I think the legalization of marijuana should happen... who else would agree?

First, I think you're an idiot. This is like the prime heart of any potheads conversation skills and needs to be put to an end. This will never happen and only potheads seem to be too stupid to realize it, wonder why?

[quote author=EcsTasY link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=0#msg33916 date=1070696013]
who else would agree?
[/quote]

Idiots perhaps?

"Legalize Pot! Create an army of morons!"

There are already too many frequent users of pot for my tastes, and they're all dumbasses. Legalizing it would make it easier to obtain,and thus the world would get a little less bearable.

I think they should ILLEGALIZE smoking ANYTHING. That would make me happy :)

They should send everyone who smokes pot to death camps. Did I say death camps? I meant happy camps.

Happy camps? You mean, the ones with those nice showers?


Yes, illegalize smoking anything, great idea!

[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=0#msg33955 date=1070729923]
Happy camps? You mean, the ones with those nice showers?


Yes, illegalize smoking anything, great idea!
[/quote]
:)
It is a quote from the movie South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut:

[color=lightgreen]For security measures, our great American government is rounding up all citizens that have any Canadian blood, and putting them into camps. All Canadian-American citizens are to report to one of these Death Camps right away. Did I say, "Death Camps"? I meant, "Happy Camps", where you will eat the finest meals, have access to fabulous doctors, and be able to exercise regularly.[/color]

Oh. I thought it was a jew reference. It was really a jap reference? Ohwell.

Jap? Huh? Yes, it was a Jewish Holocaust reference...

The american government rounded up citizens with japanese blood during ww2?

[quote author=Yoni link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=0#msg33983 date=1070742185]
Jap? Huh? Yes, it was a Jewish Holocaust reference...
[/quote]

It does sound more like a Jap reference compared to a Jewish reference.

[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=0#msg33984 date=1070742546]
The american government rounded up citizens with japanese blood during ww2?
[/quote]

They certainly did.

It doesn't matter if they legalize it or not. Most people here don't even know what it's like to be high... Atleast try it before judging it.

As did the Canadian government.
They did it to the Germans during WWI, too.



On a side note, I also think it should be legalized. It's no worse than alcohol.

Moderation is key.

Yes, we know how good people are at moderation.

*thinks back to the number of alcoholics he's seen while working at the vendor, and pictures that many extra potheads*

Pot can make you a dumbass in minutes; it takes a hell of a lot more booze.

[quote author=hismajesty link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=0#msg33919 date=1070698293]
[quote author=EcsTasY link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=0#msg33916 date=1070696013]
who else would agree?
[/quote]

Idiots perhaps?
[/quote]

[me=UserLoser.]agrees[/me]

I think the government isn't trying hard enough.

Governments are stupid. They should legalise these comparatively harmless drugs and make money by taxing them, as well as adding legal requirements that they be pure and not full of other crap (that hurts people more than the drug). Why spend billions on stopping people doing what they want when they could make millions by using the situation to their advantage?

At the end of the day, I think it's pretty stupid to make laws about what people do to their own bodies. Apart from being absurd, it's futile and expensive. America, especially, has an anti-drug obsession that I find very strange.

It's the fact that they say they're antidrug, but actually it's not enforced at all.

A conspectus of my philosophy on how to live life: Do whatever the hell you want as long as it doesn't infringe on the happiness of others. Weed isn't hurting anyone else -- all of these "funding terrorism" messages being pushed by the US government are bullshit.

Actually, I think they are. Similar to how alcohol financed crime in days long past. That's a problem of drugs being illegal though - if drugs were legal and cheaply produced by the government, crime and terrorism couldn't benefit from the huge profit margins involved.

Drugs certainly fund crime, terrorism is perhaps fanciful.

I used to be against decriminalization of illicit drugs, including marijuana. That is, until my college debate class where I was required to argue in favor of it. I did about twenty hours of research preparing for the debate. The United States Department of Justice publishes crime statistics every year, including breakdowns by population segments, distribution, and the money spent fighting these crimes. I also used books on police crime fighting, crime and punishment theory in the United States, and legal cases indicating then-precedents. Also interviewed a few people convicted of possession, and one police officer. Finally I took a survey of a small (<50) sample size getting their opinions on the subject.

What I found convinced me that decriminalization is the best way to go overall. It is inherently "less evil" than criminalization, and healthier for the society, economy, and individuals.

Yes, some people will try drugs that never would have otherwise, and some will get hooked and die or kill other people. But the total amount of crime would go down drastically.

Most arguments against decriminalization go something like "people on drugs hurt other people". Well so do people who aren't on drugs, and so do people who say, breath an oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. The things you're arguing about are and still would be illegal. Hurting other people wouldn't become decriminalized because of the change. It would only become less prevalent. Most drug-related crime isn't caused by usage, it's caused by the crime necessary to acquire the money to buy drugs. Make drugs cheap, make them available, and most of the crime, indeed most of the allure, will diminish.

That's a tiny summary of my position.

So you're saying we should get rid of our oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere?


But seriously, I think the biggest problem is laziness. People who smoke pot, I've noticed, end up being perfectly happy with what they have, and they make no effort to improve themselves. VERY few people I went to highschool with who smoked weed (in fact, I can't think of any) went to university.

It's very much like the book called "Brave New World" where everybody in the world takes a drug that makes them happy all the time. As a result, they do nothing. Technology doesn't advance, nothing gets done, but all the people sit there happily.

So this is the question: does utilitarianism (maximise happiness/reduce sadness overall, basically wut what said) really work? When all's said and done, if everybody takes this drug and happily does nothing, everybody IS happier. But in the long run, it will lead to less happiness.

So they could just keep taking the drug? Honestly, I don't care whether the legalize or don't legalize weed. It's not like you can't smoke it freely in most places.

[quote author=warz link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=15#msg34183 date=1070837599]
So they could just keep taking the drug? Honestly, I don't care whether the legalize or don't legalize weed. It's not like you can't smoke it freely in most places.
[/quote]

I should have noted that the government doesnt take the drug, they only use it as a means of control. This way, they can get people to do whatever they want by threatening to take it away.

But for thepurposes of argument, say the drug grows wild all over the place, like grass.

It does in my basement ;)

[quote author=MrRaza link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=15#msg34192 date=1070841424]
It does in my basement ;)
[/quote]
I never liked to smoke it but I always loved to grow it.

[quote]I used to be against decriminalization of illicit drugs, including marijuana. That is, until my college debate class where I was required to argue in favor of it.[/quote]
I did an argument, on my high school debate team, in favor of legalizing heroin. Because of the audacity of the proposal and our opponents inability to produce evidence to the contrary, we won every time.

[quote author=Thing link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=15#msg34195 date=1070842656]
[quote author=MrRaza link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=15#msg34192 date=1070841424]
It does in my basement ;)
[/quote]
I never liked to smoke it but I always loved to grow it.
[/quote]

So far I've made an estimated 10 grand easily

I connect friends who want shrooms with friends who have shrooms, and I make some cash off of that :)

I have never done any drug besides marijuana

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=15#msg34182 date=1070837111]
VERY few people I went to highschool with who smoked weed (in fact, I can't think of any) went to university. [/quote]

Conversely, I don't know anyone from my highschool who didn't go to Uni, regardless of whether they smoke pot or not. In addition, I'm at Uni now, and I know very few people who never smoke it, loads who smoke occasionally, and a few heavy smokers.

I don't think pot makes people apathetic. I think apathetic people are just more likely to smoke pot. Probably because they can't be bothered to do anything, and when you're high, you're quite happy doing nothing at all :)

Edit: Any latin-aware people care to translate 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'? I think this is a situation where the point applies.

[quote author=Grok link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=15#msg34160 date=1070828482]
...But the total amount of crime would go down drastically...
[/quote]
Of course if you make something not a crime anymore then the crime rate will go down. How about we make *everything* legal? That would be a crime-free utopia!

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=30#msg34225 date=1070858623]
Edit: Any latin-aware people care to translate 'Post hoc ergo propter hoc'? I think this is a situation where the point applies.
[/quote]

Something about cause and effect :)

Recently a popular national newspaper ran an article about drug use in universities. About 25-35% of the students in major Israeli universities do drugs. Scary.

Less than half is scary? More than half of my highschool has done drugs.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=15#msg34182 date=1070837111]
wut what said [/quote]

Perhaps you mean what wut said? ;)

lol 8)

[quote author=Soul Taker link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=30#msg34240 date=1070870860]
[quote author=Grok link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=15#msg34160 date=1070828482]
...But the total amount of crime would go down drastically...
[/quote]
Of course if you make something not a crime anymore then the crime rate will go down. How about we make *everything* legal? That would be a crime-free utopia!
[/quote]

The idea here was that if drug use was 5% of the crimes, and we legalize that, crimes would drop by 25%. So we'd get a 500% efficiency on the crime reduction.

More specifically, crimes causing pain to others would be reduced a lot since the needs to steal or rob would be reduced if there wasn't expensive drugs to pay for.

Even more so because the efficiency of the police would improve. We would have more police available to prevent or investigate less crimes.

Courts, prosecutors, jails, prisons, parole systems, all reduced in volume, increased in efficiency. We can then keep violent offenders in prison for treatment/rehabilitation longer than is currently possible.

[quote author=Yoni link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=30#msg34255 date=1070890535]
Recently a popular national newspaper ran an article about drug use in universities. About 25-35% of the students in major Israeli universities do drugs. Scary.
[/quote]

[quote author=MrRaza link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=30#msg34257 date=1070892555]
Less than half is scary? More than half of my highschool has done drugs.
[/quote]

That's exactly what I was saying! :P

I wouldn't really mind if it's legalized, as long as smoking it in public gets you the death penalty.

Did you know that if you make it legal to steal cars, less people will steal money, less people will be mugged, less people will have their houses broken into, and additionally, the stolen cars will no longer make up part of the statistic.

So crime goes down overall, not just for cartheft but for other stuff too, but not for the right reason. I would submit that you can't use the fact that it reduces crime in other areas for your argument since this can happen for other reasons.

My xgf just got caught with 3 grams, She is the dumbest person I've ever met.

I admit I've smoked weed many many times but I'm not dumb enough to do it in public places where people can see me or where I can get caught.

It's strange how you can usually tell who smokes weed without them saying it, even online.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=30#msg34344 date=1070923213]
Did you know that if you make it legal to steal cars, less people will steal money, less people will be mugged, less people will have their houses broken into, and additionally, the stolen cars will no longer make up part of the statistic.

So crime goes down overall, not just for cartheft but for other stuff too, but not for the right reason. I would submit that you can't use the fact that it reduces crime in other areas for your argument since this can happen for other reasons.
[/quote]

Stealing a car is an offense against another person's rights to their property. Complete apples and oranges. But nice try.

How do you complete apples and oranges?

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34366 date=1070927454]
It's strange how you can usually tell who smokes weed without them saying it, even online.
[/quote]

Ouch that feels like a burn :-*

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34389 date=1070932302]
How do you complete apples and oranges?
[/quote]

I like apples a lot, but they have a stupid core. I like oranges, too, but they have a dumb peel. If they would crossbreed a super fruit with the skin of an apple and the core of an orange, they would not only save me a lot of trouble but would also ruin that saying.

And Grok - It's still reducing crime by legallizing another crime. :P

How about if they make grafitti legal? It would raise spraypaint sales which would help the economy? ok fine, that means nothing. :P

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34396 date=1070938273]
[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34389 date=1070932302]
How do you complete apples and oranges?
[/quote]

I like apples a lot, but they have a stupid core. I like oranges, too, but they have a dumb peel. If they would crossbreed a super fruit with the skin of an apple and the core of an orange, they would not only save me a lot of trouble but would also ruin that saying.

And Grok - It's still reducing crime by legallizing another crime. :P

How about if they make grafitti legal? It would raise spraypaint sales which would help the economy? ok fine, that means nothing. :P
[/quote]

Graffiti isn't illegal. Defacing someone else's property is. Once again you're using crimes against others as a reason why a bad law shouldn't be removed. Even so, you can search and search until you find an example that fits, but in the end you and I both know that you shouldn't give a damn if some 55 yo woman sits on her porch smoking a joint.

[quote author=St0rm.iD link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34389 date=1070932302]
How do you complete apples and oranges?
[/quote]

{Those are] Complete apples and oranges [comparisons].

Ok, since this has turned into such a heated topic... I will share my opinion. I think all drugs should be legal, they should double/triple a penalty for a different crime thats commited while under the influence of any drug and further stop wasting god damn tax money on social security and drug rehabilitation programs. Keep it illegal to smoke in public and let all the people who are stupid enough to do it, kill themselves off.

Ok, if they are going to legalize marijuana, what's stopping them legalizing every drug? I'm sure it would be a bad idea to make heroin legal, just because of the nature of the drug.

But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal? If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34409 date=1070954471]
Ok, if they are going to legalize marijuana, what's stopping them legalizing every drug? I'm sure it would be a bad idea to make heroin legal, just because of the nature of the drug.

But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal? If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?
[/quote]

You're attempting to apply slippery-slope logic as your only argument defense, without addressing the points you are arguing against. If I were to use the same tactic, I would respond like this:

OK, but if we don't decriminalize marijuana, next they'll be making tea and coffee illegal, and pretty soon we'll all have only water to drink! And since too much oxygen can also get you high, they'll make the air illegal. Where will it stop?

See, it's just as ineffective when used in reverse.

I like water just fine. And I don't think you can argue against juice that way, so I'll be happy.

It seems to me that if we start progressing in either direction, then, we may fall down the slope, and right now we're sitting on the peak. It seems safe enough here, though, so why ruin it?


I guess, to avoid any kind of straw-man problem, the issue here is freedom. Are people really responsible enough to take care of themselves, or does the government have to look out for their well-being?

It seems to me that insurance is a very similar problem. To drive a car, we have to give some organization a certain amount of money every month. If anything happens, they will use that money to help us. Why don't people just put the same amount of money into a private bank account, and not worry about the hassel? Simply, because the vast majority of people don't have the responsibility necessary to do that, so the government must intervene with laws.

On one hand, to drive, we have to pay the insurance company, and we lose freedom. On the other hand, we're doing it for our own protection.


Am I getting at the right issue now? I seem to have developed a severe case of insomnia, so I'm not sure how clearly I'm really thinking :)

Now that I got to thinking, I don't think my argument is slippery slope at all. You said that it shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't harm anybody else, didn't you? The same could be said for any drug, so it isn't a slippery slope, it directly follows (as opposed to eventually follows)

Hehe, Iago. You are a dire victim of misinformation. You are not required to give your money to another company for insurance. In most states where insurance is required, you can be self-insured by having said reserves. This is one way rich people get richer, by self-insuring and keeping their own funds. Poor people cannot afford to self-insure, and thus stay poor.

One of the principles of freedom is we promote the belief that individuals are the better choice to make decisions about their personal issues, when compared to a government official who should be concentrating on promoting trade, infrastructure, defense, and general welfare. We believe that 55 year old woman should have the freedom to decide whether she should eat a 3rd burrito, even if it's going to give her heartburn, or whether to smoke a joint on her porch, even if it means she doesn't go to work the next day and gets herself fired.

That's entirely different from saying we should revoke laws which penalize people from hurting each other. And remember, laws penalize, they don't prevent except through fear of penalty. Some things we have to demonize to get people to accept laws against them, and to follow them. Illicit drugs are a good example. And yes, I do favor repeal of laws which criminalize possession or use of all illicit drugs.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=15#msg34081 date=1070773119]
They should legalise these comparatively harmless drugs and make money by taxing them, [/quote]
The government wont leagalise it because they cant tax something you can grow. Theyll only legalise something if they can make money from it.

[quote author=The-Rabid-Lord link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34440 date=1070989819]
they cant tax something you can grow.[/quote]

tobacco.

[quote author=K link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34443 date=1070992418]
[quote author=The-Rabid-Lord link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34440 date=1070989819]
they cant tax something you can grow.[/quote]

tobacco.
[/quote]

Exactly what I was going to say!


Grok - I don't know how your crazy country works, but up here car insurance is controlled by the government and we have to pay for it if we want to drive.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34447 date=1070994766]
[quote author=K link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34443 date=1070992418]
[quote author=The-Rabid-Lord link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34440 date=1070989819]
they cant tax something you can grow.[/quote]

tobacco.
[/quote]Grok - I don't know how your crazy country works, but up here car insurance is controlled by the government and we have to pay for it if we want to drive.
[/quote]That, or prove that you have $200K stashed away in a bank.

[quote author=Eibro link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34456 date=1070998255]
[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34447 date=1070994766]
[quote author=K link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34443 date=1070992418]
[quote author=The-Rabid-Lord link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34440 date=1070989819]
they cant tax something you can grow.[/quote]

tobacco.
[/quote]Grok - I don't know how your crazy country works, but up here car insurance is controlled by the government and we have to pay for it if we want to drive.
[/quote]That, or prove that you have $200K stashed away in a bank.
[/quote]

I don't remember that law..

[quote]Financial responsibility may be established in either of the following ways:
1) by carrying public liability and property damage automobile insurance in the required amount.
2) by depositing a bond, cash, or securities to the total amount of $200,000 with the provincial treasurer.[/quote]

[quote author=Eibro link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34467 date=1071002378]
[quote]Financial responsibility may be established in either of the following ways:
1) by carrying public liability and property damage automobile insurance in the required amount.
2) by depositing a bond, cash, or securities to the total amount of $200,000 with the provincial treasurer.[/quote]
[/quote]

I can quote lies, too. But it's more convincing if you cite a source.

[quote author=K link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34443 date=1070992418]
tobacco.
[/quote]
Sorry i live in britain and it is really hard to get the right temperatures so we dont grow it here.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=30#msg34344 date=1070923213]
So crime goes down overall, not just for cartheft but for other stuff too, but not for the right reason. I would submit that you can't use the fact that it reduces crime in other areas for your argument since this can happen for other reasons.
[/quote]

I can use the fact that it reduces crime in other areas for my argument and leave it up to you to show that that would happen for other reasons in my case. In your case, it's easy enough to point at the fact that more people who don't choose to steal cars will be suffering from their cars being gone. Your good effects still imply that a constant worth of money will be stolen, although it will no longer be illegal.

[quote author=The-Rabid-Lord link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34489 date=1071006658]
[quote author=K link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34443 date=1070992418]
tobacco.
[/quote]
Sorry i live in britain and it is really hard to get the right temperatures so we dont grow it here.
[/quote]

Then I doubt you would be able to grow marijuana there, either. Although you could easily grow both indoors.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34486 date=1071005510]
[quote author=Eibro link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34467 date=1071002378]
[quote]Financial responsibility may be established in either of the following ways:
1) by carrying public liability and property damage automobile insurance in the required amount.
2) by depositing a bond, cash, or securities to the total amount of $200,000 with the provincial treasurer.[/quote]
[/quote]

I can quote lies, too. But it's more convincing if you cite a source.
[/quote]Screw you.
http://www.gov.ns.ca/snsmr/rmv/licence/suspend.asp

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34532 date=1071014632] Although you could easily grow both indoors.
[/quote]
u can buy tobbacco leagaly and it would cost more to grow it at home where as u cant get pot down the off licence.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34486 date=1071005510]
[quote author=Eibro link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34467 date=1071002378]
[quote]Financial responsibility may be established in either of the following ways:
1) by carrying public liability and property damage automobile insurance in the required amount.
2) by depositing a bond, cash, or securities to the total amount of $200,000 with the provincial treasurer.[/quote]
[/quote]

I can quote lies, too. But it's more convincing if you cite a source.
[/quote]

Bad form, Iago. Makes the rest of us not want to participate in this conversation.

That was another way of saying, "Cite your quotes" :P

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=60#msg34447 date=1070994766]
Grok - I don't know how your crazy country works, but up here car insurance is controlled by the government and we have to pay for it if we want to drive.
[/quote]

Look up exactly what insurance is required?

Over here, insurance is required to drive. The insurance that is required only covers damages to other people's things though. You're not required to insure your own car, only to have insurance covering any damage you may cause to other people's property or injuries you may cause to other people.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34427 date=1070973039]
Now that I got to thinking, I don't think my argument is slippery slope at all. You said that it shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't harm anybody else, didn't you? The same could be said for any drug, so it isn't a slippery slope, it directly follows (as opposed to eventually follows)
[/quote]

Yes, absolutely. You don't need to insure your own car, that's yours to trash as you like, but you must be able to pay damages to others. You're free to kill yourself by smoking, but you can't smoke where you might hurt others. You're free to kill yourself by drinking, but you can't drink and drive where you might hurt others.

I think the same could well apply to all drugs - if you want to kill yourself doing it, that's OK. There needs to be regulations preventing you from hurting others (like, against driving on drugs) though. Depending on how it turns out, it might be advantageous to make public insurance not cover drug-related afflictions. Also, just like with alcohol, too young people/children shouldn't be allowed.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34409 date=1070954471]
But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal? If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?
[/quote]

It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).

No alcohol, no drugs, no sex. Poor 14-year-olds ;)

[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg34973 date=1071261574]
[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34409 date=1070954471]
But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal? If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?
[/quote]

It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).

No alcohol, no drugs, no sex. Poor 14-year-olds ;)

[/quote]

Why isn't it their decision to make?

Grok - I know TONS of people who drive after drinking. I worked at a bar, and almost everybody who went there did. Do you really think they would be able to regulate driving under the influence of drugs, or would that just create even more drivers-under-the-influence?

Cause a thirty year old guy could dominate a 14 year old girl?

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35021 date=1071278911]
[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg34973 date=1071261574]
[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34409 date=1070954471]
But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal? If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?
[/quote]

It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).

No alcohol, no drugs, no sex. Poor 14-year-olds ;)

[/quote]

Why isn't it their decision to make?

Grok - I know TONS of people who drive after drinking. I worked at a bar, and almost everybody who went there did. Do you really think they would be able to regulate driving under the influence of drugs, or would that just create even more drivers-under-the-influence?
[/quote]

Thanks for making my point for me again. The things you keep bringing up, what you're really against, are already illegal. Driving under the influence, damaging other people's property, wreckless driving, hurting other people, all those and more have laws for punishment.

Most of the arguments against allowing people to make their own decisions about drugs are related to those people breaking laws which would exist with or without drugs. If you want to outlaw any reason that would cause someone to break a law, then you have to outlaw employers firing people just before Christmas, outlaw girlfriends dumping their boyfriends, etc. Let's just make anything that contributes to crime illegal in its own right.

[quote author=Grok link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35056 date=1071294882]
[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35021 date=1071278911]
[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg34973 date=1071261574]
[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=45#msg34409 date=1070954471]
But by this, what makes having sex with a minor illegal? If they both agree (and don't tell me that a 14-year-old can't make conscious decisions), then nobody is being harmed, right?
[/quote]

It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).

No alcohol, no drugs, no sex. Poor 14-year-olds ;)

[/quote]

Why isn't it their decision to make?

Grok - I know TONS of people who drive after drinking. I worked at a bar, and almost everybody who went there did. Do you really think they would be able to regulate driving under the influence of drugs, or would that just create even more drivers-under-the-influence?
[/quote]

Thanks for making my point for me again. The things you keep bringing up, what you're really against, are already illegal. Driving under the influence, damaging other people's property, wreckless driving, hurting other people, all those and more have laws for punishment.

Most of the arguments against allowing people to make their own decisions about drugs are related to those people breaking laws which would exist with or without drugs. If you want to outlaw any reason that would cause someone to break a law, then you have to outlaw employers firing people just before Christmas, outlaw girlfriends dumping their boyfriends, etc. Let's just make anything that contributes to crime illegal in its own right.
[/quote]

I agree, based on your arguments, that firing people just before chrismas and girlfriends dumping their boyfriends, etc. should be illegal because the people are hurting each other:
[quote]That's entirely different from saying we should revoke laws which penalize people from hurting each other. And remember, laws penalize, they don't prevent except through fear of penalty. Some things we have to demonize to get people to accept laws against them, and to follow them[/quote]


Also, you're saying that if illicit drugs are made illegal, there won't be a lot more people driving under the influence?

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35098 date=1071323598]

Also, you're saying that if illicit drugs are made illegal, there won't be a lot more people driving under the influence?
[/quote]

It's hard to say. It's not unlikely at all that there would be a similar amount of people driving under the influence.

My reasoning:

People who use drugs illegally now and drive would continue to do so.

People who avoid illegal drugs because they are illegal, but would drive after taking legal drugs probably drink and drive already today.

People who don't drink and drive today probably wouldn't take drugs and drive either.

It all depends on the drug, weed doesn't make you do risky things, usually you become more cautious about your surroundings when you are high. But if we're talking about PCP or something, then yeah I'd understand why you dont want people driving.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35021 date=1071278911]
[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg34973 date=1071261574]
It's the same principle as a 14-year-old not being allowed to enter a legally binding contract. Most legally binding contracts have much less severe effects than sex might (think pregnancy).
[/quote]

Why isn't it their decision to make?
[/quote]

It's not their decision to make because they're immature, unable to think clearly, and unable to make good decisions. Just look at us, vL, and ask yourself: Why do we exist?

The real answer is that we were pestered too much by immature 14-year-olds on b.net, and wanted somewhere to get away from all that.

Unfortunately having the same rules apply equally to all 14-year-olds is a bit unfair. Some of them actually do think clearly. It would however be too expensive and complex to have mandatory tests that everyone would have to take to prove that they are mature and can think clearly. We can do that in vL, but it simply wouldn't work on a nation-wide scale.

So, they had to pick a simpler rule, and what they did was to pick up on the correlation between age and maturity. When you're 18, you may drive a car, you may drink a beer, you may smoke a cigarette, you may have sex, you may get married, and perhaps some day you may take drugs.

That brings up another question: why 18? All of a sudden, at 18, people become responsible? That seems way to arbitrary, they should just make it legal at any age.

I'm 20, I've been able to drink for 2 years (not that I do, but that's besides the point). If I got to the US, I still can't drink legally, which I think is silly. I'm as mature as I'm getting, and I'm sure most people my age are.

Another point is that everybody under legal age has drank, smoked, or done whatever if they want to. It doesn't stop them; it's pretty silly to try.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35111 date=1071328649]
That brings up another question: why 18? All of a sudden, at 18, people become responsible? That seems way to arbitrary, they should just make it legal at any age.
[/quote]

I already commented on those objections in my post... Since having a nation-wide mandatory test of maturity is too complex and expensive, you have to draw the line somewhere. It's clearly unreasonable to allow 3-year-olds to do whatever they feel like. The line has to be drawn somewhere.

If you can propose a better method than age, which would have a higher correlation to maturity, please do! :P

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35111 date=1071328649]
Another point is that everybody under legal age has drank, smoked, or done whatever if they want to. It doesn't stop them; it's pretty silly to try.
[/quote]

That's a point, but not a good one. I doubt that most 7-year-olds have drunk, even if they at that age are old enough to go to a candy store and buy some candy. Would you suggest that it be possible for them to go to the "candy store" and buy some beer?

(assuming they could afford it, and as candy stores would surely try to stock some alcoholic beverages for the kids if they were allowed)

Personally, I think that those under legal age who do drink and do whatever they want to should be marked "immature", and not be allowed to drink, drive or similar at the age of 18 either. Which is actually true for some cases here. If you drive a moped at the age of 14, when the minimum legal age required is 15, then you may not be able to get a (car) driving license permit when you're 18.

[I'll respond more to this tomorrow (later today, whatever), but just pointing out that this legal age thing should be split off to a new topic]

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35111 date=1071328649]I'm as mature as I'm getting, and I'm sure most people my age are.[/quote]

No you're not, and yes, while you are sure now, you'll understand better as you mature.

For normally maturing people (adults), they can look back on themselves 5 years ago and realize they are a vastly different and more mature person. This happens continuously. Some people stop maturing at whatever age, and often their peers leave them behind, literally and figuratively. You may be 29, and doing 29-year-old things, and suddenly 5 years later you're still 29, and your friends are all gone, doing 34-year-old things.

Well, that's true, but you're talking about in a slightly different context. I mean that between 20 and 21, there isn't enough of a difference that I can drink at 21 but not at 20.

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35193 date=1071365965]
Well, that's true, but you're talking about in a slightly different context. I mean that between 20 and 21, there isn't enough of a difference that I can drink at 21 but not at 20.
[/quote]

So? For simplicity of enforcement, they legislate an age where most people reach a maturity to handle it. You may have already reached that point, or not. If you were mature enough, you might easily understand it. But since it has a personal effect on you and you are not demonstrating that you can separate the issue from your personal feelings, maybe you are not mature enough and the law is doing a good job. :P

[quote author=Grok link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35202 date=1071368492]
[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=75#msg35193 date=1071365965]
Well, that's true, but you're talking about in a slightly different context. I mean that between 20 and 21, there isn't enough of a difference that I can drink at 21 but not at 20.
[/quote]

So? For simplicity of enforcement, they legislate an age where most people reach a maturity to handle it. You may have already reached that point, or not. If you were mature enough, you might easily understand it. But since it has a personal effect on you and you are not demonstrating that you can separate the issue from your personal feelings, maybe you are not mature enough and the law is doing a good job. :P
[/quote]

Actually, it doesn't have a personal effect on me because
a) I'm in Canada, where legal age is no more than 19.
b) I don't drink, smoke, or do drugs anyway :)

[edit] Also, what seems silly is that in Canada, not only am I allowed to buy and drink it, I can (and did) sell it. I took a course and have a card saying that I can sell beer. But yet, in the states, I can't even drink it? Your crazy country, I say.

It doesn't have a personal effect on you, then you go on about "I", "I", "I", "I" ... hmm.

I'm not allowed to kill somebody.

Just because it has potential to affect me, doesn't mean it does. IF I went to the United States, and IF I wanted to drink, it would affect me, but I won't, and I don't, so it won't.

It just seems silly that I can be legally licensed to sell it here, and to decide who gets it and who doesn't here, but down there I can't even buy it. Silly Americans!!

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=90#msg35380 date=1071440964]
It just seems silly that I can be legally licensed to sell it here, and to decide who gets it and who doesn't here, but down there I can't even buy it. Silly Americans!!
[/quote]

It's different goals. Perhaps in America they want a 98% probability of a person being mature before they sell alcohol to him, while in Canada, they settle for a 95% probability? It's also possible that an average over many Americans will show that they reach the same maturity level at 20 as Canadians do at 18?

It's much lower than 98% and 95%. People at this age are very immature. To be safe, and have a reasonable chance of maturity, they should make it 28 or 30. A lot of people aren't mature at 20..you find that out working at a vendor :)

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=90#msg35547 date=1071522794]
It's much lower than 98% and 95%. People at this age are very immature. To be safe, and have a reasonable chance of maturity, they should make it 28 or 30. A lot of people aren't mature at 20..you find that out working at a vendor :)
[/quote]
You mean, a lot of the people that you see coming to the vendor.

I am 20, Fully independant, Reasonable beleif to have a promising future... I know tons of people who are terribly immature and irresponcible, but I also know several people who are intelligent/mature/responcible. Coincidentally I don't think any of them would smoke weed anymore despite wether it was legal or not... On that same note I'm sure if it were legal and cheap my 48(Maybe?) year old dad probably would(Even without the legalness I am sure) but well... You learn its full effects when you're much younger then 18 even and have plenty of years to let them sink in and come to conclusions as to if it is something you will or will not do. So having a legal age for it is just totally irrelevant? In short you would basically the same thing as alot of kids do now for cigarettes, slip a stranger twice as much as their worth and have them go buy it for you.

[quote author=Skywing link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=90#msg35561 date=1071525540]
[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=90#msg35547 date=1071522794]
It's much lower than 98% and 95%. People at this age are very immature. To be safe, and have a reasonable chance of maturity, they should make it 28 or 30. A lot of people aren't mature at 20..you find that out working at a vendor :)
[/quote]
You mean, a lot of the people that you see coming to the vendor.
[/quote]

You're right, actually, a vendor isn't an accurate cross-section of society.

[quote author=Hostile link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=90#msg35568 date=1071526519]
So having a legal age for it is just totally irrelevant?
[/quote]

It's not irrelevant. If nothing else, it keeps it out of the hands of the 6-year-olds.

Obviously, in theory it would be atleast 18 or 21 and well~ ok? 6 yr olds wouldn't be the ones going for it... 13+ yr olds would be the one going for it and they would get it even easier then before.

I wouldn't be so sure... Think about it for a while - if candy shops were allowed to sell alcohol to small children, don't you think they would try, just to make money?

[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=90#msg35786 date=1071613242]
I wouldn't be so sure... Think about it for a while - if candy shops were allowed to sell alcohol to small children, don't you think they would try, just to make money?
[/quote]

They'd do it just for fun. That's usually worth more than the money you could make from a 6 year old.

it should be left up to the parents :)

[yeah, bad idea :)]

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=90#msg35827 date=1071620283]
it should be left up to the parents :)

[yeah, bad idea :)]
[/quote]

Actually, that's the common sense idea and probably works best. When I was in Anatalya, Turkey, some friends and myself were sitting at a restaurant on the docks by the Mediterranean, while at the next table a family was doing the same, eating dinner and drinking wine and beer. Their boy of about 8-9 years old, I guess, would occasionally drink from his parents glass. We just laughed, knowing that in the USA, the good old free USA, people would flip out seeing that. They'd be calling social services, the police, sirens would go off, judges would be brought in, people's lives destroyed, and lawyers would make a lot of money. But in Turkey, that day, the kid took a drink, put the glass back on the table, and continued playing with his balloon. He came over to our table and hit David Simonis on the head with the balloon and started laughing. David Thorsvik said "See Dave, kids all over the world hate you!"

Point is, let parents raise kids. They'll do a hella better job than governments.

That's probably true. Laws and police aren't going to stop kids from drinking, smoking, or doing any kind of illicit drugs, but parental influence, likely, will. I think that's the main reason I've been "good" all my life, not because it's legal.

Smoking weed/doing any other illicit drugs is a bad idea, I think we can agree on that. But it's not the government's responsiblity to make sure we don't hurt ourselves, I think we can all agree on that, too, judging by this thread. It is, however, our parents responsibility (I like to think) to make sure that we don't hurt ourselves, that's what they're there for.

Can we agree on that? :)

Not completely. It's the governments responsibility to not rob the parents of the means to prevent their children from hurting themselves. This means giving the parents legal rights over their children, and conversely not giving the children all the legal rights of an adult on their own.

[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=0#msg33955 date=1070729923]
Happy camps? You mean, the ones with those nice showers?


Yes, illegalize smoking anything, great idea!
[/quote]
BUT wouldn't this being taking away our freedom to smoke if it were made illegal? Alcohol was illegal for a while, it's also bad for you & others while consumed. Should we do away with that again?

[quote author=CrAz3D link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=105#msg36536 date=1071963918]
[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=0#msg33955 date=1070729923]
Happy camps? You mean, the ones with those nice showers?


Yes, illegalize smoking anything, great idea!
[/quote]
BUT wouldn't this being taking away our freedom to smoke if it were made illegal? Alcohol was illegal for a while, it's also bad for you & others while consumed. Should we do away with that again?
[/quote]

Sure!

[quote author=iago link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=105#msg36547 date=1071967224]
[quote author=CrAz3D link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=105#msg36536 date=1071963918]
[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=0#msg33955 date=1070729923]
Happy camps? You mean, the ones with those nice showers?


Yes, illegalize smoking anything, great idea!
[/quote]
BUT wouldn't this being taking away our freedom to smoke if it were made illegal? Alcohol was illegal for a while, it's also bad for you & others while consumed. Should we do away with that again?
[/quote]

Sure!
[/quote]

Stupid Canadium. :P

This thread sucks, pot sucks, people who smoke pot suck

[quote author=UserLoser. link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=105#msg36619 date=1072031279]
This thread sucks, pot sucks, people who smoke pot suck
[/quote]
I agree

[quote author=UserLoser. link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=105#msg36619 date=1072031279]
This thread sucks, pot sucks, people who smoke pot suck
[/quote]

This thread is great, except that iago never posted those big replies he promised to produce if he would only be given some time. I have yet to see his method of correlating maturity to an easily measurable factor.

[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=105#msg36668 date=1072056095]
[quote author=UserLoser. link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=105#msg36619 date=1072031279]
This thread sucks, pot sucks, people who smoke pot suck
[/quote]

This thread is great, except that iago never posted those big replies he promised to produce if he would only be given some time. I have yet to see his method of correlating maturity to an easily measurable factor.
[/quote]

Never read one post of the thread, just saw it's size and title

[quote author=Adron link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=105#msg36668 date=1072056095]
[quote author=UserLoser. link=board=35;threadid=4104;start=105#msg36619 date=1072031279]
This thread sucks, pot sucks, people who smoke pot suck
[/quote]

This thread is great, except that iago never posted those big replies he promised to produce if he would only be given some time. I have yet to see his method of correlating maturity to an easily measurable factor.
[/quote]
I think that he was hoping you would just forget about it :p

Yes, time, it would be nice to have some of that.. 11 days left at my current job, then I'm starting to work 9-5, m-f :D