more than 850,000 Americans were arrested for marijuana in 2010 alone, 88 percent for mere possession.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

How is using marijuana a burden on society? More than alcohol?

jdmd wrote:

Your logic is off. What you're saying means that we should delegalize alcohol, not legalize pot.

we should stop spending money on enforcement and spend it on treatment. We would save a lot of dough. This is what happened in Portugal.

there will always be people who say, "the law is the law". which is true. But there are numerous absurd laws. It is illegal to carry wirecutters in your pocket in Austin TX. Those who do so can be charged. Is this reasonable? It is the law. If you are saying there is room for judgement with resepct to the law, then this applies to MJ laws as well.

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

How is using marijuana a burden on society? More than alcohol?

jdmd wrote:

Your logic is off. What you're saying means that we should delegalize alcohol, not legalize pot.

we should stop spending money on enforcement and spend it on treatment. We would save a lot of dough. This is what happened in Portugal.

there will always be people who say, "the law is the law". which is true. But there are numerous absurd laws. It is illegal to carry wirecutters in your pocket in Austin TX. Those who do so can be charged. Is this reasonable? It is the law. If you are saying there is room for judgement with resepct to the law, then this applies to MJ laws as well.

Are you being dumb on purpose?

1. It's not hard to simply NOT carry wire cutters in your pocket. Why do you need to do this? Does carrying wire cutters in Austin, TX make your life more enjoyable?

2. How do you know that that law is absurd? Perhaps they feel that wire cutters are too dangerous or too many people were using them inappropriately. They are illegal on airplanes, aren't they? Maybe there is actually a rational background for that law. It might actually be reasonable.

3. MJ laws are widely known and violaters are aggressively being charged and punished. Obscure wire cutter laws, I'm guessing, are NOT widely known about nor are violaters being aggressively charged and punished. So, your comparison between MJ and wire cutter laws fails.

Regarding the Portugal thing. I don't know anything about that. But you're switching subjects. First, you were talking about legalizing pot. Now, your talking about keeping it illegal but redistributing the money to treatment instead of jailing?

Without reading more on that subject, those seem like separate issues. Sure, addicted people could be treated, but the others still need to be punished before they develop addictions. You don't want only reactive laws. You need preventive laws also.

jdmd wrote:

Without reading more on that subject, those seem like separate issues. Sure, addicted people could be treated, but the others still need to be punished before they develop addictions. You don't want only reactive laws. You need preventive laws also.

Portugal decriminalised all drugs and instead focused on treatment. Wildly successful.

Why do you need to punish users? Addiction will result regardless of laws - look at alcohol. How does it serve our interests to punish an alcoholic?

Lyndon LaRouche wrote:

jdmd wrote:

Without reading more on that subject, those seem like separate issues. Sure, addicted people could be treated, but the others still need to be punished before they develop addictions. You don't want only reactive laws. You need preventive laws also.

Portugal decriminalised all drugs and instead focused on treatment. Wildly successful.

Why do you need to punish users? Addiction will result regardless of laws - look at alcohol. How does it serve our interests to punish an alcoholic?

I've been deterred from driving buzzed/ drunk due to how alcoholics have been punished. I consider that a service to my (& public) safety. To state otherwise would be arrogant on my part ("I was only a lil' buzzed"). I wish I could say the same was true for the individual whom took the life of my brother who was killed due to drunk driving. Laws exist to protect and serve society.

If you feel MJ laws should be changed so you & yours can get blazed because booze doesn't do it for you, fine. But what is sensical in your mind will not ring true for others who hold (valid) concerns about unleashing another allowance of frivolous, altered state of consciousness, indulgence into our society.

Until the laws change, MJ = Not Good.

If busted, you undoubtedly knew the possible outcome(s).

BTW: Wire cutters DO NOT EQUAL Pot smoking, apples & oranges bra.

Bloombergs Stasi alone most have accounted for 500,000 of them

Those who rely on the "it's illegal" argument sure lack any imagination. Lots of things are illegal. Enforcement is highly selective if there's any enforcement at all.

"No one is putting all those people in jail except for themselves".

You need stop doing whatever it is you have been doing. That has to be one of the dumbest, institutionalized thinking, statements ever made

Not killed by drunk driving wrote:

Wire cutters DO NOT EQUAL Pot smoking, apples & oranges bra.

so you admit to making judgements about laws.

FYI

The real gateway drug - alcohol

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/05/study-the-gateway-drug-is-alcohol-not-marijuana/

People defending marijuana prosecution are missing the point

No one is saying that people currently in the system for marijuana possession are guilt free or the victims of unjust persecution...they knew the law and related consequences, chose to break it, and now must take responsibility for their actions and suffer the consequences they were fully aware of

the question is broader...is spending taxpayer money and scarce resources prosecuting a relatively harmless (at least in comparison to many other things that are perfectly acceptable and celebrated in society...namely alcohol) what we as society should be doing?

Do you want your money (because if you are a productive, adult member of society and thus worthy of an opinion...you pay taxes) spent preventing or punishing people who smoke marijuana, because that is exactly what is happening

In my mind, whatever harmful effects are associated with marijuana use are minimal compared to the costs involved with enforcement and personally I want my money back

Then alcohol and the more dangerous things should be made more illegal, not make weed legal.

And the cost and impact of weed might not be so minimal. I read that 10-25% of fatal car accidents involve weed. Is that really low cost and low impact to you? Assuming those stats are true, then is it really harmless? Then add in the mental instability that weed has been shown to cause.

And regarding your interest in saving money. Alcohol regulation far exceeds the tax revenue that it brings in. So if weed is made legal, it will still cost money and might cost even more than it currently does.

fdsfsda wrote:

Until it's legal, people should be persecuted. Is it a benign drug? Perhaps. But that doesn't matter, because it's illegal. Let me guess: you're the same guy/girl that whines when they get a speeding ticket? "But officuh, I was only going 6 over!!!"

Let me guess. You are all for the nanny state telling you what you can and cannot do.

"Government Dearest, may I please eat an apple? Oh, thank you. Government Dearest, may I please drink a beer? Oh, thank you. Government Dearest, may I please smoke a joint? Oh, thank you. You are such a kind and benevolent Daddy for me. What would I do without you telling me how to treat my own body? How can I ever thank you enough?"

jdmd wrote:

Then alcohol and the more dangerous things should be made more illegal, not make weed legal.

no, the money should be spent on treatment, rather then prohibition and enforcement.

jdmd wrote:

Then alcohol and the more dangerous things should be made more illegal, not make weed legal.

And the cost and impact of weed might not be so minimal. I read that 10-25% of fatal car accidents involve weed. Is that really low cost and low impact to you? Assuming those stats are true, then is it really harmless? Then add in the mental instability that weed has been shown to cause.

And regarding your interest in saving money. Alcohol regulation far exceeds the tax revenue that it brings in. So if weed is made legal, it will still cost money and might cost even more than it currently does.

Thats a judgment call...there is no logical fallacy in saying alcohol should be made illegal

Something should not be made illegal unless it interferes with others abilities to safely and happily live their lives (reasonably)

Between drunk driving, date rape and various other (non-victimless) crimes alcohol definitely fits that description...however, that is never going to happen...society has deemed, and I agree, that the benefit of allowing adults to responsibly enjoy alcohol outweigh the risks involved, and they simply try to minimize those risks with regulation

Weed, which I think most people (without readily available statistics) agree is less or at most as harmful to OTHERS in society as alcohol, receives completely different treatment...which is hypocritical and is persecution of those who enjoy weed in comparison to those who enjoy alcohol

so you're argument is correct, if weed is illegal, alcohol should be too...is that what you are advocating??

I sure as hell dont want that but everyone is entitled to their opinion

Though if that is your opinion I call you short sighted, ignorant, and a bit of a stiff and the treatment over enforcement route is absolutely the way we should go

"so you're argument is correct, if weed is illegal, alcohol should be too...is that what you are advocating??"

Absolutely that's what everyone's advocating. We've gone down that road and it ended very badly. Let's go ahead and treat people like adults and stop the nanny state business.

Think how quaint those old photos from the Prohibition Era look today.. that's what the anti-marijuana laws will be in 20 years.

jdmd wrote:

Or maybe they could just stop smoking pot. What is the big deal? Why do so many people act like they HAVE to smoke pot? Sounds to me like there are 850,000 idiots out there complaining about breaking a major, common law that they knew existed.

Nah, I'd rather not stop. I think I'll light up a bowl as I type this...

You know what the big deal is? This drug, along with many other harmless psychedelics, are mind-opening. If there's another state of mind to be experienced (and it causes absolutely no harm) why not try it? The amount of wisdom and perspective that can be gained from experiencing things this way is pretty substantial.

Of course, it also makes video games more fun, food taste better, jokes funnier, music sound better, it brings people together, and overall there's no harm in any of that. So why not?

For the record, every few months, I quit smoking for a 1-3 month period. The most recent being August 1 - October 15th. Not a single crumb of marijuana. Why? Because everyone says "I could quit when I want" I just like to prove it. I can quit when I want, I just see no reason to, usually. If there's a good enough reason, I'll quit. Until then, you enjoy your life, and I'll enjoy mine (thanks to da herb).

Observation wrote:

Nah, I'd rather not stop. I think I'll light up a bowl as I type this...

For the record, every few months, I quit smoking for a 1-3 month period. The most recent being August 1 - October 15th. Not a single crumb of marijuana. Why? Because everyone says "I could quit when I want" I just like to prove it. I can quit when I want, I just see no reason to, usually. If there's a good enough reason, I'll quit. Until then, you enjoy your life, and I'll enjoy mine (thanks to da herb).

I don't smoke the wacky weed but I did vote for legalization of pot, for a myriad of reasons, some of them listed on this thread.

But, and this is a big Butt, technically you didn't "quit" smoking pot between the period of Aug 1st ~ Oct 15th. You sort of "stopped" smoking weed during that time frame and then presumably lit up again on Oct 16th.

So while I agree with you that recreational pot use should be legalized I don't agree that you've "proved" that you aren't addicted to the altered state of mind that MJ brings. But hey, if it works for you more power to you brah. (Can you tell by my post that I'm a liberal?)

I'm not advocating anything. I'm pretty neutral on the issue, but I don't care for ignorant arguments for or against it. Nor do I care for illogical conclusions. If you have a case, then bring it. But make sure it's based on fact.

Weed prohibition is not hypocritical nor persecuting. Don't exxaggerate.

The fact that alcohol is as harmful as it is would indicate that we don't need even more alcohol out there (aka legal weed). That's seems fairly obvious to me, but maybe it's not. In other words, based in the context of your writings, the people who prefer weed and do not consume alcohol would ADD to the harm and costs in society. You'd be increasing the number of drug users.