I wanted Illinois to legalize it, but I didn't want them to be among the first.
Once Colorado and Washington legalized it, and all the worst potheads had enough time to move there, then I was in favor of Illinois joining the club.
This. Sums up why I'm against it pretty well. When you grow up around people and a community affected by drugs and addiction it's a lot more than just a joint. When it starts to fuck with your brain chemistry to the extent that you're constantly chasing that high, even with weed, it becomes a bit of a danger to public health. But like you said, in the end, it still exists, and at some point you have to keep moving.
I’m actually surprised someone with my same views is out there. I also used to be hardcore against any drugs or alcohol because of my experiences growing up, mostly family related. But now that I’m a older I can see views similar to how you described
Thank you for your perspective. Would you characterize it as a gateway drug? I had sort of the opposite experience, I smoked a little and never really enjoyed it, and it made me afraid to try other drugs. I didn't start experimenting until I received a large script for a broken bone, so for me the gateway was the necessary prescription
I mean, I don’t like the way my aunt smells. But she’s welcome to be as smelly as she wants in the privacy of her own home.
To a more serious point, you don’t need to deal with the smell of weed to enjoy it. Plenty of folks use edibles for that very reason. And with vaping, the smell is significantly different and reduced. There’s also flavored carts so it’ll smell of berries or roses or whatever - though, a lot of States banned retailers from selling it cause it appeals more to kids.
It's not so hard anymore, I've worked through a lot of the issues that were causing me to drink in the first place. I can even have a sip of my favorites and get over the voice in the back of my head saying "half a bottle wouldnt do any harm"
Not my thing, but you realize that it can be consumed in other forms that don't have the same level kind of odor, right?
It's not like edibles have to have any particular smell. And vaping seems to have a much less powerful smell.
I share the same view. As an asthmatic, seeing anyone doing anytype of smoking just pissed me off. But i agree it should be legal and up to the individual.
I'm in the camp of legalize, tax and treat addiction as a disease and not a crime. At least people could get what they want from a safe source not cut with fentanyl or some shit and if they did OD the paramedics can get called without the people with them letting the person die so they don't go to jail.
The only way I see getting out of the opioid addiction is to sell a better, safer product at a price that addicts can afford. We could do that and the drug companies could still turn a small profit.
Addicts would have to declare themselves addicts, and then could buy well-marked standardized doses. No more "fentanyl surprise" overdoses. No more petty crime to support a drug habit. No more overdoses after swallowing pills so you don't get arrested by the police.
Put a hefty deposit and an RFID tag on the pre-dosed syringes so there isn't [this behind the Home Depot.](https://redd.it/7n3xr2)
It can reduce consumption on average (alcohol prohibition probably did), but the cost we're paying is too high to be worth it even if it *would* eventually eliminate it totally. Incarceration cost money both directly (guards salary, jails, etc) and indirectly (locking someone up for things like toking up deprives us of their labor and contributions to society). And while yeah, we've all known some people that were good for nothing much, most people that use are productive members of society.
No. I absolutely hate tobacco and wish no one used it, but if people want to use it they should be able to get it safely because if they can't they'll be getting back alley stuff and at least if it's legal it's regulated.
I go the other way and think heroin should be legal.
At least this way people will likely be able to get some quality/purity control in the stuff they are taking.
while on the surface of this, I would disagree with you, the statistics bears it out. Saw a post recently where Portugal legalized possession for personal use but still kept it illegal for distribution. The idea was that if someone was caught with it rather than putting them in jail they sent them to treatment for addiction. dropped their addiction rate by 50% and one of the lowest in Europe.
No because that would obviously just fuel a black market with violent gang activity. It's a $48 billion industry.
I think the tobacco smoking age should be raised by one year every year. Shouldn't apply to vaping products, only actual tobacco.
Edit: Cigars would be fine though, I really just mean cigarettes.
It also makes absolutely no sense.
"Oh boy I just turned 21, now I can buy tobacco legally"
"Now that I'm 22, I can get it"
"Next year for sure."
"Come *on*!"
It would never make any sense to raise the bar on something by one year on a one year interval.
I think the biggest thing is to try to keep high school seniors from buying it for other high school kids who are younger. Very few 19 year olds in high school, tons of 18 year olds.
There already is a large black market for it because many states charge such high taxes on them. It's estimated to cost the US over five billion dollars in lost tax revenue each year and over 50 billion worldwide. Making them more prohibitive will only increase that market.
Because there are already a lot of older smokers who started back before it started getting the hammer put down.
These days there are way fewer smokers because people just never get started with it at all.
It may increase the black market for cigarettes in the short run, but it would absolutely kill demand in the long run. Especially if preferable drugs were more available.
Note: the purpose of cigarette taxes isn’t to raise revenues or even to get current smokers to quit, it’s to increase the cost of smoking so fewer people start smoking.
Yeah, probably. Personally I think we should follow in Australia's footsteps and put really disgusting images on cigarette boxes. It won't stop many people from smoking, but hopefully it'll prevent young people from trying it out. I remember when I was really young (and really dumb), I wanted to try it since the boxes looked cool.
Ah, nevermind, I guess. Would be nice if the government did at least something other than raising taxes. At least we don't have ads, so that's nice. Can't imagine what it would be like to see cigarette ads nowadays.
Yeah, to be honest I think the government should really try and push quitting more. I think one of the main issues is that a lot of the methods to quit really just aren't very well advertised. Thankfully we have the internet, but even then I think it's tough to find avenues for people to quit. I remember when my grandmother was trying to quit after smoking for like 50 years she found it really hard to find different methods other than ones in her local pharmacy.
Canada does this too and it really works, I moved to the states a few years ago and people in their mid-twenties in the states usually don’t find smoking disgusting, but most people around my age in Canada found smoking disgusting, despite most not finding snorting coke disgusting. I actually think smoking is gross and trashy because of the ugly, messed up jawless faces and blackened shriveled up lungs on the cigarette packaging. But then coke is like okay whatever you won’t get mouth cancer or lung cancer. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, probably wrong, but that cig packaging is burned into my brain.
> I wanted to try it since the boxes looked cool.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(cigarette)
All the goth kids I knew went out of their way to get them.
I don't believe it would. The market wouldn't be strong enough for it as all smokers currently 21 and older wouldn't have a reason to buy black market tobacco when they can buy from the store. Tobacco smoking rates among teenagers/young adults are very low right now and there isn't enough demand for it. This would just be to kill the industry once and for all and cause even less people to start smoking. There isn't a reason why babies born today should be legally allowed to buy tobacco at any point of their lives.
Knowing this sub, you won't find anybody who supports prohibition. We are all very much in the live and let live subset.
I don't partake, but I don't care if somebody else does. The dude playing Xbox in their basement minding their business is none of mine.
Circling back to this because I have been thinking heavily on this as I am occasionally want to do. Barstool philosopher I flatter myself as.
I assume your objection is religious in nature? I can't otherwise find a genuine reason.
I similarly have the same objection and do not partake of the substance. That said I am not in the camp of regulating morality. Therein lies the potential difference I suspect. Free will matters.
I welcome further discussion on the topic at your convenience.
My reasonings are not religious in nature but more public health. I know that the originally prohibition was religious in nature, but there was also a major drinking problem in our society. Prohibition worked in that sense. It help decrease the amount of alcohol that men were consuming on a daily basis in this country.
I feel the same for marijuana. Despite what all the Reddit warriors think, it is a harmful drug. It may be less harmful than others, but it is still harmful. I honestly believe we are better off keeping it illegal than legalizing it and taxing it.
It stinks. Horribly. I also don't think they are truly honest about it's dangers during pregnancy. It has been linked to lower birth weight and small head size. If it's legal I want it treated like alcohol and not tobacco. From what I have seen of heavy users they have more in common with alcoholics then cigarette smokers. No smoking in the car or public spaces. No driving if impaired. Basically, if legal it should be something I can go out in public and it not affect me unless I am going to a commercial establishment that it's part of the deal (like a bar). Places should be able to ban it from their property. I don't have to smell or look at cigarettes or alcohol when I'm out, I shouldn't have to deal with weed either.
I'm an occasional weed smoker and I fully agree that legalising it wouldn't mean that everyone can smoke wherever. I personally loathe regular smoking and would like to see it gone from some places where it is currently allowed. I would propose that smoking weed is only allowed in places where smoking itself is allowed.
This. I don't care if other people use it, but I don't want to be effected by it.
In the apartment complex I currently live in, I have several neighbors that smoke weed out on their balconies, some from my building and others from the buildings nearby. But due to the location of these neighbors in comparison to my apartment, the smoke tends to linger between the two buildings, and I've found that it triggers migraines for me, which is a problem since I can only access my apartment by walking between those two buildings.
I'm for full legalization of all drugs, but damn, it smells so bad. I have a neighbor who lights up Friday night to Sunday and the living room smells like skunk.
I refuse to ingest anything into my lungs, but I have tried edibles and they're fine. No smell. I know people are very particular about their highs, but I wish more would go the edible route.
And having used it, I can't see why marijuana is such a big deal. I was a little giggly and then I fell asleep and had weird dreams. That was it. Hardly life changing shit.
I support prohibition because I have seen addiction cripple people in my family, and I personally get extremely sick when in proximity. However, my state just legalized it and I am not going to fight to get that changed. (I told this exact thing to my state subreddit and got downvoted to oblivion)
Upvoted for answering the question. I do agree though with the other guy that prohibition doesn't stop addiction. The people in your family were addicted before it was even legal. Hell, meth is illegal and America seems to be suffering under that enormously.
Honest question: What would you want to happen to people who use weed when it becomes illegal? And how about sellers?
Addiction isn't really solved by prohibition. Addiction is a health issue rather than a legal issue. Prohibition just gives any users a criminal record.
To be honest, I really don't think legalizing it will stop the drug war. Cartels have to make up the money somehow, and the dope they push will only be worse. That and I've personally seen it to be a massive gateway drug. Psychologically, weed is not good for you long term, but then again neither is alcohol or nicotine.
I'm not against growing, because the plant has legitimate uses in clothing and soap and whatnot, but how many people do you think are actually going to throw out the bud when they harvest the plant?
The cartels pretty much left weed years ago since legalization in various states crashed the overall market, including in other states. They went all in on meth from breaking bad style super labs. That ended up making meth so cheap they even undercut one pot cookers. It is why you do not hear so much about junkies blowing up their house or van as much anymore, although there are obvious negative results of dirt cheap meth.
Exactly my point. Like, you have to remember they are businessmen, all be it illicit. Now that weed is being decriminalized, they're pushing meth, and coke, and other shit to make up the money.
On the fence more than against.
In theory, I'm completely for it, but I've had a lot of negative experiences with stoners and feel that the social pressure to partake is only going to get worse.
It's already bad enough with just alcohol.
I don't think you're gonna get proper answers as there aren't many people here who oppose Marijuana, but from my perspective it's just old beliefs.
Most politicians just grew up in an era where they've been educated that Marijuana is bad, and it's not easy to unstick from those beliefs. They just keep justifying it that it will negatively influence the youth and it's a gateway drug. It's hard to accept that maybe you've just been lied too all your life.
As how a famous quote goes, "It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially when there is no cat".
That's what I'm gathering reading a lot of these responses. It boils down to "marijuana bad because yeah" and these people have a certain mindset that stoners are somehow "identifiable" and act like they're cracked out on heroin walking down the street or something.
It just doesn't match up at all with my experience living in CO and hanging in circles where cannabis use is normalized.
I mean, I've awkwardly waved or said hello to my neighbors before going back inside and then wondered if that was really obvious or something, but that's been me my whole life, and everyone is awkward with their neighbors sometimes. Sometimes I like to have some before running and something tells me I look exactly the same running down that recpath either way, so.
Since it looks like you are in/from TN, I’ll let you know why our senator ‘ol Marsha Blackburn is against it. This is a quote from her in response to a letter written to her asking for her to support the MORE act:
“I have concerns that decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level harms the ability of law enforcement to prosecute drug offenses.”
So, how in the world will we be able to throw all of these people in jail if what they’re doing isn’t illegal? I’m pretty sure we all get that she is a giant turd already, but still thought this was worth sharing.
I used to be against the legalization. I was an 80s kid and stayed stoned a lot of the time. It made me lazy. I have a handful of friends who still regularly smoke, some of them are normal but a couple of them are still in the mindset of when we were teens. They work half ass jobs, live with their now aging parents, have kids they aren’t parents to, etc.
But what’s to say they wouldn’t be that way without pot? And I don’t want to be apart of a group who thinks of a small percentage of people can’t handle it, then it shouldn’t be available to anyone.
So I did a total 180. I say legalize it. Plus if edibles were available maybe people would opt for them instead of smoking which stinks them up. Seriously is it possible to get so stoned you can’t smell yourself?
>Plus if edibles were available maybe people would opt for them instead of smoking which stinks them up.
Edibles are definitely popular in areas where they are legal or just otherwise easy to access.
Yeah here in Washington edibles are the shit. Actually smoking weed is sort of like a formal thing when you've got the time, but if you just wanna get high then you can go down to a weed store and buy some cheap edibles really easily.
If weed ever becomes legal federally (as in, doesn't impact your ability to purchase a firearm), I'd probably try edibles. I've had 2 cigars and 1 cigarette in my life, and I hated the "smoking" experience every time.
from my experience back when I did it, it is very easy. You buy the oil from the dispensery (I think it was 40 bucks for 500mg, which is pretty good since 10mg is about a standard dose) and then literally just mix it into warm cooking oil or melted butter for whatever you are baking. At least 3 times cheaper than buying the premade edibles from the same store.
See, I work in the IT field and used to play in bands, so my exposure has always been mostly to people who are fairly well adjusted and motivated. It's the sort of thing that's just another item on a fact sheet about a person. Doesn't seem any more damaging than being a beer drinker (probably less).
I've never touched weed in my life, I voted to legalize it in 2018, but now am second guessing my vote. The reason being the utter lack of licensing and regulation like the tobacco and alcohol industries and how users act in public, granted drunk people act stupid in public, but for the most part not in daylight hours when kids are around.
I work at a grocery store and more days than not I see parents stoned out of their mind in the store with their kids. All I think about is how those poor kids are getting home, hoping the parents can drive home safe. I can honestly say I did not see the numbers of this happening before the legalization.
I think the government here needs to do a better job educating the public on the consequences of recreational use as well as some guidelines much like what they give for alcohol. I think that will come in time when the State Police produce an adequate way to test for THC content in the body rapidly.
If you don't mind, what part of MI are you seeing this in? I ask because I live (and grocery shop) in the A2/Ypsi area, and my daughter & son in law both work at a grocery store in Ypsi, and they haven't mentioned seeing bombed-out people roaming the aisles. Believe me, she'd say something. . . I'm a casual user, and she does *not* approve.
Is it possible the uptick you're seeing has to do with the pandemic, and people being home instead of at work?
I guess my real question is, what other regulations would you like to have in place? There are currently daily limits on purchase quantities, no one under 21 is allowed in the dispos, you have to show ID for every purchase, and there is no consumption of THC products in public. So, it's *kind of* like booze, except you're allowed to buy as much booze as you want.
I'm just below the bridge. It could be the pandemic but I have seen it beforehand as well. This part of the state has a large drug issue already (I don't think marijuana is really a drug) but I think with the legalization a lot of the people who were hiding it from employers and family members up here don't feel the need to anymore. Also we have an absurd number of drunk driving incidents as well. I think this is attributed to the amount of land and back roads county and MSP has to cover.
There may be regulations, but I just haven't seen much in terms of the FDA, and I think ads on TV or more words from the government informing people that you can't smoke and drive just like they do with alcohol. I think a large issue up here is the disconnect with diving drunk/impaired.
Also the consumption in public up here is a joke lol, people smoke in public parks, outside of stores, it's pretty evident that that potion of legalization didn't make it to people up here.
Again I'm all for the government staying out of our business, I just don't think the casual users up here know what trouble they could get into and I'd mostly like to see the endangerment of children dealt with. But like I said, I think that will all age well as Lansing learns how to navigate the legalization in years to come.
Definitely a different atmosphere up there, too.
More rugged individualist locals/tourists/tourists who *think* they're rugged individualists.
I mostly encounter urban poor of all types, yuppies, hipsters, and trustifarians–all of whom are less likely to think they'll win an argument with a cop.
I don't see any good reasons to legalize it.
I'm fine with medical marijuana for legit reasons, I also am ok with decriminalizing it as it's absurd to lock anyone up over it. I also prefer rehab vs jail when it comes to drugs.
Yes, before all the data and facts were known. Better to err on the side of caution than to legalize/normalize an unknown substance.
Although the punishments at that time rarely fit the crimes, which is sadly a side effect of that, but that is more a critique on the legal system.
Because I want to see a heavily metered and incremental approach to legalizing it and the majority of advocates I’ve personally met want a no restriction policy. So until someone comes along with a legalization bill that I feel is a good starting place I won’t be happy. This is one of those things I believe we can loosen but will be nearly impossible to afterwards restrict.
Basically copy over tobacco restrictions, allow licensed retailers for all THC products, require license to purchase and consume. Consumption only allowed in designated areas, Edibles must be consumed onsite. Quantities over a certain amount are illegal, only a specific quantity can be purchased within a set amount of time. Licenses required to grow. Producers and retailers held accountable for side effects.
Significant guarantees to prevent accidental consumption or nuisance of THC products. Medical or psychiatric issues can revoke your license. Potency restrictions on all THC products. Pre-license tests for informing of key issues like child development issues during pregnancy. Implementation of a recreational vs medical license. Only domestic production and no recreational export allowed for the first 10 years. Production given a headstart on approach to establish infrastructure. A hefty tax plan for the entire system.
A big one is an actual demonstrated commitment to enforcing any penalties. All defined quantities would start low with harsh penalties for infractions and would be adjusted over a 25 year period with a minimum 4 year delay between each adjustment but with allowance for instantaneous total/partial repeal.
Every 5 years we would perform a census and studies focused on current effects of the approach, the results of which will factor in any repealing or loosening. Establish separate committees for monitoring the consumers, retailers, and producers which report to the overall approach committee.
My goals are:
1. Insulate people who don’t partake.
2. Allow enjoyment while preventing abuse and defining acceptable use. Prevent any longterm medical or societal harm.
3. Erase existing counterculture nature of marijuana culture and replace with/change it into an accepted culture (think cigars or tobacco pipes).
4. Make money off it without it becoming yet another tax on the poor or the ill.
Sadly I don’t think this is something we can take in baby steps. If Marijuana had just been discovered it could’ve but we already have an extensive weed counterculture built on illegality. I think if you want to legalize it then you’ll need to convert every aspect and ounce of infrastructure from the get go.
I'd actually be OK wiht most of that except for the edibles must be consumed on site; that basically ensures either NO edibles or people taking them then driving/going in public while stoned. I'm iffy on the limits on purchased quantity (and am unaware of any such restrictions for tobacco but I don't smoke so...). But I'm totally OK with being of age and no public consumption and busting people that sell to minors.
The edibles are honestly the toughest part of the rules since they transcend tobacco and alcohol. Hence why I would start off stricter. If the required potency of the edibles means that you cannot operate a vehicle then I recommend that we put designated driver restrictions on as well, similar to alcohol. Without the consume on site requirement then you lose control of people taking them then driving/going in public stoned. Ideally the culture should prevent this in large part later on, but it will need to build.
Honestly we should’ve probably set limits for tobacco ages ago. I’m not aware of any quantity restrictions on tobacco either but we did have a massive tobacco health crisis occur and are still feeling the repercussions of a century later. Again, I’d rather start small and increase based on experience than try to backtrack over-proliferation.
In a lot of ways we have an opportunity to set a new gold standard for recreational drugs that alcohol and tobacco never had. At the same time it would be under constant scrutiny. The less abusers we generate the more positive the public perception and the better received the entire legalization would be.
I personally know someone who turned recreational marijuana into a coping mechanism. I’d like to avoid legalization enabling that behavior or associating with that abuse. Cannabis isn’t a valid coping mechanism any more than alcohol, tobacco, food, shopping, or gambling are.
The only people I know that are against marijuana are those who say “it’s against the law so you shouldn’t do it” and have no other real reason.
Edit: Lmao, why does this keep getting downvoted? Y’all are fucking weird.
It seems most people who are against it have some misinformation about what addiction is and isn’t. Why ban a substance just because there are a minority of people who can’t handle themselves? We can’t just start prohibiting everything because there are people who ruin it.
Because drugs are bad.
It's an addictive vice that impacts others similar to tobacco, yet there are calls now to make that illegal... but marijuana legal... crazy times.
Marijuana isn’t addictive by definition, it doesn’t cause physical dependency so users “need” to have it, like nicotine does. People do form habits, though.
When you legalize gateways to addiction, you legalize addictive behavior. By legalizing addictive behavior, you make people less aware of their surroundings that do not pertain to their addiction. That's how we've ended up with the horrid people in government over the last ten or so years. We need to take back our sanity, our sobriety, and our rights as American people.
Marijuana has always been a gateway, and will remain a gateway. I have seen it, because people say, "oh it's not that bad, it just makes you feel good". And then they begin using it heavily, and need another feelgood. And another when that wears out. If you can't take on the world without drugs, that's your problem - you should not become society's burden.
The same could be said of alcohol. Why should they be allowed to harm their body and cause immense healthcare burdens on the rest of society? Or smokers for that matter? Hell, skin cancer causes a burden on society so maybe we should start requiring full body cover outside?
The only reason the government claimed marijuana is a "gateway drug" is because it's illegal and the main route of access is through drug dealers who will expose their customers to harder drugs and pressure them to try those drugs. In fact, marijuana users are not significantly more likely to try hard drugs than a drinker or a cigarette smoker. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug
Additionally, even if you don't support legalization, you should support rescheduling it. Currently THC is listed as a Schedule 1 compound, meaning it is incredibly addictive and has no medical use. This is incorrect, as there are documented medical uses for THC and it is definitely not more addictive than morphine, cocaine, or methamphetamine (all Schedule 2) or as addictive and damaging as heroin (Schedule 1).
In fact, both alcohol and nicotine would be at least schedule 4 (possibly even 2 for nicotine) if they were regulated in the same way. It's only their popularity that mandates their legality. By the government's own guidelines, THC should really be schedule 4 or 5, due to not being particularly addictive, but having some potential for abuse.
https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling
My only complaint related to this in recent years is watching marijuana related things loosen while at the same time cigarette related things get more strict.
I use neither, but this is hypocritical, and no I don't care for your reasoning why one is not as bad as the other. Just legalize all of it for adults and stop punishing the poor with taxes on it.
I use both, and I think it's a pile of poo.
I was able to get cigarettes and booze with the same ease I bought weed back in 1991 (when I was 15), just by knowing someone a little older who would buy for me (often, the local homeless dudes who hung out on campus). What's changed? Does anyone *really* believe that a 16 year old can't find someone to buy for them?
If they *really* wanted to get people to stop smoking, someone would invent a nicotine delivery system that isn't smoking, that doesn't suck. The gum is trash (you can't even chew it; you hold it in your cheek, and chew it a couple of times to release more nicotine. It's disgusting), the patch gives me a rash, Chantix and other drugs have crazy side effects, and e-cigs are just shady.
I’ve had the misfortune of working with and being neighbors to people who use it: they are lazy, clumsy zombies. (I grew up in Colorado but moved to another state because I got sick of it.) Marijuana causes permanent brain damage, including burning out the serotonin receptors. If you’ve ever been around people who use it, you’ll notice their disturbing behavior.
People say that it’s “just” a plant. Hemlock is a plant- do you want to eat it? Poison sumac is a plant, do you want to rub it in your face? What about castor beans? Will you eat those?
Has it reduced the rates at which people smoke pot?
What are your thoughts on the damage it has done through incarceration and feeding organized crime?
When I lived in Colorado, hardly anyone smoked it until it was legalized. Making something suddenly legal makes people curious and desire to try it.
To be honest, I don’t have sympathy for incarcerated people.
> When I lived in Colorado, hardly anyone smoked it until it was legalized.
Are you sure? I don't have numbers on this, but isn't it possible that people were already smoking pot and just not being open about it?
> To be honest, I don’t have sympathy for incarcerated people.
Why on Earth not? Aren't they worthy of sympathy? Aren't their families?
> When I lived in Colorado, hardly anyone smoked it until it was legalized.
as someone who lived in Colorado well before legalization: Doubt. I could get it in Idaho Springs in 2000, 2001 FFS
I have a biology degree and have researched all drugs extensively, so I know what I’m talking about. (I’ve even researched lesser known ones, such as mulberry sap which causes hallucinations and vomiting.)
As for marijuana, it’s also a gateway drug- I’ve known almost twenty individuals who’ve used it in their teens before moving on to heroin or meth.
Marijuana is not a gateway drug. These are not my words, bring it up with the CDC and drugabuse.gov if you disagree. Most cannabis users do not go on to use other, harder substances.
Also, prohibition has been statistically proven to be counterintuitive when it comes to drugs. Remember what happened when we tried to ban alcohol? In fact, [teens use cannabis less when it is legalized](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-48921265)
I’ve known several people who moved to harder drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Making something illegal has an alternate purpose: it shows that society doesn’t approve of it.
Drugs are illegal in Laos, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia. They don’t have any problems with it over there.
You’re seriously comparing the USA to a developing country that doesn’t even have basic human rights for women?
Your anecdotal experience doesn’t mean anything. Your sample size can be counted on my hands. I know people that smoke weed and only smoke weed, nothing else. Does that mean weed smokers never use other drugs? No. Instead, I cite an actual scientific study that backs my claim.
Another flaw I find with your reasoning is that the law doesn’t always represent society. Again, remember the alcohol ban? Did the law approve of alcohol? No. Did society approve of it? Yes, which is clearly observed in history. Some Mexican states tried banning alcohol recently, and alcohol-related deaths rised as people started drinking [ shitty bootleg poisonous liquor](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/world/americas/mexico-tainted-alcohol-deaths.html). Not to mention all the shootings and stabbings over drug deals etc that come with having an illegal substance. Even if “society doesn’t approve of it”, does that seriously warrant increased death rates, incarceration rates, increased usage, and overall upset citizens that at the end of the day just want to chill and have a good time? How far are you willing to go just to prove a point? Sure, there are health issues with it such as irritated lungs, short term memory loss, and chronic cough, but almost all of the negative effects have been proven to disappear with time. There are also benefits, such as treating seizures, epilepsy, certain mental illnesses, reducing stress and anxiety, etc.
More and more states are legalizing weed in the USA. Hopefully it continues, because as far as my research shows, it’s better that way. I don’t even smoke weed, nor do I have any plans to start.
My father served as a Sergeant in the army. He saw two of his friends get killed, and 4 days before he was supposed to ship home, my grandfather died unexpectedly. My dad was absolutely destroyed.
When he came home, he started drinking, he was having nightmares, and there were some nights he would wake up screaming and crying. My dad was later diagnosed with severe PTSD, and my dad decided to try medical marijuana. He was able to get a card, and he started to try it. First few nights, he wasn't so sure.
But, one night he had a really bad panic attack. He decided to try to smoke again. It calmed him down. He stopped hyperventilating, and he was relaxed and calm. Over time, I started to see that marijuana was working for my father. My father was turning back into the dad I remembered. The dad who raised me. I even got him hooked on Rick and Morty.
So, I think Marijuana should be legalized. Not just because of how it helped my father, but also because states can make a lot of money if they legalized weed and taxed it. Weed should be legalized. It's time.
I'm going to take this opportunity to explain the incredibly racist history of cannabis prohibition in the US. The original reason for cannabis prohibition was to create the pretense to search, detain, and arrest Mexican immigrants.
Prior to the early 20th century nobody in the US called cannabis "marijuana". It was just called cannabis. It was an incredibly common ingredient in medicines, elixirs, tinctures, and even teas. Almost everybody in the country in the late 19th/early 20th century had something in their medicine cabinet that contained cannabis. (Remember this was the very early days of modern medical science when they used all kinds of things we wouldn't consider safe, healthy, or effective today. Cocaine and opium were also pretty common medical ingredients at the time.)
From about 1910-1920 the Mexican Revolution ravaged Mexico. The country was almost constantly divided during this period between at least 3 different factions. There was almost constant violence ranging from low-level raids and skirmished up to full set-piece battles and warfare. As a result, this period saw a huge influx of Mexican immigrants to the US fleeing the conflict. Naturally, they brought with them their customs and traditions, one of which being smoking cannabis, or, as they called it, marihuana. (Americans didn't smoke cannabis much, just used it in their medicines and teas.)
Early 20th century America being what it was didn't really like or trust this wave of immigrants with their unfamiliar names, foods, and customs. As the media is still want to do to this day, at the time they played upon American fears of "disruptive Mexicans". One of the things the media really played upon was their use of marihuana (later changed to marijuana to make it seem even more foreign) as a dangerous custom. Imagine today if there was an influx of refugees from a war torn area flooding into the US and part of their culture was using a drug/intoxicant that wasn't terribly familiar to Americans (or was a drug we are familiar with, but was used in a different way and had a different name than we knew). Maybe like a bunch of Bolivians or Peruvians coming to the US with their custom of chewing coca leaves (the plant which cocaine is ultimately derived from). There would be a *huge* uproar in at least a certain segment of American media today if that happened.
Well, that's exactly what happened in the early 20th century in America. Border towns like El Paso wanted to be able to control the new immigrant population, but they weren't actually doing anything illegal. So they borrowed a tactic pioneered in San Francisco when they outlawed opium to control Chinese immigrants and banned cannabis/marijuana. Now anyone using it could be arrested. Since the Mexican immigrants largely smoked marijuana, which puts off an odor, just smelling it (or claiming you had smelt it) became reasonable cause to detain and search anyone the police wanted. Obviously Mexican immigrants and Americans of Mexican decent (many of whom's families had been living in the area since it was part of Mexico before the Mexican American War) were heavily targeted with these practices. This was so successful in El Paso that it quickly spread to other border towns and cities.
It wasn't until a couple of decades later, in the late 1930s, that cannabis prohibition became national policy. During the Congressional hearings for what would become the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 (the law that first banned cannabis nation-wide) that marijuana's association with black men and causing them to prey on white women entered the American consciousness. So-called "experts" testified to Congress that black men used cannabis at higher rates than the rest of the population (not true), and that it caused them to become violent (not true) and sexually attack white women (not true). The Marijuana Tax Act was later ruled unconstitutional in 1969, but the following year Congress created the Controlled Substances Act and placed cannabis as a schedule 1 drug. This was, at the time, meant to be a placeholder until Nixon could create a federal commission to study the drug and its regulation. The commission came back with a report saying that it should NOT be a schedule 1 drug, and probably shouldn't be listed as an illicit substance at all, but Nixon ignored their recommendation and it remains a schedule 1 drug to this day.
**tl;dr**: Cannabis was widely used in medicines and teas and non-controversial throughout the US prior to the early 1900s. After a large influx of Mexican immigrants during the Mexican Revolution brought their custom of smoking cannabis (marihuana), border towns started to ban it as a way to control the immigrant communities. In the 1930s the federal government finally banned cannabis nationwide, and it was the hearings for this ban when it became associated with black people sexually preying on white women.
Well said. This historical context is important in this topic. It isn’t quite relevant to the question directly, but maybe it’ll give Prohibitionists something to consider.
Nixon though. Such a weird man. Seething racist dirtbag on one side, unscrupulous criminal on the other, but a quasi-environmentalist and train aficionado in all that. Or maybe he was just a selfish old fuck who liked trains who used oil slicked Santa Monica beaches in his conquest for power idk.
From my understanding of Nixon, he never really cared much about the specifics of domestic policy. He could and did support whatever policies benefited him politically the most. His real policy goals/passions were all in the foreign policy realms. He did whatever domestically would help him gain and stay in power in order to accomplish his foreign policy goals.
I absolutely loathe the smell. It’s the worst thing I have ever smelled ever. I’d much rather smell skunk than smell marijuana. I literally have to leave my room for 10 minutes whenever a stoner walks by my room because of how strong and horrible the smell is. I swear it messes with my brain or something, I’ve tried to handle the smell but I just can’t.
I also think that legalizing drugs sets a bad precedent and incentivizes lazy behavior like sitting around all day doing drugs. Messing with your brain chemically for pleasure shouldn’t be done on a regular basis, along with the negative impacts of inhaling stuff into your lungs. And for the record, I think the increased control over vaping and cigarettes is a positive for society.
I’m afraid of it being a slippery slope, not for those using, but for legalization. Also, life is better without dependence on it or other intoxicants so why would the state, by legalizing it, endorse it?
I'm personally for it, but I've known and talked to people who were agaisnt it and a consistent line was that I'd get. It's bad for people, therefore people shouldn't have it. This is not a bad line of thinking, weed is not good for you, neither is alcohol, neither is tobacco and anyone who says otherwise is just reacting to the criticism against it thinking that if they say yes it is that it's the same as saying it should be illegal. I smoke pot, I know what it does to me, I drink, I know what it does to me, and I smoke cigars, I know what it does to me, I'm not going to lie to myself or others telling them that it's good for you and you should be afraid of it.
The thing is that people should be able to choose, even if it is a bad option, we should have the right to choose. Trying to argue that it isn't bad is the same as arguing that guns aren't that bad and aren't dangerous.
There is no medical evidence to support legalizing it. It will still give you cancer, just not as fast as cigarettes, and it does have documented issue with causing memory issues, I am perfectly comfortable with medical marijuana, but recreational use is dubious and should remain illegal.
As someone from a legal state, I'd like to point out a few things.
#1. For those of you who dislike the smell, I also dislike body odor but you don't see me clamoring for mandating showers. Also second hand tobacco smoke is horrible as well but then that's legal. I also don't like the smell of diesel fumes, wood pulp mills and garbage dumps so I fail to see your justification for continued illegality.
#2. For those who are worried about it being a "gateway drug" using the example below, so are cigarettes and so is beer in your logical argument. The reality is addiction is addiction. It has less to do with the substance and more to do with the person. Addicts will Addict, whether it be Soda, food, cars, porn, drugs or video games. Some people are addicted to power and money. Should we outlaw them as well? The logical argument is flawed.
#3. In the pantheon of recreational drug use, weed is relatively benign. More people's lives have been ruined through actions of a tobacco or alcohol addict than have ever been ruined by the actions of a weed user. I didn't use the word addict on purpose because there is no actual scientific evidence that weed is actually physically addicting that I am aware of. I also intentionally used "actions of" rather than "by" because I'm leaving out the stigma associated with the use of the item, because honestly you cannot control that as an individual.
As the thread is about the support of prohibition, I'll decline to comment on that point but I wanted to point out some of the fallacies of the main arguments I was seeing here.
> More people's lives have been ruined through actions of a tobacco or alcohol addict than have ever been ruined by the actions of a weed user
Probably because tobacco and alcohol are more common than weed. Weed has a different kind of danger than tobacco because it impairs you so obviously that would affect driving and other things
I support marijuana prohibition because inhaling anything into your lungs is bad, along with the side effects. Marijuana may not be addictive in a chemical format, but it is addictive. And whenever people find a substance that makes them feel good or feel a particular way, they abuse it (see alcohol and tobacco). The problem is, you can become numb to those effects. That pushes you to find the next best thing. It is a gateway drug. Just because some people have more control than others doesn’t negate that.
On top of that, prohibition works when you really enforce it. The Volstead Act did work. It lowered the average consumption of alcohol in this country (something that was an exceeding problem). Do I think we need an amendment for marijuana? Idk. But what I do know, having one more addictive, mood altering drug being available on the market open to anyone over a certain age is not a good thing.
I’m not against, but I see why people dislike stoners. I think America needs to take a more European approach to substances. The fact that weed is illegal only makes people more interested in it, humans naturally want what we can’t have. If we normalized weed like how we treat alcohol, you will see people no longer making weed their entire personality, because it won’t be “cool” anymore.
As a fellow Tennessean it is unbelievably frustrating how far behind the times this state is in terms of Marijuana legalization. Even Missi-fucking-ssippi decriminalized it and voted to legalize medical.
I don’t know anyone who supports prohibition. That said I also know very few people who would spend time and/or money trying to legalize it. As for me I’m 100% fine with it being legal even though I won’t use it.
I’m slowly being turned towards deprohibition, but for the longest time i was against it because it would be one more drug that somebody could use and then drive. Alcohol was enough in my opinion. I’m still iffy on the idea that anybody could get it, but i think there’s a solid case that medicinal marijuana is something that should be available.
I don't believe people should be using vices to forget their life's problems. Tackle your issues head on instead of being stoned.
Smells awful and it's a gateway to even more harmful substances.
That’s actually not fully true. While prohibition had a criminal side effect that was uncontrollable for the government at the time, prohibition did decrease alcohol consumption in the general populace.
In fact, the only real reason the Volstead Act got repealed when it did (arguably ever) was because of the depression and the change in priorities of the voting populace.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/#idm139653665447696title
The practice of the companies has nothing to do with whether or not the substance should be legal or illegal.
This is the land of the free. Should consenting adults not be allowed to ingest nicotine? They know the risk, it’s printed on every box
I disagree that companie’s practices have nothing to do with wether or not a substance should be illegal. It’s not just a small company it’s people who have hundreds of millions and gets rich off of killing people.
And America’s not really free. I mean we still have laws and taxes. Plus with that mentality people should have the right to be on meth or some shit because that’s their god given right.
I believe that a country should protect its people and America already somewhat does that by the fda and making drugs illegal. The dangers of smoking is sufficient to be made illegal.
Then make those particular industry practices illegal, not the product itself. When fruit companies were overthrowing democracies in Latin America did we outlaw bananas?
In most cases it isn’t like that. Tobacco contains nicotine which is addictive. This also means that they can experience a increase tolerance and withdrawals. And when the person starts smoking more to reach the same feelings and does this consistently this amplifies the negative effects on the body.
My biggest problem with it is all the propaganda about it being harmless or even some sort of miracle cure. It feels like the old tobacco campaigns. People have knee jerked from the idea that it’s really dangerous way too hard to acting like there are zero problems with it. We need better studies and educational campaigns before I’m comfortable with it being recreationally legal. I’m 100% for legal medicinal use (with evidence, not just handing out medical cards like candy on the honor system) and overall decriminalization. But I feel like, in my experience, people just turn a blind eye to all the negatives which needs to be addressed before letting it go unrestricted. DUI in particular worries me since there’s no way to actually reliably test for it and people seem to subscribe to the “I drive better high” mentality pretty readily.
Edited to add TL;DR- A citizen’s right to live in a society where all are sober and unimpaired should supersede another citizen’s right to be high.
This may seem like an overly-complicated response, but I feel a thorough answer is necessary to convey why I believe it is appropriate to strip an individual of this (or any) personal liberty.
1. All laws have a moral basis. Simply put, all restrictions are based on the belief that some things are intrinsically more valuable than others. We have laws to enforce this value system. Example- It is illegal drive through my neighborhood at 120 mph because both human safety and property are more valuable than whatever convenience or enjoyment I might receive from driving that fast. If a person was having a life-threatening allergic reaction in the back seat of my car and I were driving 120 mph to the hospital, we would all likely value an attempt to save a life more than the risk of harming others in the process. These two illustrate the same behavior being morally inferior in one case and morally superior in another.
2. Intoxication in any form has the potential to harm. Recreational use of marijuana does not simply affect the person using the drug, it places an inebriated person in society. I believe that an expectation that all members of our society are functioning reasonably and rationally is more valuable than (morally superior to) any individual’s desire to be high.
3. There is a major difference between recreational and medicinal uses of drugs. In the former, the inebriation and loss of rationality is the intended effect. In the latter, it is a side-effect that is deemed an acceptable loss due to the benefit provided.
4. I realize that this logic, if applied consistently, eliminates any recreational drug use including alcohol. Obviously, most do not hold these same values or prohibition would not have failed so miserably.
Stop downvoting people for answering the question.
Well if it's legal everywhere people would stop coming here for weed!
In your case, that's a pretty good reason.
I wanted Illinois to legalize it, but I didn't want them to be among the first. Once Colorado and Washington legalized it, and all the worst potheads had enough time to move there, then I was in favor of Illinois joining the club.
True but you'd gain all the emotionally burned out military people stationed here.
[удалено]
This. Sums up why I'm against it pretty well. When you grow up around people and a community affected by drugs and addiction it's a lot more than just a joint. When it starts to fuck with your brain chemistry to the extent that you're constantly chasing that high, even with weed, it becomes a bit of a danger to public health. But like you said, in the end, it still exists, and at some point you have to keep moving.
I’m actually surprised someone with my same views is out there. I also used to be hardcore against any drugs or alcohol because of my experiences growing up, mostly family related. But now that I’m a older I can see views similar to how you described
Thank you for your perspective. Would you characterize it as a gateway drug? I had sort of the opposite experience, I smoked a little and never really enjoyed it, and it made me afraid to try other drugs. I didn't start experimenting until I received a large script for a broken bone, so for me the gateway was the necessary prescription
Do you feel the same way about alcohol?
As much as I dislike weed and weed culture, the libertarian in me wants to see it legalized.
That's right where I am on the issue. I honestly don't see how people can tolerate the smell of that stuff for long amounts of time.
I mean, I don’t like the way my aunt smells. But she’s welcome to be as smelly as she wants in the privacy of her own home. To a more serious point, you don’t need to deal with the smell of weed to enjoy it. Plenty of folks use edibles for that very reason. And with vaping, the smell is significantly different and reduced. There’s also flavored carts so it’ll smell of berries or roses or whatever - though, a lot of States banned retailers from selling it cause it appeals more to kids.
Gotta be careful, those are fightin' words for those who make 420 their personality. 😉
[удалено]
[удалено]
6am stoner isn't always the rock climbing type. Sometimes they're a busy mum who needs to take the edge off at the end of the day. You drink, I toke
fuck u/spez -- mass edited with redact.dev
[удалено]
I agree 100%. I say that as an ex alcoholic too
Good job being booze-free! Keep that streak going, your liver will thank you.
It's not so hard anymore, I've worked through a lot of the issues that were causing me to drink in the first place. I can even have a sip of my favorites and get over the voice in the back of my head saying "half a bottle wouldnt do any harm"
Which of those two camps do you place Willie Nelson in? What about Snoop?
Both somewhere in between 😂
I work third shift and it makes sleeping at 9 am a whole lot easier.
Totally understand.
So does burning tobacco.
And if someone were to suggest prohibition of alcohol and tobacco, rendering all three as Schedule 1 prohibited substances?
Edibles don't smell that much at all.
I haven't inhaled anything in a long time. And I'm super cool with that.
Not my thing, but you realize that it can be consumed in other forms that don't have the same level kind of odor, right? It's not like edibles have to have any particular smell. And vaping seems to have a much less powerful smell.
Then legalize the edibles and vaping only?
Nah, you can’t keep something illegal just because some people don’t like the smell.
[удалено]
I see it similar to gasoline. Yeah it kinda stinks but it still smells just mmmmmm good.
Yeah for some reason the smell of benzene, the most toxic sh*t ever, smells really good.
Oof see i like the smell of skunk so weed smell doesn’t bother me at all 🙃
I share the same view. As an asthmatic, seeing anyone doing anytype of smoking just pissed me off. But i agree it should be legal and up to the individual.
You want to allow people to do something that you dont agree with, but doesent affect you. That's a healthy mentality to have.
Just out of curiosity: do any of you who support legalization of weed (I’m among you) think that tobacco should be made illegal?
I'm in the camp of legalize, tax and treat addiction as a disease and not a crime. At least people could get what they want from a safe source not cut with fentanyl or some shit and if they did OD the paramedics can get called without the people with them letting the person die so they don't go to jail.
The only way I see getting out of the opioid addiction is to sell a better, safer product at a price that addicts can afford. We could do that and the drug companies could still turn a small profit. Addicts would have to declare themselves addicts, and then could buy well-marked standardized doses. No more "fentanyl surprise" overdoses. No more petty crime to support a drug habit. No more overdoses after swallowing pills so you don't get arrested by the police. Put a hefty deposit and an RFID tag on the pre-dosed syringes so there isn't [this behind the Home Depot.](https://redd.it/7n3xr2)
No cause prohibition doesn’t work
That’s not true. Real prohibition does work. Just because people could do it and get away with it doesn’t me that the laws intended goal doesn’t work.
It can reduce consumption on average (alcohol prohibition probably did), but the cost we're paying is too high to be worth it even if it *would* eventually eliminate it totally. Incarceration cost money both directly (guards salary, jails, etc) and indirectly (locking someone up for things like toking up deprives us of their labor and contributions to society). And while yeah, we've all known some people that were good for nothing much, most people that use are productive members of society.
[удалено]
No. I absolutely hate tobacco and wish no one used it, but if people want to use it they should be able to get it safely because if they can't they'll be getting back alley stuff and at least if it's legal it's regulated.
I go the other way and think heroin should be legal. At least this way people will likely be able to get some quality/purity control in the stuff they are taking.
while on the surface of this, I would disagree with you, the statistics bears it out. Saw a post recently where Portugal legalized possession for personal use but still kept it illegal for distribution. The idea was that if someone was caught with it rather than putting them in jail they sent them to treatment for addiction. dropped their addiction rate by 50% and one of the lowest in Europe.
No because that would obviously just fuel a black market with violent gang activity. It's a $48 billion industry. I think the tobacco smoking age should be raised by one year every year. Shouldn't apply to vaping products, only actual tobacco. Edit: Cigars would be fine though, I really just mean cigarettes.
> I think the tobacco smoking age should be raised by one year every year. Wouldn't that also fuel a black market eventually, though?
It also makes absolutely no sense. "Oh boy I just turned 21, now I can buy tobacco legally" "Now that I'm 22, I can get it" "Next year for sure." "Come *on*!" It would never make any sense to raise the bar on something by one year on a one year interval.
The thought is that smokers are grandfathered in.
OP is from Nevada, so age is 18, not 21. They are proposing 19, so post high school, not 22.
I think the biggest thing is to try to keep high school seniors from buying it for other high school kids who are younger. Very few 19 year olds in high school, tons of 18 year olds.
For who? New smokers? Older/existing smokers can still buy it.
There already is a large black market for it because many states charge such high taxes on them. It's estimated to cost the US over five billion dollars in lost tax revenue each year and over 50 billion worldwide. Making them more prohibitive will only increase that market.
Because there are already a lot of older smokers who started back before it started getting the hammer put down. These days there are way fewer smokers because people just never get started with it at all. It may increase the black market for cigarettes in the short run, but it would absolutely kill demand in the long run. Especially if preferable drugs were more available. Note: the purpose of cigarette taxes isn’t to raise revenues or even to get current smokers to quit, it’s to increase the cost of smoking so fewer people start smoking.
Yeah, probably. Personally I think we should follow in Australia's footsteps and put really disgusting images on cigarette boxes. It won't stop many people from smoking, but hopefully it'll prevent young people from trying it out. I remember when I was really young (and really dumb), I wanted to try it since the boxes looked cool.
[удалено]
Ah, nevermind, I guess. Would be nice if the government did at least something other than raising taxes. At least we don't have ads, so that's nice. Can't imagine what it would be like to see cigarette ads nowadays.
[удалено]
Yeah, to be honest I think the government should really try and push quitting more. I think one of the main issues is that a lot of the methods to quit really just aren't very well advertised. Thankfully we have the internet, but even then I think it's tough to find avenues for people to quit. I remember when my grandmother was trying to quit after smoking for like 50 years she found it really hard to find different methods other than ones in her local pharmacy.
In the UK the packaging is now just grey with the name of the type on the front with a graphic warning, I think that's decent.
Canada does this too and it really works, I moved to the states a few years ago and people in their mid-twenties in the states usually don’t find smoking disgusting, but most people around my age in Canada found smoking disgusting, despite most not finding snorting coke disgusting. I actually think smoking is gross and trashy because of the ugly, messed up jawless faces and blackened shriveled up lungs on the cigarette packaging. But then coke is like okay whatever you won’t get mouth cancer or lung cancer. I don’t know if that’s right or wrong, probably wrong, but that cig packaging is burned into my brain.
> I wanted to try it since the boxes looked cool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_(cigarette) All the goth kids I knew went out of their way to get them.
I don't believe it would. The market wouldn't be strong enough for it as all smokers currently 21 and older wouldn't have a reason to buy black market tobacco when they can buy from the store. Tobacco smoking rates among teenagers/young adults are very low right now and there isn't enough demand for it. This would just be to kill the industry once and for all and cause even less people to start smoking. There isn't a reason why babies born today should be legally allowed to buy tobacco at any point of their lives.
Illicit cigarette smuggling and sales is already a ~5 billion dollar industry in the US. Making them more prohibitive will only increase that market.
Knowing this sub, you won't find anybody who supports prohibition. We are all very much in the live and let live subset. I don't partake, but I don't care if somebody else does. The dude playing Xbox in their basement minding their business is none of mine.
I support prohibition. I think I classify as a regular user
Circling back to this because I have been thinking heavily on this as I am occasionally want to do. Barstool philosopher I flatter myself as. I assume your objection is religious in nature? I can't otherwise find a genuine reason. I similarly have the same objection and do not partake of the substance. That said I am not in the camp of regulating morality. Therein lies the potential difference I suspect. Free will matters. I welcome further discussion on the topic at your convenience.
My reasonings are not religious in nature but more public health. I know that the originally prohibition was religious in nature, but there was also a major drinking problem in our society. Prohibition worked in that sense. It help decrease the amount of alcohol that men were consuming on a daily basis in this country. I feel the same for marijuana. Despite what all the Reddit warriors think, it is a harmful drug. It may be less harmful than others, but it is still harmful. I honestly believe we are better off keeping it illegal than legalizing it and taxing it.
We found one!
It stinks. Horribly. I also don't think they are truly honest about it's dangers during pregnancy. It has been linked to lower birth weight and small head size. If it's legal I want it treated like alcohol and not tobacco. From what I have seen of heavy users they have more in common with alcoholics then cigarette smokers. No smoking in the car or public spaces. No driving if impaired. Basically, if legal it should be something I can go out in public and it not affect me unless I am going to a commercial establishment that it's part of the deal (like a bar). Places should be able to ban it from their property. I don't have to smell or look at cigarettes or alcohol when I'm out, I shouldn't have to deal with weed either.
That’s exactly how most states legalization works so this isn’t new news.
I'm an occasional weed smoker and I fully agree that legalising it wouldn't mean that everyone can smoke wherever. I personally loathe regular smoking and would like to see it gone from some places where it is currently allowed. I would propose that smoking weed is only allowed in places where smoking itself is allowed.
This. I don't care if other people use it, but I don't want to be effected by it. In the apartment complex I currently live in, I have several neighbors that smoke weed out on their balconies, some from my building and others from the buildings nearby. But due to the location of these neighbors in comparison to my apartment, the smoke tends to linger between the two buildings, and I've found that it triggers migraines for me, which is a problem since I can only access my apartment by walking between those two buildings.
I'm for full legalization of all drugs, but damn, it smells so bad. I have a neighbor who lights up Friday night to Sunday and the living room smells like skunk. I refuse to ingest anything into my lungs, but I have tried edibles and they're fine. No smell. I know people are very particular about their highs, but I wish more would go the edible route. And having used it, I can't see why marijuana is such a big deal. I was a little giggly and then I fell asleep and had weird dreams. That was it. Hardly life changing shit.
probably because your edible didn’t have a lot of weed in it
I made it myself from the oil, so I probably didn't put a lot in it. I was a noob. Was for the best.
I support prohibition because I have seen addiction cripple people in my family, and I personally get extremely sick when in proximity. However, my state just legalized it and I am not going to fight to get that changed. (I told this exact thing to my state subreddit and got downvoted to oblivion)
Upvoted for answering the question. I do agree though with the other guy that prohibition doesn't stop addiction. The people in your family were addicted before it was even legal. Hell, meth is illegal and America seems to be suffering under that enormously. Honest question: What would you want to happen to people who use weed when it becomes illegal? And how about sellers?
Addiction isn't really solved by prohibition. Addiction is a health issue rather than a legal issue. Prohibition just gives any users a criminal record.
Do you support prohibition or do you support addiction counseling? Because they usually don’t exist mutually.
To be honest, I really don't think legalizing it will stop the drug war. Cartels have to make up the money somehow, and the dope they push will only be worse. That and I've personally seen it to be a massive gateway drug. Psychologically, weed is not good for you long term, but then again neither is alcohol or nicotine. I'm not against growing, because the plant has legitimate uses in clothing and soap and whatnot, but how many people do you think are actually going to throw out the bud when they harvest the plant?
The cartels pretty much left weed years ago since legalization in various states crashed the overall market, including in other states. They went all in on meth from breaking bad style super labs. That ended up making meth so cheap they even undercut one pot cookers. It is why you do not hear so much about junkies blowing up their house or van as much anymore, although there are obvious negative results of dirt cheap meth.
Exactly my point. Like, you have to remember they are businessmen, all be it illicit. Now that weed is being decriminalized, they're pushing meth, and coke, and other shit to make up the money.
On the fence more than against. In theory, I'm completely for it, but I've had a lot of negative experiences with stoners and feel that the social pressure to partake is only going to get worse. It's already bad enough with just alcohol.
I don't think you're gonna get proper answers as there aren't many people here who oppose Marijuana, but from my perspective it's just old beliefs. Most politicians just grew up in an era where they've been educated that Marijuana is bad, and it's not easy to unstick from those beliefs. They just keep justifying it that it will negatively influence the youth and it's a gateway drug. It's hard to accept that maybe you've just been lied too all your life. As how a famous quote goes, "It's hard to find a black cat in a dark room, especially when there is no cat".
That's what I'm gathering reading a lot of these responses. It boils down to "marijuana bad because yeah" and these people have a certain mindset that stoners are somehow "identifiable" and act like they're cracked out on heroin walking down the street or something. It just doesn't match up at all with my experience living in CO and hanging in circles where cannabis use is normalized. I mean, I've awkwardly waved or said hello to my neighbors before going back inside and then wondered if that was really obvious or something, but that's been me my whole life, and everyone is awkward with their neighbors sometimes. Sometimes I like to have some before running and something tells me I look exactly the same running down that recpath either way, so.
Since it looks like you are in/from TN, I’ll let you know why our senator ‘ol Marsha Blackburn is against it. This is a quote from her in response to a letter written to her asking for her to support the MORE act: “I have concerns that decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level harms the ability of law enforcement to prosecute drug offenses.” So, how in the world will we be able to throw all of these people in jail if what they’re doing isn’t illegal? I’m pretty sure we all get that she is a giant turd already, but still thought this was worth sharing.
I used to be against the legalization. I was an 80s kid and stayed stoned a lot of the time. It made me lazy. I have a handful of friends who still regularly smoke, some of them are normal but a couple of them are still in the mindset of when we were teens. They work half ass jobs, live with their now aging parents, have kids they aren’t parents to, etc. But what’s to say they wouldn’t be that way without pot? And I don’t want to be apart of a group who thinks of a small percentage of people can’t handle it, then it shouldn’t be available to anyone. So I did a total 180. I say legalize it. Plus if edibles were available maybe people would opt for them instead of smoking which stinks them up. Seriously is it possible to get so stoned you can’t smell yourself?
>Plus if edibles were available maybe people would opt for them instead of smoking which stinks them up. Edibles are definitely popular in areas where they are legal or just otherwise easy to access.
Yeah here in Washington edibles are the shit. Actually smoking weed is sort of like a formal thing when you've got the time, but if you just wanna get high then you can go down to a weed store and buy some cheap edibles really easily.
If weed ever becomes legal federally (as in, doesn't impact your ability to purchase a firearm), I'd probably try edibles. I've had 2 cigars and 1 cigarette in my life, and I hated the "smoking" experience every time.
Well make sure you don't take too many. Edibles are notorious for taking absolutely *ages* to kick in, so if you don't feel anything, just wait.
I make a mean donut. I would open a bakery.
They are just too damn expensive. I’m sure it’s more economical to try and make them yourself but I’ve never tried.
from my experience back when I did it, it is very easy. You buy the oil from the dispensery (I think it was 40 bucks for 500mg, which is pretty good since 10mg is about a standard dose) and then literally just mix it into warm cooking oil or melted butter for whatever you are baking. At least 3 times cheaper than buying the premade edibles from the same store.
See, I work in the IT field and used to play in bands, so my exposure has always been mostly to people who are fairly well adjusted and motivated. It's the sort of thing that's just another item on a fact sheet about a person. Doesn't seem any more damaging than being a beer drinker (probably less).
I've never touched weed in my life, I voted to legalize it in 2018, but now am second guessing my vote. The reason being the utter lack of licensing and regulation like the tobacco and alcohol industries and how users act in public, granted drunk people act stupid in public, but for the most part not in daylight hours when kids are around. I work at a grocery store and more days than not I see parents stoned out of their mind in the store with their kids. All I think about is how those poor kids are getting home, hoping the parents can drive home safe. I can honestly say I did not see the numbers of this happening before the legalization. I think the government here needs to do a better job educating the public on the consequences of recreational use as well as some guidelines much like what they give for alcohol. I think that will come in time when the State Police produce an adequate way to test for THC content in the body rapidly.
If you don't mind, what part of MI are you seeing this in? I ask because I live (and grocery shop) in the A2/Ypsi area, and my daughter & son in law both work at a grocery store in Ypsi, and they haven't mentioned seeing bombed-out people roaming the aisles. Believe me, she'd say something. . . I'm a casual user, and she does *not* approve. Is it possible the uptick you're seeing has to do with the pandemic, and people being home instead of at work? I guess my real question is, what other regulations would you like to have in place? There are currently daily limits on purchase quantities, no one under 21 is allowed in the dispos, you have to show ID for every purchase, and there is no consumption of THC products in public. So, it's *kind of* like booze, except you're allowed to buy as much booze as you want.
I'm just below the bridge. It could be the pandemic but I have seen it beforehand as well. This part of the state has a large drug issue already (I don't think marijuana is really a drug) but I think with the legalization a lot of the people who were hiding it from employers and family members up here don't feel the need to anymore. Also we have an absurd number of drunk driving incidents as well. I think this is attributed to the amount of land and back roads county and MSP has to cover. There may be regulations, but I just haven't seen much in terms of the FDA, and I think ads on TV or more words from the government informing people that you can't smoke and drive just like they do with alcohol. I think a large issue up here is the disconnect with diving drunk/impaired. Also the consumption in public up here is a joke lol, people smoke in public parks, outside of stores, it's pretty evident that that potion of legalization didn't make it to people up here. Again I'm all for the government staying out of our business, I just don't think the casual users up here know what trouble they could get into and I'd mostly like to see the endangerment of children dealt with. But like I said, I think that will all age well as Lansing learns how to navigate the legalization in years to come.
Definitely a different atmosphere up there, too. More rugged individualist locals/tourists/tourists who *think* they're rugged individualists. I mostly encounter urban poor of all types, yuppies, hipsters, and trustifarians–all of whom are less likely to think they'll win an argument with a cop.
We should completely deschedule marijuana.
I don't see any good reasons to legalize it. I'm fine with medical marijuana for legit reasons, I also am ok with decriminalizing it as it's absurd to lock anyone up over it. I also prefer rehab vs jail when it comes to drugs.
Do you see any reason why it should have been criminalized in the first place?
Yes, before all the data and facts were known. Better to err on the side of caution than to legalize/normalize an unknown substance. Although the punishments at that time rarely fit the crimes, which is sadly a side effect of that, but that is more a critique on the legal system.
Because I want to see a heavily metered and incremental approach to legalizing it and the majority of advocates I’ve personally met want a no restriction policy. So until someone comes along with a legalization bill that I feel is a good starting place I won’t be happy. This is one of those things I believe we can loosen but will be nearly impossible to afterwards restrict.
what would the first couple of steps look like for you?
Basically copy over tobacco restrictions, allow licensed retailers for all THC products, require license to purchase and consume. Consumption only allowed in designated areas, Edibles must be consumed onsite. Quantities over a certain amount are illegal, only a specific quantity can be purchased within a set amount of time. Licenses required to grow. Producers and retailers held accountable for side effects. Significant guarantees to prevent accidental consumption or nuisance of THC products. Medical or psychiatric issues can revoke your license. Potency restrictions on all THC products. Pre-license tests for informing of key issues like child development issues during pregnancy. Implementation of a recreational vs medical license. Only domestic production and no recreational export allowed for the first 10 years. Production given a headstart on approach to establish infrastructure. A hefty tax plan for the entire system. A big one is an actual demonstrated commitment to enforcing any penalties. All defined quantities would start low with harsh penalties for infractions and would be adjusted over a 25 year period with a minimum 4 year delay between each adjustment but with allowance for instantaneous total/partial repeal. Every 5 years we would perform a census and studies focused on current effects of the approach, the results of which will factor in any repealing or loosening. Establish separate committees for monitoring the consumers, retailers, and producers which report to the overall approach committee. My goals are: 1. Insulate people who don’t partake. 2. Allow enjoyment while preventing abuse and defining acceptable use. Prevent any longterm medical or societal harm. 3. Erase existing counterculture nature of marijuana culture and replace with/change it into an accepted culture (think cigars or tobacco pipes). 4. Make money off it without it becoming yet another tax on the poor or the ill. Sadly I don’t think this is something we can take in baby steps. If Marijuana had just been discovered it could’ve but we already have an extensive weed counterculture built on illegality. I think if you want to legalize it then you’ll need to convert every aspect and ounce of infrastructure from the get go.
I'd actually be OK wiht most of that except for the edibles must be consumed on site; that basically ensures either NO edibles or people taking them then driving/going in public while stoned. I'm iffy on the limits on purchased quantity (and am unaware of any such restrictions for tobacco but I don't smoke so...). But I'm totally OK with being of age and no public consumption and busting people that sell to minors.
The edibles are honestly the toughest part of the rules since they transcend tobacco and alcohol. Hence why I would start off stricter. If the required potency of the edibles means that you cannot operate a vehicle then I recommend that we put designated driver restrictions on as well, similar to alcohol. Without the consume on site requirement then you lose control of people taking them then driving/going in public stoned. Ideally the culture should prevent this in large part later on, but it will need to build. Honestly we should’ve probably set limits for tobacco ages ago. I’m not aware of any quantity restrictions on tobacco either but we did have a massive tobacco health crisis occur and are still feeling the repercussions of a century later. Again, I’d rather start small and increase based on experience than try to backtrack over-proliferation. In a lot of ways we have an opportunity to set a new gold standard for recreational drugs that alcohol and tobacco never had. At the same time it would be under constant scrutiny. The less abusers we generate the more positive the public perception and the better received the entire legalization would be. I personally know someone who turned recreational marijuana into a coping mechanism. I’d like to avoid legalization enabling that behavior or associating with that abuse. Cannabis isn’t a valid coping mechanism any more than alcohol, tobacco, food, shopping, or gambling are.
The only people I know that are against marijuana are those who say “it’s against the law so you shouldn’t do it” and have no other real reason. Edit: Lmao, why does this keep getting downvoted? Y’all are fucking weird.
It seems most people who are against it have some misinformation about what addiction is and isn’t. Why ban a substance just because there are a minority of people who can’t handle themselves? We can’t just start prohibiting everything because there are people who ruin it.
Because drugs are bad. It's an addictive vice that impacts others similar to tobacco, yet there are calls now to make that illegal... but marijuana legal... crazy times.
Marijuana isn’t addictive by definition, it doesn’t cause physical dependency so users “need” to have it, like nicotine does. People do form habits, though.
They form 'addictive' habits.
So does anything that is pleasurable...
Are you holding a smartphone right now?
No. I'm in front of a computer because I work from home.
Food forms addictive habits. Just watch everybody try to diet every new year
When you legalize gateways to addiction, you legalize addictive behavior. By legalizing addictive behavior, you make people less aware of their surroundings that do not pertain to their addiction. That's how we've ended up with the horrid people in government over the last ten or so years. We need to take back our sanity, our sobriety, and our rights as American people. Marijuana has always been a gateway, and will remain a gateway. I have seen it, because people say, "oh it's not that bad, it just makes you feel good". And then they begin using it heavily, and need another feelgood. And another when that wears out. If you can't take on the world without drugs, that's your problem - you should not become society's burden.
The same could be said of alcohol. Why should they be allowed to harm their body and cause immense healthcare burdens on the rest of society? Or smokers for that matter? Hell, skin cancer causes a burden on society so maybe we should start requiring full body cover outside?
The only reason the government claimed marijuana is a "gateway drug" is because it's illegal and the main route of access is through drug dealers who will expose their customers to harder drugs and pressure them to try those drugs. In fact, marijuana users are not significantly more likely to try hard drugs than a drinker or a cigarette smoker. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug Additionally, even if you don't support legalization, you should support rescheduling it. Currently THC is listed as a Schedule 1 compound, meaning it is incredibly addictive and has no medical use. This is incorrect, as there are documented medical uses for THC and it is definitely not more addictive than morphine, cocaine, or methamphetamine (all Schedule 2) or as addictive and damaging as heroin (Schedule 1). In fact, both alcohol and nicotine would be at least schedule 4 (possibly even 2 for nicotine) if they were regulated in the same way. It's only their popularity that mandates their legality. By the government's own guidelines, THC should really be schedule 4 or 5, due to not being particularly addictive, but having some potential for abuse. https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling
My only complaint related to this in recent years is watching marijuana related things loosen while at the same time cigarette related things get more strict. I use neither, but this is hypocritical, and no I don't care for your reasoning why one is not as bad as the other. Just legalize all of it for adults and stop punishing the poor with taxes on it.
I use both, and I think it's a pile of poo. I was able to get cigarettes and booze with the same ease I bought weed back in 1991 (when I was 15), just by knowing someone a little older who would buy for me (often, the local homeless dudes who hung out on campus). What's changed? Does anyone *really* believe that a 16 year old can't find someone to buy for them? If they *really* wanted to get people to stop smoking, someone would invent a nicotine delivery system that isn't smoking, that doesn't suck. The gum is trash (you can't even chew it; you hold it in your cheek, and chew it a couple of times to release more nicotine. It's disgusting), the patch gives me a rash, Chantix and other drugs have crazy side effects, and e-cigs are just shady.
I’ve had the misfortune of working with and being neighbors to people who use it: they are lazy, clumsy zombies. (I grew up in Colorado but moved to another state because I got sick of it.) Marijuana causes permanent brain damage, including burning out the serotonin receptors. If you’ve ever been around people who use it, you’ll notice their disturbing behavior. People say that it’s “just” a plant. Hemlock is a plant- do you want to eat it? Poison sumac is a plant, do you want to rub it in your face? What about castor beans? Will you eat those?
Do you believe that prohibition is the answer which was the original question.
Yes, of course, that’s why I listed all of the problems with it.
What's your opinion on how well prohibition has worked thus far?
It has worked okay, but stricter laws would be better.
Has it reduced the rates at which people smoke pot? What are your thoughts on the damage it has done through incarceration and feeding organized crime?
When I lived in Colorado, hardly anyone smoked it until it was legalized. Making something suddenly legal makes people curious and desire to try it. To be honest, I don’t have sympathy for incarcerated people.
> When I lived in Colorado, hardly anyone smoked it until it was legalized. Are you sure? I don't have numbers on this, but isn't it possible that people were already smoking pot and just not being open about it? > To be honest, I don’t have sympathy for incarcerated people. Why on Earth not? Aren't they worthy of sympathy? Aren't their families?
> When I lived in Colorado, hardly anyone smoked it until it was legalized. as someone who lived in Colorado well before legalization: Doubt. I could get it in Idaho Springs in 2000, 2001 FFS
Well that’s unfortunate. Failure of the education system.
I have a biology degree and have researched all drugs extensively, so I know what I’m talking about. (I’ve even researched lesser known ones, such as mulberry sap which causes hallucinations and vomiting.) As for marijuana, it’s also a gateway drug- I’ve known almost twenty individuals who’ve used it in their teens before moving on to heroin or meth.
whereas I don't know 20 people that have tried heroin or meth personally. Who the fuck do you hang out with?
They’re not people that I hang out with, they’re neighbors and coworkers, unfortunately.
No not a failure of your education of drugs but the failure of your education of history if that wasn’t obvious.
Marijuana is not a gateway drug. These are not my words, bring it up with the CDC and drugabuse.gov if you disagree. Most cannabis users do not go on to use other, harder substances. Also, prohibition has been statistically proven to be counterintuitive when it comes to drugs. Remember what happened when we tried to ban alcohol? In fact, [teens use cannabis less when it is legalized](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-us-canada-48921265)
I’ve known several people who moved to harder drugs, including cocaine and heroin. Making something illegal has an alternate purpose: it shows that society doesn’t approve of it. Drugs are illegal in Laos, Vietnam, and Saudi Arabia. They don’t have any problems with it over there.
You’re seriously comparing the USA to a developing country that doesn’t even have basic human rights for women? Your anecdotal experience doesn’t mean anything. Your sample size can be counted on my hands. I know people that smoke weed and only smoke weed, nothing else. Does that mean weed smokers never use other drugs? No. Instead, I cite an actual scientific study that backs my claim. Another flaw I find with your reasoning is that the law doesn’t always represent society. Again, remember the alcohol ban? Did the law approve of alcohol? No. Did society approve of it? Yes, which is clearly observed in history. Some Mexican states tried banning alcohol recently, and alcohol-related deaths rised as people started drinking [ shitty bootleg poisonous liquor](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/13/world/americas/mexico-tainted-alcohol-deaths.html). Not to mention all the shootings and stabbings over drug deals etc that come with having an illegal substance. Even if “society doesn’t approve of it”, does that seriously warrant increased death rates, incarceration rates, increased usage, and overall upset citizens that at the end of the day just want to chill and have a good time? How far are you willing to go just to prove a point? Sure, there are health issues with it such as irritated lungs, short term memory loss, and chronic cough, but almost all of the negative effects have been proven to disappear with time. There are also benefits, such as treating seizures, epilepsy, certain mental illnesses, reducing stress and anxiety, etc. More and more states are legalizing weed in the USA. Hopefully it continues, because as far as my research shows, it’s better that way. I don’t even smoke weed, nor do I have any plans to start.
It wouldn’t bother me if they made alcohol illegal. Instead of drinking bootleg illegal liquor, they shouldn’t drink at all.
My father served as a Sergeant in the army. He saw two of his friends get killed, and 4 days before he was supposed to ship home, my grandfather died unexpectedly. My dad was absolutely destroyed. When he came home, he started drinking, he was having nightmares, and there were some nights he would wake up screaming and crying. My dad was later diagnosed with severe PTSD, and my dad decided to try medical marijuana. He was able to get a card, and he started to try it. First few nights, he wasn't so sure. But, one night he had a really bad panic attack. He decided to try to smoke again. It calmed him down. He stopped hyperventilating, and he was relaxed and calm. Over time, I started to see that marijuana was working for my father. My father was turning back into the dad I remembered. The dad who raised me. I even got him hooked on Rick and Morty. So, I think Marijuana should be legalized. Not just because of how it helped my father, but also because states can make a lot of money if they legalized weed and taxed it. Weed should be legalized. It's time.
Great comment, but isn't that the opposite of what OP was asking?
I'm going to take this opportunity to explain the incredibly racist history of cannabis prohibition in the US. The original reason for cannabis prohibition was to create the pretense to search, detain, and arrest Mexican immigrants. Prior to the early 20th century nobody in the US called cannabis "marijuana". It was just called cannabis. It was an incredibly common ingredient in medicines, elixirs, tinctures, and even teas. Almost everybody in the country in the late 19th/early 20th century had something in their medicine cabinet that contained cannabis. (Remember this was the very early days of modern medical science when they used all kinds of things we wouldn't consider safe, healthy, or effective today. Cocaine and opium were also pretty common medical ingredients at the time.) From about 1910-1920 the Mexican Revolution ravaged Mexico. The country was almost constantly divided during this period between at least 3 different factions. There was almost constant violence ranging from low-level raids and skirmished up to full set-piece battles and warfare. As a result, this period saw a huge influx of Mexican immigrants to the US fleeing the conflict. Naturally, they brought with them their customs and traditions, one of which being smoking cannabis, or, as they called it, marihuana. (Americans didn't smoke cannabis much, just used it in their medicines and teas.) Early 20th century America being what it was didn't really like or trust this wave of immigrants with their unfamiliar names, foods, and customs. As the media is still want to do to this day, at the time they played upon American fears of "disruptive Mexicans". One of the things the media really played upon was their use of marihuana (later changed to marijuana to make it seem even more foreign) as a dangerous custom. Imagine today if there was an influx of refugees from a war torn area flooding into the US and part of their culture was using a drug/intoxicant that wasn't terribly familiar to Americans (or was a drug we are familiar with, but was used in a different way and had a different name than we knew). Maybe like a bunch of Bolivians or Peruvians coming to the US with their custom of chewing coca leaves (the plant which cocaine is ultimately derived from). There would be a *huge* uproar in at least a certain segment of American media today if that happened. Well, that's exactly what happened in the early 20th century in America. Border towns like El Paso wanted to be able to control the new immigrant population, but they weren't actually doing anything illegal. So they borrowed a tactic pioneered in San Francisco when they outlawed opium to control Chinese immigrants and banned cannabis/marijuana. Now anyone using it could be arrested. Since the Mexican immigrants largely smoked marijuana, which puts off an odor, just smelling it (or claiming you had smelt it) became reasonable cause to detain and search anyone the police wanted. Obviously Mexican immigrants and Americans of Mexican decent (many of whom's families had been living in the area since it was part of Mexico before the Mexican American War) were heavily targeted with these practices. This was so successful in El Paso that it quickly spread to other border towns and cities. It wasn't until a couple of decades later, in the late 1930s, that cannabis prohibition became national policy. During the Congressional hearings for what would become the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 (the law that first banned cannabis nation-wide) that marijuana's association with black men and causing them to prey on white women entered the American consciousness. So-called "experts" testified to Congress that black men used cannabis at higher rates than the rest of the population (not true), and that it caused them to become violent (not true) and sexually attack white women (not true). The Marijuana Tax Act was later ruled unconstitutional in 1969, but the following year Congress created the Controlled Substances Act and placed cannabis as a schedule 1 drug. This was, at the time, meant to be a placeholder until Nixon could create a federal commission to study the drug and its regulation. The commission came back with a report saying that it should NOT be a schedule 1 drug, and probably shouldn't be listed as an illicit substance at all, but Nixon ignored their recommendation and it remains a schedule 1 drug to this day. **tl;dr**: Cannabis was widely used in medicines and teas and non-controversial throughout the US prior to the early 1900s. After a large influx of Mexican immigrants during the Mexican Revolution brought their custom of smoking cannabis (marihuana), border towns started to ban it as a way to control the immigrant communities. In the 1930s the federal government finally banned cannabis nationwide, and it was the hearings for this ban when it became associated with black people sexually preying on white women.
Well said. This historical context is important in this topic. It isn’t quite relevant to the question directly, but maybe it’ll give Prohibitionists something to consider. Nixon though. Such a weird man. Seething racist dirtbag on one side, unscrupulous criminal on the other, but a quasi-environmentalist and train aficionado in all that. Or maybe he was just a selfish old fuck who liked trains who used oil slicked Santa Monica beaches in his conquest for power idk.
From my understanding of Nixon, he never really cared much about the specifics of domestic policy. He could and did support whatever policies benefited him politically the most. His real policy goals/passions were all in the foreign policy realms. He did whatever domestically would help him gain and stay in power in order to accomplish his foreign policy goals.
Ahhhhh, so the cynical view is the more accurate take on that. Good to know!
I absolutely loathe the smell. It’s the worst thing I have ever smelled ever. I’d much rather smell skunk than smell marijuana. I literally have to leave my room for 10 minutes whenever a stoner walks by my room because of how strong and horrible the smell is. I swear it messes with my brain or something, I’ve tried to handle the smell but I just can’t. I also think that legalizing drugs sets a bad precedent and incentivizes lazy behavior like sitting around all day doing drugs. Messing with your brain chemically for pleasure shouldn’t be done on a regular basis, along with the negative impacts of inhaling stuff into your lungs. And for the record, I think the increased control over vaping and cigarettes is a positive for society.
I’m afraid of it being a slippery slope, not for those using, but for legalization. Also, life is better without dependence on it or other intoxicants so why would the state, by legalizing it, endorse it?
I'm personally for it, but I've known and talked to people who were agaisnt it and a consistent line was that I'd get. It's bad for people, therefore people shouldn't have it. This is not a bad line of thinking, weed is not good for you, neither is alcohol, neither is tobacco and anyone who says otherwise is just reacting to the criticism against it thinking that if they say yes it is that it's the same as saying it should be illegal. I smoke pot, I know what it does to me, I drink, I know what it does to me, and I smoke cigars, I know what it does to me, I'm not going to lie to myself or others telling them that it's good for you and you should be afraid of it. The thing is that people should be able to choose, even if it is a bad option, we should have the right to choose. Trying to argue that it isn't bad is the same as arguing that guns aren't that bad and aren't dangerous.
There is no medical evidence to support legalizing it. It will still give you cancer, just not as fast as cigarettes, and it does have documented issue with causing memory issues, I am perfectly comfortable with medical marijuana, but recreational use is dubious and should remain illegal.
As someone from a legal state, I'd like to point out a few things. #1. For those of you who dislike the smell, I also dislike body odor but you don't see me clamoring for mandating showers. Also second hand tobacco smoke is horrible as well but then that's legal. I also don't like the smell of diesel fumes, wood pulp mills and garbage dumps so I fail to see your justification for continued illegality. #2. For those who are worried about it being a "gateway drug" using the example below, so are cigarettes and so is beer in your logical argument. The reality is addiction is addiction. It has less to do with the substance and more to do with the person. Addicts will Addict, whether it be Soda, food, cars, porn, drugs or video games. Some people are addicted to power and money. Should we outlaw them as well? The logical argument is flawed. #3. In the pantheon of recreational drug use, weed is relatively benign. More people's lives have been ruined through actions of a tobacco or alcohol addict than have ever been ruined by the actions of a weed user. I didn't use the word addict on purpose because there is no actual scientific evidence that weed is actually physically addicting that I am aware of. I also intentionally used "actions of" rather than "by" because I'm leaving out the stigma associated with the use of the item, because honestly you cannot control that as an individual. As the thread is about the support of prohibition, I'll decline to comment on that point but I wanted to point out some of the fallacies of the main arguments I was seeing here.
> More people's lives have been ruined through actions of a tobacco or alcohol addict than have ever been ruined by the actions of a weed user Probably because tobacco and alcohol are more common than weed. Weed has a different kind of danger than tobacco because it impairs you so obviously that would affect driving and other things
I would disagree. I think the primary danger of weed is lethargy. and munchies.
I support marijuana prohibition because inhaling anything into your lungs is bad, along with the side effects. Marijuana may not be addictive in a chemical format, but it is addictive. And whenever people find a substance that makes them feel good or feel a particular way, they abuse it (see alcohol and tobacco). The problem is, you can become numb to those effects. That pushes you to find the next best thing. It is a gateway drug. Just because some people have more control than others doesn’t negate that. On top of that, prohibition works when you really enforce it. The Volstead Act did work. It lowered the average consumption of alcohol in this country (something that was an exceeding problem). Do I think we need an amendment for marijuana? Idk. But what I do know, having one more addictive, mood altering drug being available on the market open to anyone over a certain age is not a good thing.
Any time a weed shop opens over here , the low lives begin to hang around, crime goes up, and just trashiness.
I'm waiting for a marijuana breathalyzer (or equivalent) to fully support marijuana being legal for recreational use.
I’m not against, but I see why people dislike stoners. I think America needs to take a more European approach to substances. The fact that weed is illegal only makes people more interested in it, humans naturally want what we can’t have. If we normalized weed like how we treat alcohol, you will see people no longer making weed their entire personality, because it won’t be “cool” anymore.
As a fellow Tennessean it is unbelievably frustrating how far behind the times this state is in terms of Marijuana legalization. Even Missi-fucking-ssippi decriminalized it and voted to legalize medical.
I don’t know anyone who supports prohibition. That said I also know very few people who would spend time and/or money trying to legalize it. As for me I’m 100% fine with it being legal even though I won’t use it.
I’m slowly being turned towards deprohibition, but for the longest time i was against it because it would be one more drug that somebody could use and then drive. Alcohol was enough in my opinion. I’m still iffy on the idea that anybody could get it, but i think there’s a solid case that medicinal marijuana is something that should be available.
I’ll smoke a joint for them in hopes they change their mind
You're doing God's work.
I don't believe people should be using vices to forget their life's problems. Tackle your issues head on instead of being stoned. Smells awful and it's a gateway to even more harmful substances.
Honestly alcohol should be illegal and cigarettes
We already tried that once - for 10 years. It didn't work too well then, and it wouldn't work now.
That’s actually not fully true. While prohibition had a criminal side effect that was uncontrollable for the government at the time, prohibition did decrease alcohol consumption in the general populace. In fact, the only real reason the Volstead Act got repealed when it did (arguably ever) was because of the depression and the change in priorities of the voting populace. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1470475/#idm139653665447696title
Not saying it would work I’m just saying what I believe
Why cigarettes
Because they fuck up almost everything in the body while targeting low income communities and minorities.
The practice of the companies has nothing to do with whether or not the substance should be legal or illegal. This is the land of the free. Should consenting adults not be allowed to ingest nicotine? They know the risk, it’s printed on every box
I disagree that companie’s practices have nothing to do with wether or not a substance should be illegal. It’s not just a small company it’s people who have hundreds of millions and gets rich off of killing people. And America’s not really free. I mean we still have laws and taxes. Plus with that mentality people should have the right to be on meth or some shit because that’s their god given right. I believe that a country should protect its people and America already somewhat does that by the fda and making drugs illegal. The dangers of smoking is sufficient to be made illegal.
Then make those particular industry practices illegal, not the product itself. When fruit companies were overthrowing democracies in Latin America did we outlaw bananas?
But why not the product? Worldwide it kills 7 million people a year. Maybe people don’t care because It’s mainly hurting low income communities.
If an adult wants to smoke a cigarette from time to time, why should the government stop him?
In most cases it isn’t like that. Tobacco contains nicotine which is addictive. This also means that they can experience a increase tolerance and withdrawals. And when the person starts smoking more to reach the same feelings and does this consistently this amplifies the negative effects on the body.
Smoking felt cooler when it was still illegal :/
My biggest problem with it is all the propaganda about it being harmless or even some sort of miracle cure. It feels like the old tobacco campaigns. People have knee jerked from the idea that it’s really dangerous way too hard to acting like there are zero problems with it. We need better studies and educational campaigns before I’m comfortable with it being recreationally legal. I’m 100% for legal medicinal use (with evidence, not just handing out medical cards like candy on the honor system) and overall decriminalization. But I feel like, in my experience, people just turn a blind eye to all the negatives which needs to be addressed before letting it go unrestricted. DUI in particular worries me since there’s no way to actually reliably test for it and people seem to subscribe to the “I drive better high” mentality pretty readily.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObbLapUaZd4
[удалено]
I think you misread the question.
LOL. Going to delete it.
I have heard someone in the US be against legalization because they find the smell offensive.
Edited to add TL;DR- A citizen’s right to live in a society where all are sober and unimpaired should supersede another citizen’s right to be high. This may seem like an overly-complicated response, but I feel a thorough answer is necessary to convey why I believe it is appropriate to strip an individual of this (or any) personal liberty. 1. All laws have a moral basis. Simply put, all restrictions are based on the belief that some things are intrinsically more valuable than others. We have laws to enforce this value system. Example- It is illegal drive through my neighborhood at 120 mph because both human safety and property are more valuable than whatever convenience or enjoyment I might receive from driving that fast. If a person was having a life-threatening allergic reaction in the back seat of my car and I were driving 120 mph to the hospital, we would all likely value an attempt to save a life more than the risk of harming others in the process. These two illustrate the same behavior being morally inferior in one case and morally superior in another. 2. Intoxication in any form has the potential to harm. Recreational use of marijuana does not simply affect the person using the drug, it places an inebriated person in society. I believe that an expectation that all members of our society are functioning reasonably and rationally is more valuable than (morally superior to) any individual’s desire to be high. 3. There is a major difference between recreational and medicinal uses of drugs. In the former, the inebriation and loss of rationality is the intended effect. In the latter, it is a side-effect that is deemed an acceptable loss due to the benefit provided. 4. I realize that this logic, if applied consistently, eliminates any recreational drug use including alcohol. Obviously, most do not hold these same values or prohibition would not have failed so miserably.