Would you vote for recreational marijuana use? Why or Why not?

Anyone who still debates this topic is a pansy. What the debate should be about is legalizing cocaine. Anyone who does not want to legalize cocaine is a pansy.

I would vote for recreational marijuana for a variety of reasons. I am a former drug addict who is sober now, and I never liked pot, so my interest in the drug isn’t one of those.

Reasons for me voting for legalization include that I don’t believe the government should police what you put into your body, the belief that it’s hypocritical to legalize alcohol and not marijuana, and the belief that legalizing drugs will get rid of lots of crime associated with the black market sale of them.

I did vote for it and it passed. I've never used it, but if someone wants to it is fine by me. Primarily, I do not want for my tax dollars to be wasted on prosecuting / incarcerating someone for minor possession offenses.

GoldenMiles wrote:

I would vote for recreational marijuana for a variety of reasons. I am a former drug addict who is sober now, and I never liked pot, so my interest in the drug isn’t one of those.

Reasons for me voting for legalization include that I don’t believe the government should police what you put into your body, the belief that it’s hypocritical to legalize alcohol and not marijuana, and the belief that legalizing drugs will get rid of lots of crime associated with the black market sale of them.

Agree.

Of course I would vote for recreational use. It's NOT a gateway drug. Plus the expense and manpower AND the personal tragedy involved in prosecuting its use is completely vile.

Not Even As wrote:

Of course I would vote for recreational use. It's NOT a gateway drug. Plus the expense and manpower AND the personal tragedy involved in prosecuting its use is completely vile.

For recreation I jog around town. Marijuana smoke leaves tar in your lungs, which weakens them; I use a PowerLung device to strengthen my lungs for running. Anything smoked in public is a gateway drug, because other people breathe it in; secondhand marijuana smoke is the most difficult to control drug delivery system in the country (opposite of what the government says). The stink lingers afterwards, and it doesn't smell good like scented candles. The expense and manpower can be replaced by a fine. Drug dealers aren't owed a living. I am not against ingested marijuana, it tastes like mocha; my east coast supermarket sells it in almond milk.

If cigarettes are legal, weed should be legal. If weed is illegal, cigarettes should be illegal.

It isn't about whether marijuana is good or bad for you. It's about the freedom to control your own body and make your own f*cking decision. The single greatest threat to your health and well-being is a panel of government "experts" empowered to decide what they think is best for you and cram it down your throat against your will.

I voted against it in CA, and partook a few times when it became legal. I'm a 2x a year user at most.

I think you bring up valid points for its criminalization OP.

Legalize it and tax it. Use the money to generously pay teachers who commit to Continuing Education.

I don't agree with the logic the other posters seem fond of, the "my body my choice" and "well if alcohol is legal" arguments are poorly thought out, though effective on pot users and overly sympathetic liberals and libertarians. If it's not good for the culture, it should be banned, and I don't think it is good for the culture.

another millennial wrote:

If it's not good for the culture, it should be banned, and I don't think it is good for the culture.

A lot of things aren’t good for the culture. Smartphones, pornography, fast food, etc. Do we just ban all of those too? I believe in liberty, not the government banning everything and anything it desires.

short shorts and shorties wrote:

another millennial wrote:

If it's not good for the culture, it should be banned, and I don't think it is good for the culture.

A lot of things aren’t good for the culture. Smartphones, pornography, fast food, etc. Do we just ban all of those too? I believe in liberty, not the government banning everything and anything it desires.

me too. that's why i didn't say that the government should ban everything, but maybe they should ban pot.

was it the pot that made you try and generalize a principle?

another millennial wrote:

I don't agree with the logic the other posters seem fond of, the "my body my choice" and "well if alcohol is legal" arguments are poorly thought out, though effective on pot users and overly sympathetic liberals and libertarians. If it's not good for the culture, it should be banned, and I don't think it is good for the culture.

So Fox News and internet Message boards should be banned as well?

The only link I have seen between weed and real drugs is that if we lie to kids about the dangers of weed, then they tend not to believe us about meth and heroin etc.

Work, internet and Pepsi are all more addictive than weed, and probably worse for you.

Meth, heroin, and crack should be illegal because they often remove the ability of the user to choose whether they want to use and have extremely expensive collateral costs to the non-using citizen. I don't use real drugs, but my choice to use a public toilet in my city or leave a bike locked up outside has been removed from me because of zombie, diarrhea spraying fentanyl addicts. To me, that doesn't seem fair. They are the ones having a good time, why is the Starbucks barista the one that has to mop up their druggerrhea sprayed all over the walls?

I think every addict is allowed ONE free ride in an ambulance for an overdose. After that, you've used your get-out-of jail-don't-die card and they should just leave you there. The recovery rate is like 4%. We should be using this money on health problems with higher recovery rates, like cancer, death and Republicanism.

another millennial wrote:

short shorts and shorties wrote:

A lot of things aren’t good for the culture. Smartphones, pornography, fast food, etc. Do we just ban all of those too? I believe in liberty, not the government banning everything and anything it desires.

me too. that's why i didn't say that the government should ban everything, but maybe they should ban pot.

was it the pot that made you try and generalize a principle?

You pretty much said that the government should ban something if “it’s not good for the culture”. If your reason for the government banning pot is because it’s not good for the culture, then what’s stopping the government from banninng ANYTHING that isn’t good for the culture?

Glad to finally meet you, grand arbiter of culture wrote:

another millennial wrote:

I don't agree with the logic the other posters seem fond of, the "my body my choice" and "well if alcohol is legal" arguments are poorly thought out, though effective on pot users and overly sympathetic liberals and libertarians. If it's not good for the culture, it should be banned, and I don't think it is good for the culture.

So Fox News and internet Message boards should be banned as well?

those are protected by free speech

again, what in your pot addled mind makes you think that anything that applies to pot should apply to everything? what set of laws would remain if everything were legislated except those things directly articulated in the bill of rights?

short shorts and shorties wrote:

another millennial wrote:

me too. that's why i didn't say that the government should ban everything, but maybe they should ban pot.

was it the pot that made you try and generalize a principle?

You pretty much said that the government should ban something if “it’s not good for the culture”. If your reason for the government banning pot is because it’s not good for the culture, then what’s stopping the government from banninng ANYTHING that isn’t good for the culture?

virtually nothing except the bill of rights and lobbying congress

Human beings don't seem to be very good at avoiding addictive, destructive substances.

I'm not sure weed is one of those. I've been told it's not addictive. However, I know some people who truly can't seem to function without it. Possibly they have issues (anxiety?) that could be fixed with some other "legal" drug, but I can't say if that's a better option.

Basically, I'm just really happy that I'm not addicted to anything. The less chances people have to become addicted (physically or mentally) to anything habit forming seems like a good thing to me.

short shorts and shorties wrote:

another millennial wrote:

me too. that's why i didn't say that the government should ban everything, but maybe they should ban pot.

was it the pot that made you try and generalize a principle?

You pretty much said that the government should ban something if “it’s not good for the culture”. If your reason for the government banning pot is because it’s not good for the culture, then what’s stopping the government from banninng ANYTHING that isn’t good for the culture?

i'd also like to point out that you failed to understand my post. i was talking about a reason for pot to be banned. i didn't say that the law should read "anything that's bad for culture should be banned".

lay off the pot a little while it's affecting your reasoning skills.