End Prohibition; Yes on Proposition 19

Townhall.com ^ | September 19, 2010 | Debra J. Saunders

[fr_freak]

It will increase, not decrease the crime rate, and those crimes will be worse than marijuana pushing. It creates a state that draws drug users to it and the state will have to pick up the costs of those who abuse the drug instead of merely using it. It lessens the public approbrium of drug intoxication. It exposes the children to pushers wanting still to illegally push marijuana. I haven’t even mentioned the medical aspects of regular marijuana use or drug intoxication, particularly on young people.

All of these things you mention, with the exception of the increase in crime, are already occurring or have occurred in society as it is now, and there is no putting that genie back in the bottle. Quite frankly, I think that the criminalization of marijuana and other drugs is part of what made them so popular. It's the forbidden fruit aspect, I suppose.

As for the increase in crime, I simply don't see that happening, nor do I see any reason that it would happen. Has there been an increase in crime since the medical marijuana laws went into effect? Given the laxness of the law, it is a de facto decriminalization of marijuana. Has there been more crime? I don't think so.

The rest of the deleterious effects of marijuana still exist while marijuana is illegal, but add to that the legal and constitutional abuses of the drug war, and the creation of a huge black market source of income for the cartels, and you have a triple whammy. Legalization is worth a try.

[fr_freak]

Addictive substances are not just a matter of judgment. Addiction robs judgment. The libertarian argument is weak when it comes to destructive addictive substances because people are weak when it comes to destructive addictive substances.

Men like to have lots of women. Monogamy remains the law.

Two things:

1) It is not the proper role of government to provide will power for people, or good judgment when it comes to personal behavior. You should know that. Any government which can dictate personal behavior can do anything. Anything.

2) It is not illegal for men to have many women. It is only illegal to marry all of them, formally. Imagine what people would say if the government decided that, because men are weak when it comes to their addiction to women, they must outlaw any male contact with women if that male is already in a relationship. 10 years for drunk-calling Susie while you're dating Brenda!

[November 2010]

Why should the government be entitled to decide how many women a man can marry?

[caseinpoint]

I think we all should vote our consciences.

“Proponents of legalization suggest that the experiences of countries such as Great Britain, the Netherlands, and Switzerland prove the efficacy of legalizing or decriminalizing various types of illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, and marijuana. They maintain that because such drugs are legal, these countries have fewer addicts and less drug-related crime. . . . The statements of the legalizers here are empirically untrue. As we discuss each country in turn, it will be shown that legalization did not work in any of them.”

If you want the information backing this conclusion, go to www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/debates/myths/myths4.htm. I think experimentation has been tried and we ought to take lessons for those experiments. The article discusses the increased problems created by addicts who are getting younger and younger, crime increases to support the more common addictions, not to mention the problems created by “drug tourism”. I am not willing to gamble our children’s future on it.

[fr_freak]

Why should the government be entitled to decide how many women a man can marry?

Not sure what your point here is, but if you're asking me, I'd say the government shouldn't. Once upon a time I would have said that society has a vested interest in protecting monogamous marriage, but given that government eventually ruins everything that it touches, and is busy ruining marriage as fast as it can, I'd say government should be the hell out of the marriage business.

[fr_freak]

I think experimentation has been tried and we ought to take lessons for those experiments. The article discusses the increased problems created by addicts who are getting younger and younger, crime increases to support the more common addictions, not to mention the problems created by “drug tourism”. I am not willing to gamble our children’s future on it.

Although I would concede that the principle of legalizing marijuana would also apply to harder drugs, we are still talking about marijuana here, and marijuana is not physically addictive. So, the arguments you are presenting here are invalid. Also, we are not Europe.

And, I must stress again that I believe you are kidding yourself about the state of things with regard to society and marijuana. I can say with confidence that marijuana is probably just as easy, if not easier, to get for underage kids than alcohol. Bear in mind that legalization of marijuana does not apply to those under 18, meaning that it will still be illegal for kids to have the drug, but yet they will still get it and smoke it. So, with regard to "our children's future", nothing will change with the legalization.

[November 2010]

That’s exactly my point. You don’t think harmful activities should be banned by government, or that government should be able to protect the culture we have. We’ve had 6,000 years of monogomous marriage in western civilization, but you would overthrow that because you have adopted libertarianism as a philosophy, where if you can’t figure it out using reason you reject it. What would result if we got rid of monogamous marriage?

To you, tradition doesn’t matter, harm doesn’t matter, just your opinion based on a very small snippet of experience (your life). You go so far as to say that people shouldn’t be allowed to legislate at all about it.

Why shouldn’t people be able to contract themselves into slavery?

[caseinpoint]

“I can say with confidence that marijuana is probably just as easy, if not easier, to get for underage kids than alcohol.”

I don’t think that is necessarily the case. A whole lot of kids get their alcohol, at least before they figure out how to buy or steal it, by getting into their parent’s alcohol supply. And a lot of parents know it is happening and look the other way. I suspect the same will be true of their parent’s marijuana stash.

” . . . marijuana is not physically addictive.”

Whether or not marijuana is physically addictive, I think a lot are psychologically addicted to it. And our coming generation is being raised to be pain and effort-averse, hooked on caffeine, psychologically enfeebled by the self-esteem pushers, poorly educated, and socially isolated or hooked on cyberspace socializing. Along with the difficult economic problems currently and foreseen for several years more, at the least, those kids, my kids, are not good candidates for this grand experimentation.

I don’t think we are going to convince each other to change our votes. I live in California and will vote no. If you live here also, vote as you wish. I’m going to grab a few more zzzs before morning breaks.

[Bones75]

"Anyone smoking pot should be locked up!!!!!"

Small government indeed....

[dalereed]

Second offense, executed!!!

[Optimist]

the chemical presence of marijuana tends to stay in the bloodstream just a little (/sarc) longer than alcohol ..... at least 30 days longer

[caseinpoint]

I didn’t realize that. Is it enough to impair mental functioning? I have read some posts by users, some of whom praise it to the max while others call it insidious to their normal functioning. I know the jury is still out on some of the possible health risks, like lung cancer but that it has more carcinogens than does tobacco and that some experts expect regular users to develop cancer in the same or more patterns as the years go by. (Though I suppose that’s more an argument for brownies as opposed to smoking it.)

[aces]

How would they feel if their homes were confiscated for cigarettes or eating bacon, because congress passed thelaw?? Oppression is wrong..

[November 2010]

Run or push drugs and your home should be confiscated.

[aces]

“Some of my finest hours have been spent sitting on my back veranda, smoking hemp and observing as far as my eye can see.” - Thomas Jefferson
From His autobigraphy
Ah the insight and vision of the God given freedoms which were seen from the founding Fathers, sometimes the truth takes a different perspective