It's just a plant...

[MyndFyre]

But seriously, I'm a "responsible" pot smoker.  I don't do it everyday, just at parties or with friend get togethers.  It hasn't destroyed my ambitions (see my college posts) and I consider myself to have a successful life so far (friends, sports, part time job, car, future plans, etc.).

Yeah, but it did destroy your ability to think.  See: your neverending posts supporting liberals. 

Face it, it doesn't matter what you do about marijuana unless you flat out make it a capital offense and set out on search and destroy missions of the plant, it's going to remain part of America (and other parts of the world).  I know many family members that smoke it occasionally, and a lot of people I know have family members that do (in fact, I got high the first time from my friend's Mom when I was 13 :p), and the majority of them are successful people.  Meh..

That's like the argument that "The drinking age should be lowered to 18 because there are a lot of 18 year olds who do it and are responsible."  Bullshit.  There is no "responsible" way to break the law.  Breaking the law is innately "irresponsible" (see: Locke). 

I fully support decriminilization of marijuana.

...and actually, I do too, as well as all the other illegal drugs.  I believe that when they're legalized, less people will want to use them for their "flair," and as long as employers can still not hire people because of drug use, I think that usage will go down substantially. 

[Newby]

You should try smoking it the right way then.  The first time I tried it I thought it was retarded because it turned out I wasn't smoking the "right way."  Best to start with a pipe, IMO. 

I'm sorry. Me and a few friends managed to nearly go through an ounce, and I still didn't get high.

I'm surprised with your awesome stoner attitude that you didn't tell me (like my friends) that the reason was that sometimes you just don't get high the first time. Funny, I got drunk my first time. I think I'll stick with something that's legal and works better!

It doesn't cost as much, either. $15-20 for a dimebag? I could get a fat bottle of JD that'll last me way longer for about the same price.

And for your information, I did use a pipe.

[MyndFyre]

You should try smoking it the right way then.  The first time I tried it I thought it was retarded because it turned out I wasn't smoking the "right way."  Best to start with a pipe, IMO. 

I'm sorry. Me and a few friends managed to nearly go through an ounce, and I still didn't get high.

I'm surprised with your awesome stoner attitude that you didn't tell me (like my friends) that the reason was that sometimes you just don't get high the first time. Funny, I got drunk my first time. I think I'll stick with something that's legal and works better!

It doesn't cost as much, either. $15-20 for a dimebag? I could get a fat bottle of JD that'll last me way longer for about the same price.

And for your information, I did use a pipe.

Newby, you getting drunk is not legal.

[TehUser]

That's like the argument that "The drinking age should be lowered to 18 because there are a lot of 18 year olds who do it and are responsible."  Bullshit.  There is no "responsible" way to break the law.  Breaking the law is innately "irresponsible" (see: Locke). 

First of all, it's inherently irreponsible to make an argument based on a treatise that justifies itself using God because it speaks to the arbitrary nature of morality.  Second, I don't know how you can claim that breaking that law is "innately 'irresponsible'" when Locke advocated overthrowing a government in which the people had no confidence  (See: Locke).  Last time I checked, treason was a crime just about everywhere.  This further speaks to the arbitrary nature of law and ethics.  We shouldn't be examining the statement, "It's against that law to have marijuana, therefore having marijuana is illegal." because it's an empty statement.  It has no real meaning.  We should be asking, "Why is it against the law to have marijuana?" and "Are the reasons for marijuana prohibition legitimate concerns?"  And ultimately, there aren't good reasons.  This is just one more example of a foolish Christian morality being enforced through law.

[Newby]

Newby, you getting drunk is not legal.

In uh, ~5 years it will be!

I doubt it will be legal to smoke weed in my lifetime.

[CrAz3D]

Newby, you getting drunk is not legal.

In uh, ~5 years it will be!

I doubt it will be legal to smoke weed in my lifetime.

mmmm....I dunno, I'd think it will be

[PaiD]

I <3 Canada

Drinking Age is 19 and Canada is ~40 mins away from me

[CrAz3D]

I <3 Canada

Drinking Age is 19 and Canada is ~40 mins away from me

...Juarez, dirnking age 18 but they don't care, so long as you can see over the bar

[MyndFyre]

First of all, it's inherently irreponsible to make an argument based on a treatise that justifies itself using God because it speaks to the arbitrary nature of morality. 

Uh, you mean, a treatise upon which almost all of Western society originated?

Second, I don't know how you can claim that breaking that law is "innately 'irresponsible'" when Locke advocated overthrowing a government in which the people had no confidence  (See: Locke). 

Because Locke also said that when you enter into a social contract, you are willingly giving away particular rights. 

Last time I checked, treason was a crime just about everywhere. 

Yeah, but we're not talking about overthrowing the government because it's infringing on our basic, natural rights.

This further speaks to the arbitrary nature of law and ethics.  We shouldn't be examining the statement, "It's against that law to have marijuana, therefore having marijuana is illegal." because it's an empty statement.  It has no real meaning. 

What exactly does that mean?

We should be asking, "Why is it against the law to have marijuana?" and "Are the reasons for marijuana prohibition legitimate concerns?"  And ultimately, there aren't good reasons. 

I think several people, including Rule, have posted very good reasons for not supporting the legalization of marijuana.  I disagree with them, but I still think they are legitimate concerns.  You just dismissed them out of hand by completely ignoring his post and saying that there are no good reasons, under the guise that you were responding to me.

This is just one more example of a foolish Christian morality being enforced through law.

Who brought Christianity into it?  I didn't realize that there was a big political difference.  Ask Hillary what she'd think about legalizing marijuana.

[TehUser]

Uh, you mean, a treatise upon which almost all of Western society originated?

For the love of all things good in the world, when are you people going to realize that the number of people who agree with something has no bearing on whether or not it is correct?

Because Locke also said that when you enter into a social contract, you are willingly giving away particular rights. 

Yeah, but we're not talking about overthrowing the government because it's infringing on our basic, natural rights.

We aren't?  I wasn't aware that the government restricting our basic, natural right to do what we like with our own bodies didn't count as the government infringing upon a basic, natural right.

What exactly does that mean?

It means exactly what it says.  There's no objective reason to support the law.  It's just a ridiculous, arbitrary imposition.

I think several people, including Rule, have posted very good reasons for not supporting the legalization of marijuana.  I disagree with them, but I still think they are legitimate concerns.  You just dismissed them out of hand by completely ignoring his post and saying that there are no good reasons, under the guise that you were responding to me.

You think?  Oh, that must make it correct!  The reason I don't address Rule's post is because it's not a legitimate argument.  It amounts to, "It can screw up your life, therefore it should be illegal."  Government has no place dictating what I can and cannot do with my body or my mind until I start infringing on someone else's rights.  If I want to waste my life stoned out of my mind with my circle of pothead friends and supporting the "cannabis culture" then the government shouldn't be telling me that I can't.

Who brought Christianity into it?  I didn't realize that there was a big political difference.  Ask Hillary what she'd think about legalizing marijuana.

Who brought politics into it?  I don't much care what any politician thinks on the matter because there's no guarantee they even hold that position.  I just want to see some objective ethical reason for supporting the government's decision to intrude into the private lives of its citizens.

[CrAz3D]

This further speaks to the arbitrary nature of law and ethics.  We shouldn't be examining the statement, "It's against that law to have marijuana, therefore having marijuana is illegal." because it's an empty statement.  It has no real meaning.

Wouldn't that mean marijuana is illegal, that being the meaning?....

Government has no place dictating what I can and cannot do with my body or my mind until I start infringing on someone else's rights.

When you go on to other drugs, or drive impaired, or become a bum then it becomes an issue of society.  You can hurt society by going to a hospital, by collecting welfare, or by driving impaired.

I just want to see some objective ethical reason for supporting the government's decision to intrude into the private lives of its citizens.

Driving impaired.  "Gateway drug."  Becoming apart of the drug dealing cycle.  Contributing to the deliquency of a minor (by providing them with drugs).  Creating more violence related to the drug cartel.

[TehUser]

Driving impaired.  "Gateway drug."  Becoming apart of the drug dealing cycle.  Contributing to the deliquency of a minor (by providing them with drugs).  Creating more violence related to the drug cartel.

Those are all stupid for the same reason.  They all predict that you're going to commit an additional crime.  I shouldn't be charged with a crime based on the possibility that it will lead to an actual crime.  That's the whole point here, there's no reason to say that using marijuana damages anyone's life but the person using it.

[Grok]

Driving impaired.  "Gateway drug."  Becoming apart of the drug dealing cycle.  Contributing to the deliquency of a minor (by providing them with drugs).  Creating more violence related to the drug cartel.

Those are all stupid for the same reason.  They all predict that you're going to commit an additional crime.  I shouldn't be charged with a crime based on the possibility that it will lead to an actual crime.  That's the whole point here, there's no reason to say that using marijuana damages anyone's life but the person using it.

I wasn't going to get into it much, because I could write for days on this subject, but TehUser and I seem to be aligned on decriminilization logic.

[Rule]

You think?  Oh, that must make it correct!  The reason I don't address Rule's post is because it's not a legitimate argument.  It amounts to, "It can screw up your life, therefore it should be illegal."  Government has no place dictating what I can and cannot do with my body or my mind until I start infringing on someone else's rights.  If I want to waste my life stoned out of my mind with my circle of pothead friends and supporting the "cannabis culture" then the government shouldn't be telling me that I can't.

Thought I'd address this point.

You claim that my argument is not legitimate because the "government has no place dictating what [you] can and cannot do with [your] body or mind until [you] start infringing on someone else's rights."  This sounds to be more like an highly debatable personal opinion than a fundamental truth that should be
acknowledged without question; your questionable, and in my mind, short sighted opinion does not take away from the legitimacy of any arguments.

I believe that it is the governments place to foster a society where people are as content and safe as they can be.  Do you agree?   If not, please tell me what you think the role of a government should be.

Sometimes, but not always, it is in the best interests of a society to have certain restrictions placed on its people to protect them from themselves, and to pre-emptively prevent others from being hurt.  I often hear an argument comparable to yours used in gun-control debates: "The government has no place telling me that I do not have a right to own a gun until I start using it inappropriately."  Unfortunately the preservation of this so-called "right" has repeatedly been shown not to be in the best interests of the general population.
Further, it is generally agreed that certain types of pornography should be illegal.  While viewing the pornography, the user is indeed only affecting his/her body and mind.  However, our decisions are strongly influenced by various levels of neurotransmitters in our brains, or more generally, by the state of our minds.  By exercising your prerogative to change your mind in certain ways, you could become an uncontrollable danger to society, in the same way a rabid dog could be seen as a danger to its owners.  In the last few sentences, the word "pornography" could easily be replaced by "marijuana."

In my opinion, the feeling that it should be a right to possess and use marijuana is not as important as preventing the after-effects its widespread use may have on a community.  I do not see the right to use marijuana in particular as something very important or fundamental, so I feel that in the better interests of society the right should be denied.  It is certainly not always prudent to wait for something terrible to happen rather than to address the underlying problems that
will most certainly lead to trouble in the future. 

While I agree it may be unethical to deny certain rights, it should be done if it is in the long-term best interests of a group of people.  As I wrote in my earlier post,  marijuana control should be a case where the "ends justify the means."  Now what in particular is in the best interests of a society is not firmly established.  I have given my opinion on the matter, and have left the question open for you to address.

Note that, for example, charging someone with murder for owning a gun is very different than banning gun ownership (because of how the gun may be used).

[TehUser]

Thought I'd address this point.

You claim that my argument is not legitimate because the "government has no place dictating what [you] can and cannot do with [your] body or mind until [you] start infringing on someone else's rights."  This sounds to be more like an highly debatable personal opinion than a fundamental truth that should be
acknowledged without question; your questionable, and in my mind, short sighted opinion does not take away from the legitimacy of any arguments.

Excuse me for holding personal freedoms in high esteem.

I believe that it is the governments place to foster a society where people are as content and safe as they can be.  Do you agree?   If not, please tell me what you think the role of a government should be.

If I wanted a government to make me "as safe as I can be", I'd go live in a dictatorship where even the most miniscule of crimes was punished by death.  Hey, as long as I'm not a criminal, everything's good, right?  (Notice the parallel to the NSA spying logic.)

Sometimes, but not always, it is in the best interests of a society to have certain restrictions placed on its people to protect them from themselves, and to pre-emptively prevent others from being hurt.  I often hear an argument comparable to yours used in gun-control debates: "The government has no place telling me that I do not have a right to own a gun until I start using it inappropriately."  Unfortunately the preservation of this so-called "right" has repeatedly been shown not to be in the best interests of the general population.

I hate guns and I would love to see all guns done away with, because I feel that they pose an enormous risk to people and that they are more often used for criminal or irresponsible actions than their intended ones.  But what I won't do is claim that there should be a law banning guns.  It's my choice to hate them, and darn it, those rednecks might shoot each other up or some gang kids might have a war, and I won't like it, but that's just no reason to limit their freedoms.  The only reason they should lose their freedoms is if they start using that gun to shoot other people.  Then they're taking away the freedom of someone else and it becomes necessary for government to step in.  That's a long winded way of saying that I don't think the purpose of the government is bureaucratic mostly.  They're there to do governmental things that I don't care to do, like go on diplomatic missions, having foreign nationals over to my house, or firebombing kids in Iraq.  Domestically, they should be responsible for preserving the rights of the citizens, not curtailing them until there is sufficient justification.

Further, it is generally agreed that certain types of pornography should be illegal.  While viewing the pornography, the user is indeed only affecting his/her body and mind.  However, our decisions are strongly influenced by various levels of neurotransmitters in our brains, or more generally, by the state of our minds.  By exercising your prerogative to change your mind in certain ways, you could become an uncontrollable danger to society, in the same way a rabid dog could be seen as a danger to its owners.  In the last few sentences, the word "pornography" could easily be replaced by "marijuana."

Fine, when I'm a danger to society and act upon those "uncontrollable" impulses, lock me away.  After all, I've committed a real crime and deserve it at that point.  By your logic, we ought to just jail victims of childhood abuse because statistics show they're much more likely to beat their own children.  But more importantly, I could become an uncontrollable danger?  You want to lock me up because I could commit a serious crime?  Well hell, give me several hundred million dollars and a couple Nobel prizes because I could win those as well.

In my opinion, the feeling that it should be a right to possess and use marijuana is not as important as preventing the after-effects its widespread use may have on a community.  I do not see the right to use marijuana in particular as something very important or fundamental, so I feel that in the better interests of society the right should be denied.  It is certainly not always prudent to wait for something terrible to happen rather than to address the underlying problems that
will most certainly lead to trouble in the future. 

How can you not see anything wrong with finding excuses to punish people for crimes they haven't committed yet?

While I agree it may be unethical to deny certain rights, it should be done if it is in the long-term best interests of a group of people.  As I wrote in my earlier post,  marijuana control should be a case where the "ends justify the means."  Now what in particular is in the best interests of a society is not firmly established.  I have given my opinion on the matter, and have left the question open for you to address.

Note that, for example, charging someone with murder for owning a gun is very different than banning gun ownership (because of how the gun may be used).

You don't even know that it's in anyone's best interests to maintain the illegality of marijuana.  You assume that it's in society's best interests because that's the position you agree with.  I guarantee, if marijuana were legal, society would not crumble.