Legalize It?

[achtungbaby]

This was branched off from the tobacco thread. Have at it.

[ChinaLama]

they should legalize gladiator sports while they're at it. hey if death row inmates have to go, why not let them entertain us in the process? ;)

[wylin]

ya make em fight in giant robots w/ melee weapons like swords and clubs and maces. also make a ro-beast or 2 for good fun.

[jizza]

maximus! maximus! maximus!

[ChinaLama]

looks like we hijacked AB's drug legalization thread. :D

But hey, doesn't legalization of mortal combat sound more fun than a drug legalization debate? <_<

[Craig]

Why not on both of them ?

Let the jailbirds fight for their lives at regular intervals. The thought of a violent death should be a great deterrent to crime. Maybe put it on broadcast TV, sell some advertising and divert the profits to public education.

Btw, let's not lock up people that are doing things like stealing food in this economy, which I've hear about (well read some stories about in Japan, HK, etc.), but crimes of greed, not need.

[wylin]

Originally posted by Craig@Oct 7 2002, 12:38 PM
Why not on both of them ?

Let the jailbirds fight for their lives at regular intervals. The thought of a violent death should be a great deterrent to crime. Maybe put it on broadcast TV, sell some advertising and divert the profits to public education.

Btw, let's not lock up people that are doing things like stealing food in this economy, which I've hear about (well read some stories about in Japan, HK, etc.), but crimes of greed, not need.
using that ideology for example say i need physically to have sex but have no gf so i go out and rape sum girl.
that ideal then "should be ok" because its satisfying a physical need or want. its not a crime of greed but necessity same w/ drug use.

[Craig]

Originally posted by wylin@Oct 8 2002, 12:52 AM
Originally posted by Craig@Oct 7 2002, 12:38 PM
Why not on both of them ?

Let the jailbirds fight for their lives at regular intervals. &nbsp;The thought of a violent death should be a great deterrent to crime. &nbsp; &nbsp;Maybe put it on broadcast TV, sell some advertising and divert the profits to public education.

Btw, let's not lock up people that are doing things like stealing food in this economy, which I've hear about (well read some stories about in Japan, HK, etc.), but crimes of greed, not need.
using that ideology for example say i need physically to have sex but have no gf so i go out and rape sum girl.
that ideal then "should be ok" because its satisfying a physical need or want. its not a crime of greed but necessity same w/ drug use.

Ok, whatever. Don't really feel like arguing. Just bored and trying to add to the conversation; Whatever any of us say or think, they're not going to have anything like roman gladiator fights. I don't know anybody stealing for food. Btw, nobody needs sex and has to rape anybody. Drugs are not a basic need, but I'm sure quite a bit of crime occurs by people related to this domain. Nobody needs food, but if they don't have it they'll die. I just know a number of people that are highly skilled and educated that lost their jobs in this economy that couldn't get a low paying job to scrap by if they wanted to. The thought had just popped up into my mind.

[SunWuKong]

i'm a little apprehensive about legalizing "hard" drugs that are physically addictive, but i think they should legalize drugs like marijuana and amphetamines.

[amietron]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 8 2002, 12:59 PM
i'm a little apprehensive about legalizing "hard" drugs that are physically addictive, but i think they should legalize drugs like marijuana and amphetamines.
why amphetamines?

[karizma]

>> shit if you threw inmates into a pit of snakes or made em fight with each other or vicious creatures id pay to watch haha....im sure someone's prison bitch would love to see their owner mauled by a lion :D...but this probably should be limited to death row prisoners *shrugs*

>> as for the legalization of weed...all for it!! haha...most people can afford to smoke weed and retain their intelligence and crap like that...but there are some retards that shouldnt touch the stuff...they need all the brain cells they can get =/....

[angel nympho]

It's called *PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.*

[achtungbaby]

Finally! This thread got back on topic:)

Amphetamines are very addictive.

Drugs are a very weird issue for me. I have some amazingly hypocritical views on them, I guess. I've done quite a few of them and have been lucky enough to come out relatively unscathed, but I'm still against their legalization, primarily because I disagree with angel_nympho's summary of personal responsibility being the overriding factor which should take the danger out of drugs. Personal responsibility should be the safety net for a whole host of issues, and generally, people still tend to screw that up. The difference with drugs, however, is that the consequences for screwing up can be disasterous.

[SunWuKong]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 8 2002, 04:54 PM
It's called *PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.*
well it's a well known fact that the laws in this country are designed to protect us from ourselves.

[Danny]

:angry:

[optiontoo]

I think legalizing non-addictive drugs would create a market where they could be used and purchased safely. Ideally, this would hurt the illegal drug trade, reducing the number of dealers and the other crimes that dealers may commit to, such as purchasing illegal firearms and then using them to rob banks. (You know, part-time gig for supplementary income.)

Of course, I'm only saying this after putting about 30 seconds of thought into it. Caveat emptor.

[angel nympho]

I don't get how people can't see that prohibition of drugs just puts it in the underground. It gives money to violent drug dealers, turns users into criminals, and offers NO protection to those more "innocent" users. People who do drugs obviously don't give a SHIT that they're illegal. No matter what, legal or not, there will be people who will do drugs. Every single drug that is illegal today was NOT illegal before 1914. Back then, drugs were cheaper, therefore nobody had to steal, kill, or assualt their way to get them. Crime was low. Most people handled their drug of choice well and were able to live their lives normally and productively. Of all drug users, addicts are a minority. A small one, at that.
The first laws that made drugs illegal were RACIST. The only reason drugs were made illegal was to keep the Chinese laborers from using opium, and to keep blacks and Hispanics from using cocaine and marijuana.
Criminals LOVE the fact that drugs are illegal. They demand of drugs are so high that we're basically just funding criminals ways of life. DRUGS FUND TERRORISM. Duh... Drugs turn streets into battlefields for "selling territory," turns the normal American trying to live his life into a criminal, kills innocent people caught in the crossfire, and corrupts police.
If drugs were legal, nobody would be able to sell their own expirimental adulterated drugs that kill and injure so many people. And those vicitims have NO protection.

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 9 2002, 10:53 AM
I don't get how people can't see that prohibition of drugs just puts it in the underground.
I don't think anyone's refuting this. My point is that as long as there is law, there will always be black markets. Like I said earlier, if your sole intent is to reduce crime as we know it, then we should just remove the majority of the laws out there, so there'd be none to break.

Certainly there are a lot of dumb anti-drug laws out there. And they need to be changed.

The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of something. You think that if we opened it up, made it easier for them, they'd have less a desire to abuse it?

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 9 2002, 06:53 PM
I don't get how people can't see that prohibition of drugs just puts it in the underground. &nbsp;It gives money to violent drug dealers, turns users into criminals, and offers NO protection to those more "innocent" users. &nbsp;People who do drugs obviously don't give a SHIT that they're illegal. &nbsp;No matter what, legal or not, there will be people who will do drugs. &nbsp;Every single drug that is illegal today was NOT illegal before 1914. &nbsp;Back then, drugs were cheaper, therefore nobody had to steal, kill, or assualt their way to get them. Crime was low. &nbsp;Most people handled their drug of choice well and were able to live their lives normally and productively. &nbsp;Of all drug users, addicts are a minority. &nbsp;A small one, at that. &nbsp;
The first laws that made drugs illegal were RACIST. &nbsp;The only reason drugs were made illegal was to keep the Chinese laborers from using opium, and to keep blacks and Hispanics from using cocaine and marijuana. &nbsp;
Criminals LOVE the fact that drugs are illegal. &nbsp;They demand of drugs are so high that we're basically just funding criminals ways of life. &nbsp;DRUGS FUND TERRORISM. Duh... Drugs turn streets into battlefields for "selling territory," turns the normal American trying to live his life into a criminal, kills innocent people caught in the crossfire, and corrupts police.
If drugs were legal, nobody would be able to sell their own expirimental adulterated drugs that kill and injure so many people. &nbsp;And those vicitims have NO protection.
the key assumption to drug legalization seems to be that drugs would then be well-regulated AND weakened. I think that's a weak assumption, though, because one of the reasons people use drugs is because they're unregulated and strong. Would you really want to smoke some sad version of crack that doesn't even get you high? So even if drugs were legal, there would STILL be a black market for stronger versions of the drugs.

Also, while making something illegal doesn't STOP its use, it does deter it. One reason why a lot of people argue for legalizing marijuana, for instance, is because people say it's not that harmful, and is probably less likely to cause cancer BECAUSE IT IS CONSUMED IN SMALLER QUANTITIES. But one of the major reasons why people don't smoke marijuana at the rate they smoke cigarettes is because it's illegal, and therefore somewhat difficult to acquire, and therefore pretty expensive. If pot were legal, readily available, fairly cheap, and widely advertised, then it would become more dangerous b/c many more ppl would consume it and consume it in larger quantities. Pot is a relatively tame drug -- multiply these effects with f what would happen if cocaine, ecstacy, etc were legal.

If more people can consume drugs when they're legal because 1) they're more readily available to the general population, so more people will have access at a cheaper price 2) they're more acceptable because no stigma of illegality is attached to their use, then it is likely that because there are more drug users, that more will become addicts, and some will become dangerous addicts. If you're high on crack or pcp, you're likely to do some shit you wouldn't do if you were sober.


So while I'm not really AGAINST drug legalization, I think people have to think about unintended consequences. While it is true to at least some extent that "illegal drugs --> turf wars --> crime," the inverse "legal drugs --> no turf wars --> no crime" is NOT necessarily true.



<!--EDIT|ChinaLama|Oct 9 2002, 07:23 PM-->

[achtungbaby]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 9 2002, 11:21 AM
One reason why a lot of people argue for legalizing marijuana, for instance, is because people say it's not that harmful, and is probably less likely to cause cancer BECAUSE IT IS CONSUMED IN SMALLER QUANTITIES.
This is one of the reasons why our current anti-tobacco frenzy gets me up in a lather, because while we demonize smokers, we say "legalize it" to bud because it's "organic".

I got news! All the shit is bad and practically everything is carcinogenic. If you're gonna fuck with your body, know that you're fucking with your body and don't live some fairy tale.

[SunWuKong]

well the reason i would like to see drugs like marijuana, MDMA, and amphetamines legalized is from a moral standpoint. to the best of my knowledge, violent crimes committed while in an altered state of mind are committed mostly by people who are drunk instead of people who are high on one of those drugs. but either way, i guess all that i'm thinking is, if you're just getting high with your friends in the comfort of your own home, you really shouldn't be prosecuted for it. we all have a right to do harm to our bodies after all.

however, i really don't know enough about other drugs that are considered "hard" to say that i think they should be legalized.

and ChinaLama is right, regulation and legalization does not guarantee the destruction of a black market for it. the only way to truly eliminate it would be COMPLETE deregulation, but then the problem would be that the government is practically sanctioning "unpure" drugs that COULD be very dangerous.

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by SunWuKung@Oct 9 2002, 08:20 PM
well the reason i would like to see drugs like marijuana, MDMA, and amphetamines legalized is from a moral standpoint. to the best of my knowledge, violent crimes committed while in an altered state of mind are committed mostly by people who are drunk instead of people who are high on one of those drugs. but either way, i guess all that i'm thinking is, if you're just getting high with your friends in the comfort of your own home, you really shouldn't be prosecuted for it. we all have a right to do harm to our bodies after all.

i wish amphetamines were legal, too. caffeine is just way too weak for people who like to stay up till 5 am watching cartoons and movies. B)

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 9 2002, 11:21 AM
One reason why a lot of people argue for legalizing marijuana, for instance, is because people say it's not that harmful, and is probably less likely to cause cancer BECAUSE IT IS CONSUMED IN SMALLER QUANTITIES.
This is one of the reasons why our current anti-tobacco frenzy gets me up in a lather, because while we demonize smokers, we say "legalize it" to bud because it's "organic".

I got news! All the shit is bad and practically everything is carcinogenic. If you're gonna fuck with your body, know that you're fucking with your body and don't live some fairy tale.
Just because something is legal doesn't mean we have to promote it. Nobody in their right MINDS promotes cigarettes... but it's still legal.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 9 2002, 11:21 AM
One reason why a lot of people argue for legalizing marijuana, for instance, is because people say it's not that harmful, and is probably less likely to cause cancer BECAUSE IT IS CONSUMED IN SMALLER QUANTITIES.
This is one of the reasons why our current anti-tobacco frenzy gets me up in a lather, because while we demonize smokers, we say "legalize it" to bud because it's "organic".

I got news! All the shit is bad and practically everything is carcinogenic. If you're gonna fuck with your body, know that you're fucking with your body and don't live some fairy tale.
Deaths as a result of alcohol poisoning: lots
Deaths as a result of marijuana: 0



<!--EDIT|angel nympho|Oct 10 2002, 12:05 AM-->

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:06 PM
Like I said earlier, if your sole intent is to reduce crime as we know it, then we should just remove the majority of the laws out there, so there'd be none to break.

Certainly there are a lot of dumb anti-drug laws out there. And they need to be changed.

The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of something. You think that if we opened it up, made it easier for them, they'd have less a desire to abuse it?
Maybe you misunderstand what I'm saying. I am not saying that legalizing drugs will reduce crime in that drug users are no longer criminals. I'm saying legalizing drugs reduces the backlash that occurs when people try to get something they can't. Legalizing drugs reduces crime in that there will be a lot less drug dealers shooting each other on the streets. There will be a lot less addicts stealing cars, robbing people, and killing people to try to get money for drugs. Think this is all assumption? Take a look:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/Modifiedmurderchart.gif

I am not sure if the majority of violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of something. I actually think the opposite. I only hear things on the news about violent crimes by people high on something every once in a while. But I hear about violent crimes all the time. I highly doubt that is the case. Show me some evidence, and I'll reconsider.

And while I don't know if people would be less likely to abuse drugs if they were legal, I believe that most people in general will not abuse drugs anyway, legal or not. I'm not saying we should ENDORSE drug use at all. In fact, I'm in favor of stronger anti-drug education, but this drugs don't have to be illegal to educate people about the negative effects.

I honestly believe that legalizing drugs is the lesser of two evils. Have a look at this report by ABC news. http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_d...ugs_020730.html (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_drugs_020730.html)

[ChinaLama]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 10 2002, 12:05 AM

Deaths as a result of alcohol poisoning: lots
Deaths as a result of marijuana: 0
If you wanna say no one has DIRECTLY died as a result of marijuana, you may as well say no one has DIRECTLY died as a result of tobacco. I mean it's not PROVEN that people get cancer only because they smoke-- hell, maybe the REAL trigger for lung cancer is just really shitty air, or some substance in some food we all eat.

So I dunno how accurate it is to say marijuana causes zero deaths. I mean it IS carcinogenic, so it's highly possible a lot of people died from cancer where pot smoking was one of the causes.

[deez nuts]

Ok, I'm more prone towards the argument of legalization drugs. But, if it happens, I believe it to be more of a administrative nightmare. How would you regulate it? Who dispenses it? Where does one go and get his now legal smack, crack and coke? And etc etc.

Edit: I voted yes to this, btw.



<!--EDIT|Chasiubao_Boy|Oct 9 2002, 07:45 PM-->

[wylin]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 9 2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:06 PM
Like I said earlier, if your sole intent is to reduce crime as we know it, then we should just remove the majority of the laws out there, so there'd be none to break.

Certainly there are a lot of dumb anti-drug laws out there. &nbsp;And they need to be changed.

The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of something. &nbsp;You think that if we opened it up, made it easier for them, they'd have less a desire to abuse it?
Maybe you misunderstand what I'm saying. I am not saying that legalizing drugs will reduce crime in that drug users are no longer criminals. I'm saying legalizing drugs reduces the backlash that occurs when people try to get something they can't. Legalizing drugs reduces crime in that there will be a lot less drug dealers shooting each other on the streets. There will be a lot less addicts stealing cars, robbing people, and killing people to try to get money for drugs. Think this is all assumption? Take a look:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/Modifiedmurderchart.gif

I am not sure if the majority of violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of something. I actually think the opposite. I only hear things on the news about violent crimes by people high on something every once in a while. But I hear about violent crimes all the time. I highly doubt that is the case. Show me some evidence, and I'll reconsider.

And while I don't know if people would be less likely to abuse drugs if they were legal, I believe that most people in general will not abuse drugs anyway, legal or not. I'm not saying we should ENDORSE drug use at all. In fact, I'm in favor of stronger anti-drug education, but this drugs don't have to be illegal to educate people about the negative effects.

I honestly believe that legalizing drugs is the lesser of two evils. Have a look at this report by ABC news. http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_d...ugs_020730.html (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_drugs_020730.html)
um angel notice that the 2 dips are around world war I and world war II then korean and vietnam wars....maybe it could be the murder rate dropped because they were killing foreign people in wars.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by ChinaLama@Oct 10 2002, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 10 2002, 12:05 AM

Deaths as a result of alcohol poisoning: &nbsp;lots
Deaths as a result of marijuana: 0
If you wanna say no one has DIRECTLY died as a result of marijuana, you may as well say no one has DIRECTLY died as a result of tobacco. I mean it's not PROVEN that people get cancer only because they smoke-- hell, maybe the REAL trigger for lung cancer is just really shitty air, or some substance in some food we all eat.

So I dunno how accurate it is to say marijuana causes zero deaths. I mean it IS carcinogenic, so it's highly possible a lot of people died from cancer where pot smoking was one of the causes.
Yeah, I know. I'm saying, though, you'd have the be the fucking stupidest person in the world to die as a direct result of marijuana smoke. I mean, if you smoke too much, nothing happens. You fall asleep. You don't die of THC poisoning or anything.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by wylin@Oct 10 2002, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 9 2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by achtungbaby@Oct 9 2002, 07:06 PM
Like I said earlier, if your sole intent is to reduce crime as we know it, then we should just remove the majority of the laws out there, so there'd be none to break.

Certainly there are a lot of dumb anti-drug laws out there. And they need to be changed.

The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of something. You think that if we opened it up, made it easier for them, they'd have less a desire to abuse it?
Maybe you misunderstand what I'm saying. I am not saying that legalizing drugs will reduce crime in that drug users are no longer criminals. I'm saying legalizing drugs reduces the backlash that occurs when people try to get something they can't. Legalizing drugs reduces crime in that there will be a lot less drug dealers shooting each other on the streets. There will be a lot less addicts stealing cars, robbing people, and killing people to try to get money for drugs. Think this is all assumption? Take a look:
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/Modifiedmurderchart.gif

I am not sure if the majority of violent crimes are committed by people under the influence of something. I actually think the opposite. I only hear things on the news about violent crimes by people high on something every once in a while. But I hear about violent crimes all the time. I highly doubt that is the case. Show me some evidence, and I'll reconsider.

And while I don't know if people would be less likely to abuse drugs if they were legal, I believe that most people in general will not abuse drugs anyway, legal or not. I'm not saying we should ENDORSE drug use at all. In fact, I'm in favor of stronger anti-drug education, but this drugs don't have to be illegal to educate people about the negative effects.

I honestly believe that legalizing drugs is the lesser of two evils. Have a look at this report by ABC news. http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_d...ugs_020730.html (http://abcnews.go.com/onair/2020/stossel_drugs_020730.html)
um angel notice that the 2 dips are around world war I and world war II then korean and vietnam wars....maybe it could be the murder rate dropped because they were killing foreign people in wars.
But the chart is homicides per 1,000 or something like that. I think it takes into account the amout of people who are around. And it doesnt make the fact that crime rates are higher than ever in times of prohibition invalid.

[Arex]

Even though I do believe that legalizing drugs would result in a decrease in homicides (for the reasons nympho gave), I think that chart is piss-poor evidence of it. If you'll note, homicides have already dropped below the level that they were at before we even began this so-called war on drugs.=P

I voted "no" just because I think the only drug that perhaps ought to be legalized at this time is marijuana. I'm in no way an expert, but it's my understanding that bud is really no more intoxicating than alcohol or harmful to your health than cigarettes (if used in the way most people use weed). But hell, I say we just follow Amsterdam's lead. What else they got there? Shrooms?

Alex



<!--EDIT|Arex|Oct 9 2002, 07:18 PM-->

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Arex@Oct 10 2002, 02:17 AM
Even though I do believe that legalizing drugs would result in a decrease in homicides (for the reasons nympho gave), I think that chart is piss-poor evidence of it. If you'll note, homicides have already dropped below the level that they were at before we even began this so-called war on drugs.=P

I voted "no" just because I think the only drug that perhaps ought to be legalized at this time is marijuana. I'm in no way an expert, but it's my understanding that bud is really no more intoxicating than alcohol or harmful to your health than cigarettes (if used in the way most people use weed). But hell, I say we just follow Amsterdam's lead. What else they got there? Shrooms?

Alex
*Giggles* In defense of my sorry ass chart, I think homicide laws were much different back in 1900. And either way, with the advancement in technology (guns, guns, guns), homicide is a lot easier these days.

And I agree with you. Start with marijuana, and see how things work out. Baby steps.

But I think it's true that the War on Drugs is a war we will never win. Legal or not, drugs are a reality that will ALWAYS be around.

I'm just a strong believer in this because I did a lot of research in high school about prohibition and it's negative effects for some debate I had to participate in. This thread is strikingly similar to the debate... :retard:

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by Arex@Oct 9 2002, 06:17 PM
But hell, I say we just follow Amsterdam's lead. What else they got there? Shrooms?

Alex
Amsterdam hasn't legalized pot as far as I understand, it's just either decriminalized or the cops there don't bother to enforce the laws. They are pretty harsh on hard drugs though I probably could have bought them anywhere.

Don't know if you've been there but they do market brand names of marijuana and there are menus in the brown bars.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Oct 10 2002, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by Arex@Oct 9 2002, 06:17 PM
But hell, I say we just follow Amsterdam's lead. &nbsp;What else they got there? &nbsp;Shrooms?

Alex
Amsterdam hasn't legalized pot as far as I understand, it's just either decriminalized or the cops there don't bother to enforce the laws. They are pretty harsh on hard drugs though I probably could have bought them anywhere.

Don't know if you've been there but they do market brand names of marijuana and there are menus in the brown bars.
It's Holland that legalized Marijuana and the Netherlands legalized basically everything. I think. Well I'm sure about Holland.

[kimpossible]

I went there in '98. They really went out of the way to explain to tourists that the common thought was that marijuana is legal there when in fact it is (or maybe was) decriminalized. We were also informed that there was a distinct difference in the eyes of authorities between marijuana and 'hard' drugs.

That was my understanding in Holland as a tourist.

[angel nympho]

Oh. Read the article I posted up earlier. It's really pretty convincing, at least I think so:

Is there an alternative? Much of Europe now says there is.

In Amsterdam, using marijuana is legal. Holland now has hundreds of "coffee shops" where marijuana is officially tolerated. Clients pick up small amounts of marijuana the same way they would pick up a bottle of wine at the store.

The police regulate marijuana sales — shops may sell no more than about five joints worth per person, they're not allowed to sell to minors, and no hard drugs are allowed.

What has been the result of legalizing marijuana? Is everyone getting stoned? No. In America today 38 percent of adolescents have smoked pot — in Holland, it's only 20 percent.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 10 2002, 10:17 AM
Oh. Read the article I posted up earlier. It's really pretty convincing, at least I think so:

Is there an alternative? Much of Europe now says there is.

In Amsterdam, using marijuana is legal. Holland now has hundreds of "coffee shops" where marijuana is officially tolerated. Clients pick up small amounts of marijuana the same way they would pick up a bottle of wine at the store.

The police regulate marijuana sales — shops may sell no more than about five joints worth per person, they're not allowed to sell to minors, and no hard drugs are allowed.

What has been the result of legalizing marijuana? Is everyone getting stoned? No. In America today 38 percent of adolescents have smoked pot — in Holland, it's only 20 percent.
I think in the conversational sense, using the word legalized to talk about marijuana in Amsterdam (didn't go to the rest of Holland) makes sense. It is everywhere there, marketed openly like beer is in America. However, if you went there and assumed marijuana and all other drugs were 100% legal on the books, you might get a big surprise.

Even though it's socially very accepted there, most people don't just blaze up in the public whenever they feel like it. You can still be arrested.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Hello_Hapa@Oct 10 2002, 06:32 PM
Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 10 2002, 10:17 AM
Oh. &nbsp;Read the article I posted up earlier. &nbsp;It's really pretty convincing, at least I think so:

Is there an alternative? Much of Europe now says there is.

In Amsterdam, using marijuana is legal. Holland now has hundreds of "coffee shops" where marijuana is officially tolerated. Clients pick up small amounts of marijuana the same way they would pick up a bottle of wine at the store.

The police regulate marijuana sales — shops may sell no more than about five joints worth per person, they're not allowed to sell to minors, and no hard drugs are allowed.

What has been the result of legalizing marijuana? Is everyone getting stoned? No. In America today 38 percent of adolescents have smoked pot — in Holland, it's only 20 percent.
I think in the conversational sense, using the word legalized to talk about marijuana in Amsterdam (didn't go to the rest of Holland) makes sense. It is everywhere there, marketed openly like beer is in America. However, if you went there and assumed marijuana and all other drugs were 100% legal on the books, you might get a big surprise.

Even though it's socially very accepted there, most people don't just blaze up in the public whenever they feel like it. You can still be arrested.
I've never been there, so I'm not sure. But I have heard about the coffeeshops where everybody smokes weed. Kinda like the "smoking section" of a restaurant... given, they don't do that anymore, but you see my analogy, I hope. Anyhoo, the same can be said for alcohol. You can be arrested for public drunkenness.

[kimpossible]

Originally posted by angel nympho@Oct 10 2002, 10:36 AM
But I have heard about the coffeeshops where everybody smokes weed. &nbsp;Kinda like the "smoking section" of a restaurant
hahahaha... except everyone in there is blazing. I was high as a kite but I don't remember anyone actually ordering coffee. I went up to the bar where they had a menu with the different brands and strengths. I'm a total pansy and lightweight so I went for the weakest. They gave it to me loose in a little ziplocked baggie. It's a total hoot being able to light up in a bar or carry pot and no one giving a rip.

Amsterdam is fun. :D

[wylin]

using the same logic lets legalize prostitution like nevada does.

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by wylin@Oct 10 2002, 08:14 PM
using the same logic lets legalize prostitution like nevada does.
What's wrong with that? That is a whole different discussion.

[Arex]

Originally posted by wylin@Oct 10 2002, 01:14 PM
using the same logic lets legalize prostitution like nevada does.
I see nothing wrong with this. And speaking of Nevada, I heard they were toying with the idea of legalizing marijuana over there? Anyone got any info on this?

As to the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana (it's arguably already decriminalized in places like Cali where medicinal use is okay under state law), I don't necessarily think people ought to be blazing up while walking down the street. I'm all for relegating the recreational use of marijuana to specific hash-bar type establishments or the privacy of one's own home.

Alex



<!--EDIT|Arex|Oct 10 2002, 08:55 PM-->

[angel nympho]

Originally posted by Arex@Oct 11 2002, 03:54 AM
Originally posted by wylin@Oct 10 2002, 01:14 PM
using the same logic lets legalize prostitution like nevada does.
I see nothing wrong with this. And speaking of Nevada, I heard they were toying with the idea of legalizing marijuana over there? Anyone got any info on this?

As to the legalization or decriminalization of marijuana (it's arguably already decriminalized in places like Cali where medicinal use is okay under state law), I don't necessarily think people ought to be blazing up while walking down the street. I'm all for relegating the recreational use of marijuana to specific hash-bar type establishments or the privacy of one's own home.

Alex
Well, I don't know about the whole decriminalizatin in Cali thing... I mean, if you don't have a lot of it, you probably won't even get a ticket. All the times I've gotten caught with weed, I've never even gotten threatened with a pot ticket.