Trying to argue how things SHOULD be...

[Bronzebow]

But you are forcing your views on others, much like the anti-drug do it too. Your screaming to let everybody smoke pot and you better legalize it etc.

That's the point of social change and is generally allowed by freedom of speech. Nothing wrong with it.

The problem comes in with drug warriors holding guns to our heads and forcing their view on us.

Would one put a legal age on it?

Yes.

It's also always hilarious that the bulk of any pot study, is always done by pot heads or pot smokers. So naturally they are incline to shout out the awesomeness of it.

The bulk of research is done on the federal level by very anti-legalization crowds. I'm not certain where you're finding this information?

Some people can't handle pot. Period. Thus the laws on it, to protect those otherwise who go to extremes. It isn't legal to drive drunk, though some can do it. Make something legal, and everyone does it, those who can't handle it and those who can. Who's fault is it when someone gets hurt by those that can't handle it? Since it's perfectly legal to smoke weed, it's perfectly legal that they went off and ran someone over on the way to eat munchies. It wasn't because the pot impeded their ability to drive and reflexes, its because someone totally jump after farting a magical fart of farty farts towards the pot head, while he was going whoaaaaaaaa"

If people can't handle pot...they don't smoke pot. Like how people who have gambling problems don't gamble. Your claim that legalizing would make it legal to run people over is kinda ridiculous, and your argument for keeping it criminalized can be equally used to criminalize everything from drugs to cake.

And that's not going into every other issue I've stated before.

If you think marijuana would make the whole world come to an end...well, why hasn't it happened yet? People toke up whether it's legal or not, and the world hasn't collapsed into people running people over. The world also didn't end before the stuff was made illegal, like, four decades ago.

Not to mention it opens the flood doors to other drugs.

This is often quoted by drug warriors, but it's false.

Why are drugs illegal? Because people do abuse them, and make the so called /innocent/ users look bad.

Actually, most are illegal because of anti-Mexican racist lawmakers. Reefer madness?

Legalising Pot will NOT make world peace, despite what the bulk of pot smokers think. Pot may be fine to some, but to others, its heavly against their beliefs. Be it religion, health, or just plain own ethics. People hate others for enough. Why add drugs more to the mix.

Who's claiming world peace? These "others" have zero right to demand that everyone else follow their religious or personal beliefs. We're back to square one with right to freedom, self-ownership, and the eight amendment.

[Greenday]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you guys have no idea what the OP was talking about. Go start a thread on weed if you want to debate that.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Not to mention it opens the flood doors to other drugs.

Since group A can easily withstand the bad effects of drug A, say, pot, then since group B can easily withstand the bad effects of drug B, like cocaine, then it should be legal. Group C shouts they can withstand the effects of crank, so hey, it should be legal damn it. Then Group D shouts PCP is their choice of drug, and all they do is use it at home! It's the other users that make them look bad damn it!

Some people can withstand/put up with the negative effects of alcohol, or tobacco, neither of which have anything like the medicinal potential of marijuana and yet much more severe health risks associated with them. If this logic held true than all drugs would be legal already based on the legality of others, even without any reason aside from 'it's a free country' to back it up.

Why are drugs illegal? Because people do abuse them, and make the so called /innocent/ users look bad.

People abuse legal drugs, people abuse technology, other people, anything. There's not one thing on this planet that doesn't represent the possibility of becoming obsessed with. It's not within anyone perview to protect other people from potentially bad decisions. One of the prices of freedom is the possibility that you will fuck it up, but at least you've done it to yourself as opposed to some jerk in some ivory tower doing it for you.

Can drug users be good people? Absoultely. Totally. If anything my own mom and stepdad are proof of that. First decade of my life, they were heavly addicted to meth. Mom's been clean now for a long time. Did i have a home? Yes. toys? Yes. Food? Yes. Warmth? Yes. Love? Debateable....

There are people that can handle drugs, and those that don't. You make one legal, you make others want their drug of choice legal. Since it's legal and likely cheaper, they'll buy more of it, and much more likely overdose and die.

Or maybe, and I know this'll sound crazy to you, but maybe legality would bring with it sensible regulation and accountability on the part of the manufacturers and distributors, better understanding and dissemination of information on proper use, potential dangers and proper responses to the eventuality of those dangers. And to top it off no one will leave themselves or worse, their friends, to die because they're afraid of losing their freedom by soliciting the help of medical professionals.

So what's the better way instead of labeling people as more special then others? Make it all illegal.

Or, perhaps, we treat it like any other fact of life. Some people are naturally athletic, some aren't. Some people are naturally intelligent, some aren't. It would just be another part of life in the same way as people who can't handle alcohol or tobacco. If you can't handle it but want to, well, tough luck. Person A's inability to deal with marijuana should no more infringe on person B's right to use it than some people's inability to play a FPS (I know a few people who complain of nausea) infringe on my right to do so. "It should be illegal because the people who can't hack it will feel bad and might do something stupid." is one of the more inane arguments I've ever heard. The disappointment and stupidity of others is in no way my responsibility.

Because that's what you do if you make a drug legal for some and not for others (The ones that cant handle it). You are declaring that person A is more special and can do drug A, while person B cannot. No-one likes being told No. People hate being told no while they see others being told yes.

So everyone gets told no. No favoritism. No opening lawsuits. (People will sue others on drug useage if it was legal).

Acknowledging that people are not all the same and allowing them to live their lives as they choose is not favoritism, it's just being realistic. No one likes being told no, but being told no is part of life, if they can't cope with that, how is that anyone's problem but theirs?

Legalising Pot will NOT make world peace, despite what the bulk of pot smokers think. Pot may be fine to some, but to others, its heavly against their beliefs. Be it religion, health, or just plain own ethics. People hate others for enough. Why add drugs more to the mix.

I haven't heard any pot smoker or legalization advocate make that claim, ever. However there's solid reasoning and a certain amount of precedent to suggest that legalization will yield numerous positive results. Weather or not someone else likes it, likes me for doing it, is religiously or ethically offended, or is physically comfortable with me doing it it remains my right to do it anyway. They can ask me to stop, they can ask me to leave. If it's their private property or public property it's their right to enforce that, if they want to. If it's my property they can fuck off. Easy, isn't it?

[AdminAssistant]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you guys have no idea what the OP was talking about. Go start a thread on weed if you want to debate that.

Yeahhh, I'm sorry if my response opened the floodgates to this particular topic shift.

[Boozy]

Honestly, I'm pretty sure you guys have no idea what the OP was talking about. Go start a thread on weed if you want to debate that.

Yeahhh, I'm sorry if my response opened the floodgates to this particular topic shift.

While this thread has certainly taken a different route than was first intended, it's not terribly surprising. Legalization was brought up in the OP.

Now, if some of you were debating about the originally intended point of the thread, and another group of you were debating about legalization, then the mods would probably request that the second group start their own thread, if only to prevent confusion. But in this case, I don't see anyone arguing about anything other than legalization. That's where the interest seems to lie.

Unless the thread gets disjointed, too confusing, too personal, or too similar to another recent thread, we're generally okay with things getting off topic. It happens so frequently on a debate forum like this that we can't be too particular.

Just thought I'd take this opportunity to clarify the moderators' position on thread drift, since we get questions about it from time to time.

Now back to the debate, wherever it may take us.

[Andara Bledin]

But you are forcing your views on others, much like the anti-drug do it too. Your screaming to let everybody smoke pot and you better legalize it etc.

Logical fallacy.

He is arguing for the cessation of you forcing your view on others.

His view, and mine, is that you get to continue to choose what you want to do unfettered.

Not to mention it opens the flood doors to other drugs.

This is confusing correlation with causation.

There is no argument that those who do hard drugs often start with marijuana. But they also start with cigarettes and alcohol.

It's a matter of availability. Take the three common stepping stones out of the equation and you change only one thing; those who want to do hard drugs will still do hard drugs, only they won't have started with soft ones.

^-.-^

[Plaidman]

Exactly my point. I doubt I said anywhere that potheads go on to other drugs, I meant by legalizing pot, other drug users will want their drugs.

The methheads will demand their legalization of meth.

The PCP fanatics will demand legalization of pcp.

Then, when people start to go crazy while hopped up on PCP or Crank and kill people because they think they are a demon, who's going to get blamed? Sure, the drug user will get arrested, but he will turn around and sue whatever company sold him the drugs, because it's their fault for not clearly telling him the dangers. People are STILL sueing the ciggerretes companies for daring to have dangerous prdocuts and getting cancer, something that should be fucking common snense by now, but people still do it. What happens when the worst drugs that truely destroy people's minds cause others harm and death?

After all, just like potheads, there are plenty of other /recreational/ crank heads, PCP addicts etc, that /arent/ as affected by their choice of drug, just like potheads claim their choice of drug gives them magic powers of awesome. Where is the line drawn?

This isn't like people proclaiming that gay marriage will lead to child marriage or animal marriage, because the argument is the same. Potheads want their drugs because they love smoking it to relax, because hey, they can't do anything else to relax and escape reality. Just like other drug users use their drugs. They want the same rights as everyone else.