddenly become legal to do things that actually are illegal and actually ARE infringing upon others personal freedoms if you're high. It's just illogical to ban drugs for the side effect you actually don't like.
we ban driving for those who have no knowledge of it, require many documented (and by virtue, many undocumented) hours of driving, people are exposed to it their whole life. however, the first time you get high, it's new. you (may) have nobody there at some point when you're high.
i could see alcohol and marijuana being legal, but controlled. such as, you have to go through classes or something, like driving, and guns, and skydiving, and other risky activities.
i could see alcohol and marijuana being legal, but controlled. such as, you have to go through classes or something, like driving, and guns, and skydiving, and other risky activities.
What about stoves? What about the risk of a relaxing hot bath? How should we handle the risk of electrocution from the home? Do we ensure people know they must throw away frayed wired? How about lawnmowers? You could easily cut off a limb using one, yet they are in schools, homes and so on, and are buyable without any license. They're all considerable, and could easily kill you, and have absolutely no forced mechanism to make sure you don't hurt yourself with them. We don't get hurt or hurt others with them generally, because we're not idiots, and they are a part of our lives, and no one's afraid to talk about the danger.
Looking at the replies, it seems like this thread has turned into a discussion of the "nanny state" and when the government is crossing the line. Ultimately, it is a judgment call on the part of legislators. I believe the government has the right to regulate any substances or practices which are considered a public health risk. How do we know what's a PH risk? Again, that's up to the government to decide, but we should take into account studies, epidemiologic data, research, etc. Right now, there is no substantive evidence regarding the dangers of marijuana, and I believe the bans on pot are more socially constructed. The same cannot be said about drugs like meth, which have some very clear dangers.
Except it's clearly not. The intent isn't to make public health better. It's to gain political points on whatever the arbitrary issue of the day is. It's not up to the government to decide my unhealthy decisions, and is no where clearly defined as a constitutional function of the government. It's easily debatable whether it's the government's place in the first place, without a constitutional amendment.
I agree with you about how politically motivated these regulations are, and many of them are influenced by heavy lobbying. However, these regulations on harder substances do serve a purpose. Drug use is more than just a "decision" on the part of the individual; when you look at statistics of hard drug use divided by race, income, location, etc., it becomes evident that there are multiple socioeconomic factors and pressures that drive these decisions.
That being said, I do think that drugs should be decriminalized but still remain illegal and heavily regulated - instead of throwing users of illicit substances in jail, we should be offering treatment and support to address the cause of the addiction. Portugal in particular has done this. The "War on Drugs" in the U.S., on the other hand, is a complete and expensive mess that unfairly targets certain racial and ethnic groups, costs the taxpayers money, and overburdens our criminal justice system.
Going back to weed, though, I support full legalization and regulation only in terms of things like age and quality (such as making sure it's not grown with dangerous pesticides, etc.).
That being said, I do think that drugs should be decriminalized but still remain illegal and heavily regulated - instead of throwing users of illicit substances in jail, we should be offering treatment and support to address the cause of the addiction. Portugal in particular has done this. The "War on Drugs" in the U.S., on the other hand, is a complete and expensive mess that unfairly targets certain racial and ethnic groups, costs the taxpayers money, and overburdens our criminal justice system.
Going back to weed, though, I support full legalization and regulation only in terms of things like age and quality (such as making sure it's not grown with dangerous pesticides, etc.).