BF2S Forums A question for non-cannabis users

Harmor wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

People are going to smoke no matter what. Might as well legalize and tax it and gain a profit off of it.

By that logic why don't we legalize crack, cocaine, PCP, LSD...you name it.

Its a slippery slope.  Watch the first step.

Which I would most certainly advocate. It should all be legal. The impact of universal legalisation on organised crime would be immense.

"A question for non-cannabis users"

Try reading the OP

To the people who do smoke, and do have "knowledge" of the matter please feel free to post why you think the way you think, JUST DONT VOTE!

Its a fair question, the only people I ever hear pushing for legalisation are the users themselves, who typically make up ~10% of the population.
The remaining 90% usually don't care or are against legalisation.
Until the users come up with a coherent argument to convince the remaining 90% legalisation is unlikely to happen.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Its a fair question, the only people I ever hear pushing for legalisation are the users themselves, who typically make up ~10% of the population.
The remaining 90% usually don't care or are against legalisation.
Until the users come up with a coherent argument to convince the remaining 90% legalisation is unlikely to happen.

Really?

You've been arguing with someone fitting that description throughout this thread....

Turquoise wrote:

I don't smoke pot because I have to worry about drug tests from my employer.

And yes, it should be legalized and regulated.

Not the only one in this thread either. Certainly not my experience.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I was talking about the world outside this forum.

You got anything to support that?

All the polls I've ever seen on the topic have shown widespread public support.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2009-07-25 06:49:46)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Well here's one where people actually voted.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/de … ugs-heroin

Government supplied Heroin - 68% in favour - passed
Legalising Cannabis - 37% in favour - rejected

Apart from users, no-one I've ever spoken to has been in favour.

So that's roughly a 60-40 split. That's a long way from 90-10.

In any case, recent polls from the UK all tell the same story - marginal support for legalisation (older ones don't show this - which shows that opinions are shifting).

Dilbert_X wrote:

Voting against legalisation is also a long way from voting in favour of it.
The Swiss are particularly libertarian, and still there was a solid majority against.

Polls and how people actually vote are not the same thing.

Polls are a much better estimation of the opinion of a population of one country, than a vote in another country.

I don't know what public opinion is elsewhere, but in the UK, support is widespread. Certainly a long way from your 90% against it.

It's virtually treated as being legal in Switzerland anyway. You can buy it in shops very easily. They sell it as sort of pot pourri. The social climate there is very, very different. I can't speak for other countries, but here there is widespread support.

Legalize it so the government can tax the shit out of it.


I'll still think they're all idiots though

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

Why are you all comparing marijuana with alcohol?  A lot of people drink alcohol, not to get drunk, but for the taste.  Marijuana users don't smoke simply because they like the smell of marijuana; they want to get high.  The biggest problem I have with marijuana is that it stinks, and people can't keep their marijuana smoke to themselves.  If they don't do it now, what do you think it's going to be like when marijuana is legalized?
will affect me and millions of people who choose not to smoke.

Are you sure about that second sentence? On college campuses, I see Keystone Light cans and other kinds of shitty, cheap beer that people will buy because it is inexpensive. I'm sure there are some people who drink booze for the taste, but they're greatly outnumbered by the "lez git drunk" morons. If they cared about the taste, they wouldn't drink nine bottles in an hour, either.

Last edited by DesertFox- (2009-07-25 09:16:20)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Which taxes cover.

There are costs besides money.

Yep, just like the War on Drugs.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Then back it up for once.

I don't need to, you're arguing something should be legalised, you need to make the case that its harmless.
Even if its less harmful than presently legal drugs there is still no case for legalising it. Governments take the view if its harmful it should be restricted.

And governments were clearly wrong with Prohibition and are clearly wrong with marijuana for the exact same reason.  Prohibition in and of itself is the biggest piece of evidence possible to show why bans of popular substances don't work.  If you can't see the logic in this, then there's nothing else I can mention that drives this point home harder.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Cannabis is clearly implicated in schizophrenia, from anecdotal evidence I have first hand its not something I would want to see widespread. It causes personality changes for the worse.

Alcohol causes personality changes as well.  Any addictive substance can do the same.  Again, are you proposing we ban all substances that alter people's mindsets?  If so, you've got a long list to deal with and you're going to have to multiply law enforcement spending to cover it all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Looking at the stats ecstacy is the least harmful drug there is, I don't see that being legalised any time soon.

Admittedly, marijuana has a larger following, and it has been around much longer than ecstasy.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

It's more than that.  Racism was a large part of why pot was made illegal.

Who cares, as I said its a historical quirk. If blacks had used alcohol and whites cannabis we would be having the reverse argument - and I would be arguing the same, there is no justification in legalising something just because something else which is about as harmful is legal.

You don't care because it disproves your rationale for why it's illegal.  It was never about the government protecting people -- it was about cultural conflicts and racial prejudice.  Nowadays, the racial part isn't as significant, but the legacy lives on.  People mistakenly believe the government is trying to protect us, when in truth, they just want to control people.

Last edited by Turquoise (2009-07-25 11:07:03)

The historical quirk being that the majority rejected prohibition, while their hasn't been as much support for rejecting the "war on drugs?"  Or is it something else?

Harmor wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

People are going to smoke no matter what. Might as well legalize and tax it and gain a profit off of it.

By that logic why don't we legalize crack, cocaine, PCP, LSD...you name it.

Its a slippery slope.  Watch the first step.

A slippery slope to lower drug usage?

The historical quirk being that the majority rejected prohibition, while their hasn't been as much support for rejecting the "war on drugs?"  Or is it something else?

The historical quirk that for some reason caffeine, nicotine and alcohol are socially acceptable but cannabis, opiates and cocaine are not.
I find it hard to believe America, Canada, Europe, Russia, China etc all outlawed cannabis just to 'keep the black man down'.
I suspect the societies have learned the three mentioned are too socially damaging to be legal.