Should marijuana be legalized?

[Anonymouse]

Re: Re: Should marijuana be legalized?

Originally posted by jahannam Tigran...
let Anon and the like say whatever they want.
you take a tylenol pill, 2-3-4 pills, nothing happens.
you smoke a pack of cigarettes , you just stink, that's all that happens.
now you take 4 puffs of marjuana and you're somewhere else... and you stop realizing what you're doing.
we're not taking addiction here. I think that's what anon meant. yes you do get addicted to all of the above.. but the consequences of each one are different.
you can't legalize marjuana. otherwise your boss, your coworker, your mom and dad and your teacher would be high, and you would be able to do NOthing about it.

That should be up to private business. I am assuming wherever you work there are certain rules and laws we follow, especially private places, not government work. You smoke or are caught smoking or high well your job is essentially at stake.

[Anonymouse]

My statement is to all the people who like to use government and politics in here for their belief that they have a right to dictate how other people should live, and what they can or can't smoke, or possess, in their own property. Your actions do not make society any better or utopian. People still continue to smoke weed regardless of its legal status, just like people continued to drink regardless of prohibition on alcohol, and just like people continue to kill regardless of its status as illegal. Government can kill ( war, genocide, bombing, etc. ) thats for sure. It's legal for them. Government can steal ( zoning laws, taxes, eminent domain, etc. ) it's legal for them. Government can be involved in drug trafficking and profiting off of drugs because they are the government. Do you see where these double standards are going?

Of course, believe I lead a moral life, I don't kill anyone, or steal, or cause harm to anyone or their property, I just take the pleasure to occasionally drink alcohol, and smoke weed at parties. What's wrong with that? You don't want to do it fine, don't. Why must you try to use legislation ( government ) to try to tell your neighbors how to live. Essentially that is the whole basis of all socialistic political systems, whether its democracy, or communism, or socialism, or fascism.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by Anonymouse Well obviously it has effects on your body, so does everything else. Breathing L.A. hair has effects on our body Jesus, do you think we are totally exclusive and isolated from our surroundings and what we encounter on earth? The argument goes that weed is far more harmless than alcohol is on your body, and who or what is the government that should say what you can or can't smoke? Cigarettes are far more harmful yet they are legal.

Hmm, I think there is a BIG misunderstanding.
The first part of my post was saying that if people does not know to cope with this drug it may conduce to degenerate situation. This is the case, for instance, for cigarettes. When introduced, it was claimed. Untill almost 1980. Then we saw that it may produce big diseases. Then, it was many campains showing the diseases provocked by cigarettes. For instance, in Brezil, you may see on the cigarets packs, someone dying from cancer at the most advanced ages. This is almost the same in France. I don't know for the US.

This is a kind of education. This is informing campains, showing something related to the health. Now, you choose to do whatever you want, but you have been informed.
This information is made by government since it is under the health care ministry (or whatever it is) in the most of the cases.

We are not comparing the malignancy of a drug-related products, we do not care of that. I'm sure you can get killed by 10000 BigMac. Alcohol being legal, it is the unjustified pretext to for other stuff.

Originally posted by Anonymouse
If I have property, and technically speaking if it is my property, I paid for it, I can do whatever I want in my property. When I go out of my weigh, and tell my neighbors what they should or shouldn't do, then you have politics, which is what 90% of the people are into, such as you, making claims of what the government should or shouldn't do. The government is the last entity on earth that I would want to correct me, since it is the most immoral and hypocritical.

Of course you do whatever you want with your property, in THE ONLY EXTENT that you are the unique person involved within your activity. For instance, we agree on the fact that I take the right to get stoned in the front of TV. But I'll never want someone stoned to drive, since this person has responsibility concerning other people.


I'm not saying what gov must do or I don't know. We are speaking about legalization. That means that it is the government who chooses to provide the right to people to smoke. If it provides this right, the matter is not to write some lines "People is allowed to get stoned" in a law-book, it need a whole organisation to sustain this right. The education/information stuff is part of this organisation.


I don't know for US gov, of course many things may fall into criticism. However, I think this organisation necessarly costs to gov, even if it may generate profits. It works certainly with the income tax, or another tax. In this extent, gov does care what you are doing to make the more profit of your taxes.

making claims of what the government should or shouldn't do

I'm not doing that. I don't care, I smoke when I want. I was just saying that legalization is not so easy. It has nothing to do with the opinion one may have concerning his government.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by Anonymouse My statement is to all the people who like to use government and politics in here for their belief that they have a right to dictate how other people should live, and what they can or can't smoke, or possess, in their own property. Your actions do not make society any better or utopian. People still continue to smoke weed regardless of its legal status, just like people continued to drink regardless of prohibition on alcohol, and just like people continue to kill regardless of its status as illegal. Government can kill ( war, genocide, bombing, etc. ) thats for sure. It's legal for them. Government can steal ( zoning laws, taxes, eminent domain, etc. ) it's legal for them. Government can be involved in drug trafficking and profiting off of drugs because they are the government. Do you see where these double standards are going?

I completely agree with you. However, I was not criticising the governments (defend or claim or anything)

Originally posted by Anonymouse
Of course, believe I lead a moral life, I don't kill anyone, or steal, or cause harm to anyone or their property, I just take the pleasure to occasionally drink alcohol, and smoke weed at parties. What's wrong with that? You don't want to do it fine, don't. Why must you try to use legislation ( government ) to try to tell your neighbors how to live. Essentially that is the whole basis of all socialistic political systems, whether its democracy, or communism, or socialism, or fascism.

Again I agree. I'm not telling, as a "neighbor" (vertchabes hasketsa ), what you should do in your gov etc etc. I don't care.
I'm starting from the only example I know (Holland), and as other stuff (alcohol, sex, cigarette) it has the complete control on some drugs (distribution, prices, quality...)

I was just stating that there is many things gov should assume if it takes the responsability to legalize weed. It is not a one-hour work.

Now, why not tolerate more, if we cannot obtain legalization ? I think this may weaken the law system, and this is why in France, even if it is tolerated, it is still unlegal and you can be bothered for that. It's under the mecanisms of gov: it should justify its existance.