MARIJUANA

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

spunk you exist as an example of youth wasted on the young.  you're a dumbass and likely will not out grow it.

[spunkloaf]

I wouldn't waste my youth anywhere else.  At least I have youth.

And you still have not provided any good reasons to keep wasting money on prohibiting marijuana.

Like always: can't give a reason, so just start attacking character.

Listen, don't waste your time, because you will not FIND any good reasons to keep prohibiting marijuana.  Nor do you want to.  It's already in your head that you don't like people who do it, and so they should suffer for it.  So just say THAT, rather than all this bullshit about "intoxicants" harming today's "arrogant" society.

By the way, I think it's quite ridiculous that you would refer to America's society as "unstable, immature, arrogant and self-absorbed" when you would beat the piss out of anybody who came in here ranting about how much America sucks.

Again, only when Grump can't find good reason does Grump attack people's (in this case, all of society's) character in order to undermine their opinions or actions.

Let's try this again: can you find any GOOD reason why we should be wasting tax money on prohibiting marijuana?

[Peter1469]

There is a difference between prohibiting drugs and paying for the prohibition.  It can be illegal without a massive, expensive war against it.  I would turn most drug use / possession offenses into violations with fines (not jail).  Hell, it could become big business for the government. 

[spunkloaf]

It already IS big business.

I have paid over $1500 in drug fines to the government in my life time.  And I am not even a hard drug user.

It's all in weed.

But imagine if marijuana was legal, I would have paid at LEAST $5000 in taxes.  Minus all the costs of dealing with my fucking legalities, that's a HUGE profit for the government.  And I'd be GLAD to pay it!

[Peter1469]

It already IS big business.

I have paid over $1500 in drug fines to the government in my life time.  And I am not even a hard drug user.

It's all in weed.

But imagine if marijuana was legal, I would have paid at LEAST $5000 in taxes.  Minus all the costs of dealing with my fucking legalities, that's a HUGE profit for the government.  And I'd be GLAD to pay it!

I don't have any problem with fines- I would have a problem with you wasting space in prision.  Maybe we should up the fines so we collect as much as we would with taxes but keep it "socially unacceptable." 

[SDML]

Grumpy & Mr. D both make a few serious errors.

Grumpy -

1) Making an argument against alcohol is not an attempt to make an argument for marijuana, it is offered as an example of legislation sitting on silly & unstable grounds, not to mention the problems clearly invited when we pass arbitrary legislation far beyond the bounds of constitutional mandate.

2) The "deleterious impact of marijuana" is hardly "grossly under estimated due to the limited social exposure/acceptance" when one remembers the FACTS...one of which is that well over 40% of Americans admit to using it at some point, contrasted to 60% of Americans admit to using alcohol at some point. Remember that the pot use is assumed to be lower than the real figure due to the fact that it is illegal, and the margin closes significantly. Half the population using something negates any claim that it's exposure is limited.

3) Weighing your concern that arrogant youth be allowed to legally consume an intoxicant that they are already consuming will lead to societal breakdown is silly. I'd be more concerned that you have no rational argument against it and just want this same arrogant rebellious youth to take your word for it that you know what's best for them. Your position stands on no logic, only tradition, which is addressed below.

Mr. D - When it all boils down, your argument for the continued prohibition of marijuana is that it is tradition. Recent, if not ancient, tradition has booze legal (how easily we forget the 1920s) while pot is illegal (how easily we forget it's illegality is recent).

I'll remind you that many stupid ideas are traditional, from belief in a flat earth to the Geocentric model of the solar system to thinking the planet is 6000 years old. One might also point that it seems a strong American tradition to spend gazillions of dollars on a fight they cannot win (alcohol prohibition, the current war on drugs that spends more money than the estimated value of the drug trade, etc.).

That said, "tradition" does not mean "stagnation", so calls for lack of change on grounds of tradition are in fact spurious.

All that aside, the "argument to tradition" ignores that medicinal plants of all kinds - including, but not limited to, marijuana - have a tradition that goes farther back than the processes of distillation of spirits. Eating or burning a psychoactive plant is a lot easier for early man (not to mention modern man) to figure out than how to set up a still to create ethyl alcohol. So this argument to maintain what is traditional is false.

So, to anyone against legalization: You have no argument from tradition and you have yet to posit any logical argument for prohibition. Please either support your assertion that marijuana be illegal or change your minds.

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

sdml, there is a huge difference between self reporting use at some time and regular use.  attempts to compare the general indulgence of alcohol to the much more greatly limited indulgence of marijuana is specious on its face.  again, raising the specter of alcohol abuse does not make an argument for marijuana.  your constitutional argument does not have any merit, drugs laws are neither arbitrary nor constitutionally prohibited.  at best you might argue that drug laws are stupid and a waste of taxpayer resources.....there exists no constitutional mandate proscribing people through their elected representatives from passing stupid or wasteful laws.  finally, you would be best served turning your "concerns" inward, noting the absence of any rational argument for legalizing marijuana or any other drug beyond an obviously adolescent desire to get high. 

[SDML]

1) Reports for "use at some time" re: booze & pot differ by roughly 15% while reports of current use are even closer.

2) Again, arguments against alcohol are not intended as arguments for legalization of other drugs, only as a demonstration of the silliness & arbitrary nature of drug laws.

3) My constitutional argument is the only one that has merit. The US constitution does not empower the federal gov to make laws that are best left to the states.

4) Drug laws are, in fact, arbitrary (in the sense that there is no internally consistent barometer by which to choose what is legal and what is illegal).

5) Drug laws ARE a waste of resources. Drug policy in the US is not only stupid & arbitrary, but fiscally irresponsible.

6) You would best turn your concerns inward in an attempt to discover why you resort to ad hominem arguments when you have been POWNED. I have no adolescent desire to get high. However, any adolescent can tell you that the legal status of pot has zero impact on their ability to get high.

QED.

That's Latin for "boom-shakalaka!!!".

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

2) Again, arguments against alcohol are not intended as arguments for legalization of other drugs, only as a demonstration of the silliness & arbitrary nature of drug laws.

I wasn't making an argument for tradition but rather against the notion that alcohol has been arbitrarily accepted. It is akin to suggesting that humans have arbitrarily decided that they like dogs and cats. 

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

1  bs
2  bs
3  bs
4  bs
5  worthy of debate
6  just noting that you waste time and effort advocating for obviously bad public policy.  regardless, if you don't like the law, mobilize your ron paulites and change the law.  as for the thought processes of adolescents i am sure that you are quite in touch.

[SDML]

Grumpy - You consider #3 to be BS? You are suggesting that the constitution does, in fact, allow for federal level drug laws? #4 is hardly BS. Try again. #5 is not worthy of debate, it is a statement of fact. I do not advocate that which is "obviously bad public policy".

Mr. D - You mistake the use of the term "arbitrary" in the context of legislation, which is why I mention that in my post. Again, "...arbitrary (in the sense that there is no internally consistent barometer by which to choose what is legal and what is illegal)". In that context, drug policy in this country is arbitrary.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Grumpy - You consider #3 to be BS? You are suggesting that the constitution does, in fact, allow for federal level drug laws? #4 is hardly BS. Try again. #5 is not worthy of debate, it is a statement of fact. I do not advocate that which is "obviously bad public policy".

Mr. D - You mistake the use of the term "arbitrary" in the context of legislation, which is why I mention that in my post. Again, "...arbitrary (in the sense that there is no internally consistent barometer by which to choose what is legal and what is illegal)". In that context, drug policy in this country is arbitrary.

I see your point

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

Grumpy - You consider #3 to be BS? You are suggesting that the constitution does, in fact, allow for federal level drug laws? #4 is hardly BS. Try again. #5 is not worthy of debate, it is a statement of fact. I do not advocate that which is "obviously bad public policy".

Mr. D - You mistake the use of the term "arbitrary" in the context of legislation, which is why I mention that in my post. Again, "...arbitrary (in the sense that there is no internally consistent barometer by which to choose what is legal and what is illegal)". In that context, drug policy in this country is arbitrary.

did i sssttuutteerrr  
3  BS
5  yes worthy of debate and frankly the fact that you advocate one side of the argument is evidence to support the other.
and yes it is bad public policy.   

[spunkloaf]

Thank you, SDML--took the words right out of my mouth.

In fact, you pissed on my words and kicked them out the fucking door. 
I agree with everything you said.

Drugs are arbitrary.  You cannot measure or expect any particular statistic from them either.  They benefit everybody in such different ways that a manifest of factual information about the effects of them would take forever to keep up with.  This is why it is dumb to criminalize them.

The federal government overstepped its power in prohibiting recreational drugs.  Period.

[trex]

The line must be drawn somewhere otherwise it will keep moving.  Give an inch they will want a yard.  Marajuana however compared to alcohol is a drug that adversely affects ones judgement.

People will get it anyway. If you tax it people will sue the government when they abuse it. 

The idea is to persuade kids and irresponsible dead weights of society to use something else recrationally like a fitness.

For medical purposes I may be inclined to agree. Of course all the slackers will want permits like handicap placards. 

Society is already a mess why add marajuana to further lower the bar?