• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

I believe that marijuana should be legal (discussion)

tommy_ed said:
why does it matter how it effects your own body? as long as the way we're doing these substances isn't effecting other people's lives we should be able to do them. Driving impaired already is and would remain illegal and enforced. I'm sure you wouldn't be allowed to smoke indoors. Why not save and then make some money off of it that we can put towards something actually useful?
Click to expand...

Smoking the weed does not help further your health. Forget just how much or how little, it just does not help. It has to, because smoking anything is bad for your health.

Or perhaps you are saying that smoking MJ does absolutely no harm whatsoever. You are not specifically saying that, and I do not mean to put words in your mouth, just asking.

So make a public statement: MJ does absolutely no harm to the body, yes or no.

So how can the government allow something like MJ that is smoked and take such a hard stance on tobacco? Legalization is approval. Seems it would be rather hypocritical to allow MJ but not tobacco.

With the upcoming Obama Care plan, perhaps what you do with your body is in a way, my/our business? We will be paying your medical insurance bills, after all.
 
Playing devils advocate here, but I think we can easily create an omission for illnesses caused by consumption of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana etc.
 
lordofthereef said:
Because to get something like this legalized, there must be proof that it doesn't effect other "innocent" people's lives. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it does, but it takes a whole lot more proof/data to show something is safe for the society than to show that it is dangerous.
Click to expand...

Here is the thing, as they say: it is illegal currently and therefore, millions of people do not smoke the stuff. We hear about the supposed tens of millions of users but they, if they really exist, are a tiny percentage of the population that does not smoke.

When it is legalized, things will change and suddenly, there will be vastly more users. I think we will discover the problems many years from the time it is legalized and we might regret our decision to legalize it.

So then what? Do we make it once again illegal?

Ease of availability ensures kids will start smoking the stuff. We are not protecting the kids; we will be making it widely available with the government's blessing. If the FDA controls the stuff, chances are, it will be weak, so, chances are, crime will not dissipate but increase.

Smoking anything is bad and problems do arise. Should the tax payer be forced to pay for the users that become diseased?

And once again, how can the government ban tobacco and turn around and allow another thing you smoke?
 
Bob Maxey said:
And once again, how can the government ban tobacco and turn around and allow another thing you smoke?
Click to expand...
I don't follow here. There is no ban on tobacco.

IMO, teach your kids not to do drugs. The reason I didn't do drugs was not because of availability, it's because my parents instilled that in me.

Certainly the use of marijuana will go up, but I don't think by the leaps and bounds that you claim.

As I said many posts prior, let's compare health issues from places where it is legal (ie Denmark). I don't know what we will find, but surely it has been long enough available there to show some long term health risks.
 
lordofthereef said:
I don't follow here. There is no ban on tobacco.

IMO, teach your kids not to do drugs. The reason I didn't do drugs was not because of availability, it's because my parents instilled that in me.

Certainly the use of marijuana will go up, but I don't think by the leaps and bounds that you claim.

As I said many posts prior, let's compare health issues from places where it is legal (ie Denmark). I don't know what we will find, but surely it has been long enough available there to show some long term health risks.
Click to expand...

All that is left is to put a .45 round in tobacco's head.

It is banned indoors, it is banned outside, it is banned in my private office attached to the factory, it is banned in parks, it can be banned in my side of the duplex (and not by a sensitive landlord, but by the government) it is banned on school grounds (where I like to puff and cough in the wee AM hours) it is taxed at a painfully high rate by the feds as well as by the state, it is sold to us as a bad thing based on BS and best guesses (the famous EPA report that investigated second-hand smoke concluded there is no conclusive proof either way)

It is not illegal, but it might as well be for most people. If you want to ban it, you simply increase the taxes so it becomes too expensive for people. I also see legalized MJ being highly taxed and that will simply increase illegal trade.

Smoking tobacco is bad yet some here want the government to legalize MJ. This is hypocrisy at its best.
 
Bob Maxey said:
All that is left is to put a .45 round in tobacco's head.

It is banned indoors, it is banned outside, it is banned in my private office attached to the factory, it is banned in parks, it can be banned in my side of the duplex (and not by a sensitive landlord, but by the government) it is banned on school grounds (where I like to puff and cough in the wee AM hours) it is taxed at a painfully high rate by the feds as well as by the state, it is sold to us as a bad thing based on BS and best guesses (the famous EPA report that investigated second-hand smoke concluded there is no conclusive proof either way)

It is not illegal, but it might as well be for most people. If you want to ban it, you simply increase the taxes so it becomes too expensive for people. I also see legalized MJ being highly taxed and that will simply increase illegal trade.

Smoking tobacco is bad yet some here want the government to legalize MJ. This is hypocrisy at its best.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, but it won't ever be banned in your own home or private property where you don't conduct business, or in your car, etc. because nobody is receiving the second hand smoke.
 
lordofthereef said:
Ah yes, but it won't ever be banned in your own home or private property where you don't conduct business, or in your car, etc. because nobody is receiving the second hand smoke.
Click to expand...

In Utah, I cannot (easily) open a bar where people can smoke. Forget the health issues of the workers; if they want a job, smoke does not matter because they have a choice, take it or leave it. Patrons do not need to patronize if smoking is allowed.

I think those that tell me that I can't open a smokers bar should kiss my arse. A few idiots think they should dictate what I do on my property. Screw that, I say. By the way, you see outright bans on things like trans-fats, so they are coming for you.

As Paul Revere or some other dead guy said, Give me liberty or give me death. He was fighting, in part, against those that said, FU and your liberty, we will give you what we want and take from you what we want.

Iowa bans smoking in private work vehicles and farm vehicles, and in Utah, there is a statewide ban on smoking. I can smoke in my office/workplace because I am alone sans employees. Hire one person, and I can't, no matter how far away it is from the production lines.

Do not kid yourself, if they had their way, smoking would be totally banned everywhere, period. We are well on our way and guess what . . . your favorite things are likeny the next target.
 
Bob,

I don't disagree with what you are saying, except that I just don't see tobacco being completely banned. First and foremost, it's big money for the government. Second, we would have prohibition (edition 2: big tobacco) all over again.

Some places (such as planes) I agree with non-smoking. Others, such as bars, I think it should be up to the owner. That said, a bar is a place where people will smoke, so if I, as a non-smoker, wanted to come to the bar, I would have to deal with second hand smoke. I see where they are coming from with the law, but I also see where it is a little bit overstepping too.

I also pose a question: What, historically, has been banned that doesn't pose some sort of health risk (I ask this because you mentioned my favorite things would be banned, though it's sometimes tough to read sarcasm between your lines).
 
I'm just gonna say smoking bans in bars are awesome. Before it i only knew of a few places with separate areas. Now every pub is smoke free. Oh and couldn't the argument regarding staff be made anywhere? They need employment.
 
lordofthereef said:
Bob,

I don't disagree with what you are saying, except that I just don't see tobacco being completely banned. First and foremost, it's big money for the government. Second, we would have prohibition (edition 2: big tobacco) all over again.

Some places (such as planes) I agree with non-smoking. Others, such as bars, I think it should be up to the owner. That said, a bar is a place where people will smoke, so if I, as a non-smoker, wanted to come to the bar, I would have to deal with second hand smoke. I see where they are coming from with the law, but I also see where it is a little bit overstepping too.

I also pose a question: What, historically, has been banned that doesn't pose some sort of health risk (I ask this because you mentioned my favorite things would be banned, though it's sometimes tough to read sarcasm between your lines).
Click to expand...

Your reply is considered and I agree for the most part. I also agree about planes, I think it is fair to ban smoking. I love bars, and I object to the notion that it is unfair that people cannot go to a smoke free bar and have a good time without smokers ruining things. It is my bar and if you do not like smoke, stop using the law to shut me down and go have a nice drink at a smoke free place.

If you want to go to a smoke free bar, find one. In Utah, they are all over the place. I cannot open a smoker's bar which is my business. Do not like smoke, then do not come. Do not work there, either.

As for your question, here goes a flamer in the making. DDT was banned with no proof it causes damage and plenty of proof it does not cause damage. The ban arrived because of 'Silent Spring,' a book by a completely foolish environmentalist Wacko names Rachael Carson.

You can, in fact, eat DDT and it is one of the things that would quickly kill mosquitoes thus alleviating malaria problems world-wide. But it is banned and for no good reason.
 
lordofthereef said:
I just don't understand why you are waiting for this? The fact that it is not as bad as alcohol or nicotine, in terms of addiction, isn't a very valid reason for legalization. We don't legalize drugs based solely on how addicting they become.

Caffeine was mentioned at some point, yet any kid any age can get a hold of it. Why? Because it doesn't alter the mind/body enough to be considered a threat.
Click to expand...
I never said the fact that it isn't addictive is the reason it should be legalized. I am waiting for the people saying it is as, or more addictive as other drugs ti back up their claim. Fact is, nobody has ever died from pot withdrawals/overdose.
 
BiggestManEver said:
Never understood that correlation. If I am ordering a 15 year old scotch, I don't want to muss up the flavor with cigarette smoke.

Bars do not equate to smoking. They equate to drinking!
Click to expand...

Bars "equate" to socialization, fellowship, and having a good time. Drinking is an important part of it. Always been that way.

I do so enjoy a nice single malt, but so what? If you want to enjoy it, go to a bar that does not allow smoking and leave me alone. Sure seems simple to me.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Smoking the weed does not help further your health. Forget just how much or how little, it just does not help. It has to, because smoking anything is bad for your health.

Or perhaps you are saying that smoking MJ does absolutely no harm whatsoever. You are not specifically saying that, and I do not mean to put words in your mouth, just asking.

So make a public statement: MJ does absolutely no harm to the body, yes or no.

So how can the government allow something like MJ that is smoked and take such a hard stance on tobacco? Legalization is approval. Seems it would be rather hypocritical to allow MJ but not tobacco.

With the upcoming Obama Care plan, perhaps what you do with your body is in a way, my/our business? We will be paying your medical insurance bills, after all.
Click to expand...
So requiring a surgeons general warning is "such a strong stance" on tobacco, that pot MUST remain illegal.Notch. BTW, anybody who you have to pay for health insurance under "Obamacare" would be the same people you have to pay for under "Medicaid"....
 
Isthmus said:
So how do you propose testing someone for intoxication in the field?
Click to expand...

This is easy:

1- Ask if they have a job. If no, that is one point
2- Dangle a shiny object in front of them and if they seem far too fascinated, there is point two
3- More than three happy meal cartons in the front seat, point three
4- In they laugh at things that are not funny, point four; point five if they exhibit uncontrollable giggling
 
Really, this is your view of how the government treats cigarettes, yet you are so opposed to the mj being legalized. The funny thing is, in this thread, you accuse others of being hypocrites. At least with MJ, you are actually getting something other than cancer for smoking.
Bob Maxey said:
In Utah, I cannot (easily) open a bar where people can smoke. Forget the health issues of the workers; if they want a job, smoke does not matter because they have a choice, take it or leave it. Patrons do not need to patronize if smoking is allowed.

I think those that tell me that I can't open a smokers bar should kiss my arse. A few idiots think they should dictate what I do on my property. Screw that, I say. By the way, you see outright bans on things like trans-fats, so they are coming for you.

As Paul Revere or some other dead guy said, Give me liberty or give me death. He was fighting, in part, against those that said, FU and your liberty, we will give you what we want and take from you what we want.

Iowa bans smoking in private work vehicles and farm vehicles, and in Utah, there is a statewide ban on smoking. I can smoke in my office/workplace because I am alone sans employees. Hire one person, and I can't, no matter how far away it is from the production lines.

Do not kid yourself, if they had their way, smoking would be totally banned everywhere, period. We are well on our way and guess what . . . your favorite things are likeny the next target.
Click to expand...
 
nlsme said:
Really, this is your view of how the government treats cigarettes, yet you are so opposed to the mj being legalized. The funny thing is, in this thread, you accuse others of being hypocrites. At least with MJ, you are actually getting something other than cancer for smoking.
Click to expand...

I smoke and I drink, and I know they are bad things. I think that has been conveyed in the past. But we are stuck with them and we do not need another intoxicant made legal.

So no, I oppose legalizing MJ because we do not need more intoxicants.

And I am not so sure I accused anyone of being a hypocrite. Perhaps so. I did accuse the government of being such should they legalize MJ, however.
 
Bob Maxey said:
If you want to go to a smoke free bar, find one. In Utah, they are all over the place.
Click to expand...

Just wondering, was this the case before bans? I mean, sure smoke free bars are all over the place NOW. Were they before? I was far too young to even enter a bar in California pre- smoking ban, so I wouldn't be able to comment.
 
lordofthereef said:
Just wondering, was this the case before bans? I mean, sure smoke free bars are all over the place NOW. Were they before? I was far too young to even enter a bar in California pre- smoking ban, so I wouldn't be able to comment.
Click to expand...

Simple: you could smoke in diners, bordellos, caf
 
I must admit, the MJ/Drug laws need to change. We need someone at the executive level to create a legitimate panel to study the issue and then change the laws. If they discover that MJ is bad, we need to start jailing people for minor offenses. We need to do this constantly to send a message.

If legalized, then I have nothing to say.

Off Topic . . .

How come MJ seeds are illegal to trade, sell and plant, but opium poppy seeds are legal to sell? MJ is clearly less dangerous than opium, but definitely not legal.


</////////////////> ~~~
 
lordofthereef said:
Perhaps the question wasn't clear. What I am asking is, before the ban, could one even find a bar that was a non-smoking bar? I know we can currently find a non-smoking bar, but that was the point of the ban, to make all bars non-smoking.
Click to expand...

Not sure if there were ever any non-smoking bars in Utah. The concerns operated by the LDS Church were non-smoking (and not bars), but generally speaking, all bars allowed smoking.
 
Bob Maxey said:
How come MJ seeds are illegal to trade, sell and plant, but opium poppy seeds are legal to sell? MJ is clearly less dangerous than opium, but definitely not legal.


</////////////////> ~~~
Click to expand...
Doesn't it take far more processing to make a "usable" drug out of the poppy than it does with marijuana? If so, I suppose it's kind of like the ingredients for meth aren't illegal on their own, but once concocted it is an illegal substance.
 
Bob Maxey said:
Not sure if there were ever any non-smoking bars in Utah. The concerns operated by the LDS Church were non-smoking (and not bars), but generally speaking, all bars allowed smoking.
Click to expand...

I see. Then, I guess that was the "point" of smoking bans. To allow a person who wants to get a drink to get one without having smoke blow in their face. Currently, all a smoker needs to do is step right outside and get out of the person's way. I guess my point is, if smokers are not forced to not blow smoke in the faces of those that don't want it, they aren't all going to collectively do it out of good will, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom