Why illegal if you never heard about it in the news

I'm pro legalization, but the classic pot head argument of "weed isn't bad for you" is just freaking ridiculous. I've seen one too many young, promising lives ruined by mar1juana consumption. It's all fun and games until it takes over your being and becomes everything you think about. If your life consists of waking up in the morning, smoking a bowl, going to your job at McDonald's, then coming home, smoking another bowl with your buddies and watching south park, then weed might not be too bad. But if you're a freshman in college aspiring to be a successful engineer and you're a straight A student, and then you find weed and end up dropping out of college and moving to Austin and getting a job at a fast food place, then yes, that guy's life is ruined (I personally know the guy. Used to be one of my best friends). And there are countless others just like him.

Again, no reason for it to be illegal since it's not the government's job to decide what's good and what's bad for you. But stop with the "it's not harmful" bullcrap that's a sure fire way to never get it legalized.

 

Not your place to protect people from themselves, to control what risks they may take with their own life.

If someone wants to OD on Vicodin, they need not justify their actions to me or anyone else.

you shouldn't consume raw milk, but I wouldn't presume to stop you

No, but people can decide for themselves whether to take their advice (and which scientists are credible)

you flatter me

 

No, you said they can decide whether its harmful or not. They can't do that in a ton of instances. You're just all hung up on this libertarian ideological nonsense that you can't come to common sense conclusions.

 

Weed is way safer than alcohol, even if you don't buy the cigarette comparison. I don't see the rationale in the anti-legalization stance anymore than I see the rationale for the drinking age being 21.

At the very least, any reasonable person should believe in decriminalization. There's no need to fill jail space with potheads.

 

Ron Paul 2016!

 

Actually, I believe it's the government's job to help determine what's good and what's bad for you. However, I don't think they have the right to prevent you from doing what's bad for you. If anyone wants to consume a non-food item that could potentially harm them (whether that's mar1juana, cigarettes, or diet soda) the provider of said item should be obligated to notify them of the possible harm they're doing to themselves.

 

Wrong... Don't need them driving on the roads, working heavy machinery at work or teaching my children while cranked out of their mind.

 

The thresh-hold for legality of any good, service or act is somewhat more complex than that. Separately, there are probably several instances of THC-influenced diminished capacity with fatal consequences.

 

Have you ever considered that an individual's action can impact people around him? Y'know, the whole basis of why we have laws in the first place and regulations?

 

Because in the '30's evangelical prohibitionist controlled public opinion and whites feared the emerging black culture.

 

sure, and those consequences should be punished where appropriate

 

Recent local (for me) article where a man ran in front of a train and his daughter and baby's momma died, and THC was in his system.

http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/203264/175/Man-Charged-With-Homicide-in-Railroad-Crossing-Wreck

It was tragic. I don't mean to use this as reasoning behind it being illegal to somke in your home, but just thought I'd mention it since you topic was never hearing about mar1juana deaths in the news.

 

Economically speaking. . . .
The manufacture of weed has a lower bar for entry.
The level of competition is incredibly larger than the competition for tobacco
*I* could grow weed . . .and I could grow it in an amount that would allow me to sell.
Weed is not as vunerable as tobacco . . .weed grows quicker and in less than optimal climates.

While the Tobacco industry has the infrastructure in place
the issue is that . .. it is useless. Who going to buy a filtered WEED Stick?
Esp at the cost of a pack of cigs
Once it is legal . . . .they price of the Mary Jane Market will bottom out
You will get a back of them . . [20] . . . for the price cigarettes were . like in the 50s

Companies cannot see that being profitable
And when they have people leaving cigs for weed .. .
They see a massive profit loss


Rocket River

 

Saying narcotics should be legal is not equivalent to saying they should be sold in convenience stores or vending machines. There are a great many drugs which should require supervision while taking, a great example would be Vicodin, which is a narcotic, but is legal, regulated, and prescribed by doctors.

All narcotics should be regulated, not banned.

 

Nothing should be banned?

Rocket River
Bath Salts, Crack and Meth come to mind.

 

Weed is not safer than alcohol. If you take a shot of tequila it doesn't taste very good. If you smoke weed your body doesn't try to reject it. You might cough a little bit, but you don't get the same gag reflex like tequila or other liquor.

 

I don't want people who consume alcohol to do these things either.

 

There are already laws against DUI, those wouldn't change with the legal status of any drug.

 

Having THC in your system does not equal impairment. THC and its metabolites can stay in your system for up to 72 days after ingestion.

 

So weed would be policed like Alcohol . . . . not Tobacco.

Policing Weed is going to be . . .weird. . . . well different
Esp from a business stand point
We seem ok with folx taking a SMOKE BREAK
but a TOKE BREAK?
We don't let folx have an ALCOHOL BREAK

The logistics and changes would be interesting to see

Rocket River