- NEW!
by 23Skidoo
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Hayzen
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by FAC348a
on April 5th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by MrJosh
on December 17th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by HuskyLove
on December 17th, 2009
voted:
No
by Cruiser
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Gratis
on December 12th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by 1858 Remington 1-21-13
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Zev
on March 30th, 2010
voted:
No
by -Nicko-
on December 19th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by ZiggyStardust on July 27th, 2010
by Sm0kingArr0w.
on January 5th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by -_You Can Leave Your Hat On....-
on December 20th, 2009
voted:
No
by John Pacella
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
No
by 4down2
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by santaslilhelper
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by joshuaaldridge
on January 25th, 2010
voted:
No
by Anonymous
on December 12th, 2009
voted:
No
by JustMyThoughts
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by IronMike1488 on July 27th, 2010
by aletha01
on December 17th, 2009
voted:
No
by the beast
on December 17th, 2009
voted:
No
by Thriftymaid
on December 12th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Anonymous
on December 11th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Reptar
on December 10th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Sodahead on February 26th, 2010
by anonymous
on January 18th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by micheledobbs
on January 4th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by singit6
on March 31st, 2010
voted:
No
by Dalton(:
on January 28th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Closed Account
on January 7th, 2010
voted:
No
by xoalexiss09
on December 23rd, 2009
voted:
Yes
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT
on December 23rd, 2009
voted:
Yes
by Vixen on July 27th, 2010
by MonsterMash
on May 5th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Ilikeweed420 on April 1st, 2010
by Ycart.Hearts
on March 29th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by hasvirgo
on December 17th, 2009
voted:
No
by That_BI_Guy
on December 16th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by TAPriceCTR s son is wearing his COAT
on December 14th, 2009
voted:
Yes
by drweet on January 20th, 2011
by Anonymous
on October 26th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by rocklesson86
on September 3rd, 2010
voted:
Yes
by dinks205 on July 27th, 2010
by 23Skidoo
on July 27th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by AvtomatKalashnikov
on July 27th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by SaraItani on July 27th, 2010
by Metz666
on July 8th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by Fancy-Ghoul
on July 5th, 2010
voted:
Yes
by stephanieNie
on April 3rd, 2010
voted:
No
Does LSD show up in drug tests?
by Answerbag Staff on May 21st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Can drug trafficking carry probation instead of prison?
by Answerbag Staff on May 21st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
If you were able to use one drug as much as you want without getting into trouble, what would it be?
by RScapricorn on March 11th, 2012
| 1 person likes this
What company makes Dianabol in Mexico?
by Answerbag Staff on May 20th, 2011
| 1 person likes this
My car was used with out permission. Driver had a DUI. Do I have to get DUI plates? What are my rights?
by lhdbiker40 on March 21st, 2012
| 1 person likes this
You're reading Should the U.S. Legalize Marijuana?
- which can also be phrased in the following ways:
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
Spot On Skidoo.
by Hyperion is back in China on December 22nd, 2009
As for being able to do to your body as you like, there are problems with that. As health risks rise so do health care causes that can affect the entire society rather than just the smoker.
by DemonOfTheSword on December 23rd, 2009
Demon -
I have 2 problems with that.
First, so what? Would you support the government mandating what people should do, eat, how much they should exercise in order to maintain minimum health costs?
And second, you assume smokers cost more money thatn non-smokers. But that has been shown by several long term studies not to be true. All people eventually die. But healthy people tend to live longer (thus costing more) and die longer deaths needing more intensive medical care. Smokers tend to die younger of heart disease (often very quick) or cancer that often lasts less than a year.
by 23Skidoo on December 25th, 2009
In this case the government should regulate it. Drugs cause people to make bad decisions for themselves. It's not healthy niether mentally or physically.
Drug additcts will do ANYTHING for that high. Steal, lie, murder, etc.
I know from experiance.
If we legalize one drug we will have to legalize several more.
by Chasitybh on January 19th, 2010
I think they should all be legalized. The money saved on police, prisons etc can be much better spend on medical care.
And most people who use drugs aren't addicts - like most drinkers aren't alchie's.
by 23Skidoo on January 19th, 2010
Skidoo...you are saying that all drugs should be legalized. doing so would only make it easier for children and teenagers to acquire these harmful drugs. It is ok if you want to die early of a disease, but you can;t allow youngsters, who have not seen or experienced everything they would want to experience in their lives. Exposure to these drugs would be harmful to these teenagers. And to what extent do you think it is right for these teenagers to step into a pathway that might lead them to death without any one stopping them. The government has a jjob to not only protect its voting adults, but also the teenagers. And you said most are not addicts, well what about the others, do they not matter. Does America only care about the majority in this case?
by sidranirani on April 2nd, 2010
Most teenagers are perfectly able to get drugs now. Since the toughening of drug laws they have only become more accessible. The simple facts is that drug prohibition doesn't work any better than alcoholic prohibition did.
Legalizing drugs would free up a great many $billions to spend on usage reduction that actually works.
Cigarettes are legal but smoking among teens has declined dramatically in recent decades.
There is only one major effect of keeping drugs illegal. It makes selling them highly profitable and imprisoning the minority who are jailed, mostly in private 'for profit' prisons, equally so.
Think about it. The US has one of the highest incarceration rates of any country on the planet. Most are there for non0violent drug crimes. Most of the violent offenders are there for drug related thefts and shootings.
The gangs and mafias that sell drugs are very well funded, sufficiently so to make sure they keep the flow of drugs moving.
Terrorists are very well funded from selling opium (mostly from Afghanistan and neighbors).
All these things could be solved with the wave of a pen. There is no evidence to suggest the rates of addiction among teens would rise if it did. But there would be piles of money suddenly available to fund treatment for those who did fall.
by 23Skidoo on April 3rd, 2010
Its all part of the social decay which is now endemic in Britain. At the supermarket I see "Chucky" kids with "attitude" skating around on heelies even though the store forbids them. If they are like that at eight what are they going to be like when they get on whaccy baccy? Incidentally I have a copy of a Victorian British Pharmacopoeia (granddad was a manufacturing chemist) In this official book it states that cannabis is the drug of choice for dismenorrhoea (period pains?) Allegedly used by Queen Victoria! On a similar vein Coca-Cola used to have a magic ingredient in it. Now banned unfortunately. Punishing entire populations because of abusers isn't right. Trouble is that most drug addicts/abusers have to steal to fund their addiction. The end result is that ones burgled possessions end up funding drug cartels - how sweet. Burglars need to be put down a deep mineshaft and fed horse manure, after a while they might just get the message. Human Rights? they lost those when they ceased to be human and turned into burgling vermin.
by davey1000 on October 18th, 2010
As long as no one else has to pay your medical bills i say do what you want.
by mario on October 18th, 2010
I will be 59 next month and though I don't use it any longer , I firmily believe it should have been legalized years ago. This would help this country with its revenue and bail out our future generations with the revenue it would generate.
by thunder on October 18th, 2010
I can't believe the anti-pot arguments above have changed little in the last 50 years. Most have been disproved such as the "gateway drug" argument and being addictive. There were studies from the 60's showing it wasn't addictive. Prefacing an argument with "Despite arguments from the drug culture to the contrary" doesn't make it valid! Obtain the facts BEFORE making your argument.
My favorite is "unlike marijuana, tobacco can claim no role in potentially hurting the lives of non-smokers (with the exception of second-hand smoke" It's like saying dynamite is harmless (with the exception of when it blows up).
How ludicrous!
by Anonymous on October 18th, 2010
I love the dynamite thing. :-)
by 23Skidoo on October 19th, 2010
You quote "I don't see how the government has any right to regulate what a person choses to do with his own body." is not justifying anything, look around you, the government is regulating Everything you do everyday! the Pharmaceuticals, the food industry, belief system...this is just another thing the government is regulating.
by cheybunz on October 19th, 2010
Something to think about.
SCOTUS
Your Right to Private Contract!
HALE v. HENKEL. 201 U.S. 43 at 89 (1906)
Hale v. Henkel was decided in 1906 by the united States Supreme Court. Since it was the Supreme Court, the case is binding on all courts of the land, until another Supreme Court case says it isn't. Has another Supreme Court case ever overturned Hale v. Henkel? NO!
As a matter of fact, since 1906, Hale v. Henkel has been cited by all of the federal and state appellate court systems over 16 hundred times! Remember that in nearly every instance when a case is cited, it has an impact on the precidential authority of the cited case.
The more times a case is held up as "the law," the more it becomes cast in granite.
How does that compare with other previously decided Supreme Court cases?
Initial observations have shown that no other case has surpassed Hale v. Henkel in the number of times it has been cited by the courts. And, none of the various issues of this case have ever been overruled.
On the persuasive side in Hale v. Henkel it was the united States Supreme Court which was speaking the "Law of the Land." How much more persuasive can a case be?
The opinion of the court stated:
"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen.
He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way.
His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State
or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an
investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him.
He owes no duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom,
beyond the protection of his life and property."..
"His rights are such as existed by the Law of the Land
(Common Law) long antecedent to the organization of the State,
and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance
with the Constitution....
"He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass
upon their rights."...
Hale v. Henkel is based on Article 1 Sec. 10 of the Constitution
for the united States of America (several separate 50 states) established
in 1789 long before the Federal Corporate U.S. was established in 1871!
Here is part of that Article: (highlighted and underlined for clarity)
(definition of State means: The political system of a body of people
who are politically organized; the system of rules by which jurisdiction
and authority are exercised over such a body of people.)
(in America this is the Federal Corporate govt. (D.C.) and at the 50 states
level)
"...No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin money; emit Bills of Credit;
make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law imparing the
Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility. (Esquire)
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on October 19th, 2010
chey
Regulating pharmaceuticals and food isn't the same thing. Most of us aren't chemists capable of testing a new drug on our own. So the government regulates and forces testing. Same goes for food safety.
The government doesn't regulate any belief system.
But how does it have the right to regulate whether MrX decides to smoke a cigarette, a joint or have a beer after work - in the privacy oh his own home? It doesn't effect anyone else.
by 23Skidoo on October 19th, 2010
I guess that my "somerthing to think about" is to much!
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on October 20th, 2010
Seeya - Who are you talking too? The above seems to me not to be directly relevant - but it does suggest that private citizens have the right to do as they wish so long as he doesn't prevent anyone else from doing the same. hence - smoking dope is fine.
In which case - we agree.
:-)
by 23Skidoo on October 21st, 2010
You sir / madam, are a MORON, do you know who pays for the people who end up in public psychiatric hospitals (and 99% of the drug users who end up in these hospitals, end up in public hospitals because they don't work for a living because they are too busy stoned all the time), we pay for them (and by WE i mean the people who work for an honest living), we pay for them with our taxes. And what do you think is going to happen if we legalize pot and the hospital bills go up... gee, i don't, more taxes...
Your an absolute tool, learn what you are talking about before sprouting crap.
by TheToid on October 21st, 2010
Toid -
Who do you think pays for the justice system that has done nothing to either reduce addiction or stem the tide of highly profitable drugs?
Learn and think before lecturing and name calling others.
by 23Skidoo on October 21st, 2010
I have to laugh at a number of you anti-pot people still trotting out the same tired arguments/ blatant lies that have been used for over 50 years now. You all naively act as though pot just became available 6 months ago an only scumbags in dark alleys wearing trench coats have them, just waiting to pounce on your children and get them high. Guess what folks, children don't have the kind of money it takes to buy pot. If they do you are giving them WAY too much allowance.
In 1970 my mom and I watched one of those anti-drug programs on TV. When it was over my mom asked me if drugs were that prevalent (mind you, I came from a small town in Ohio). I looked at my mom and replied, "YOU pick the place and I'll buy drugs there within 5 minutes." This was small town Ohio in 1970, not New York or L.A. Do you think there are more or less drugs available nowadays?
As for all of the "NO" arguments above, these all come straight from the DEA website and every one of them have been proven wrong dozens of times over. Do a simple Google search instead of believing the BS the government or 6 o'clock news says. The Dutch do not have more users since legalizing it, they have less. Read about Portugal who completely legalized ALL drugs 10 years ago. You'd be quite surprised at the results!
Get off your dead asses and learn something America instead of letting someone on TV tell it to you. It's usually a lie!
by Straybeat on October 21st, 2010
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization
Interesting.
I lice in the Czech Republic where "small" amounts for personal use are legal. There hasn't been any drastic change as far as I know of - other than the Police not having to chase and prosecute someone with a couple joints or 2 hits of X.
by 23Skidoo on October 22nd, 2010
I respect your right to freedom of choice, however, it would be the taxpayer who has to pick up any bills should you go off the rails or are mentally or physically affected by the use of drugs. My opinion is: (if it were possible) that you should be able to choose whether or not you take a drug providing you agree that you will not expect medical or financial assistance should your life take a spiral downwards.
by guvnor on October 22nd, 2010
guv -
That would be fine so long as we extended it to all voluntary risks. Skiers would pick up the tabs for their skiing injuries. People would accept the risks for sub-optimal lifestyles (as defined by the govt?... insurance companies?) Drivers for car accidents - and the dangers they pose to non-drivers.
I think this is impractical. Especially since tax payers now pay for the entire War on Drugs - which has cost over $40BILLION this year.
http://www.drugsense.org/cms/wodclock
Then consider that drugs are a major source of funding for organised crime and terrorists. Legalize and POOF! With the wave of a pen you have crippled both's ability to raise money.
So the additional expense of treatment would be trivial compared to the savings.
by 23Skidoo on October 22nd, 2010
you and evey citizen has no duty to take care of the other so who gives a crap is a choice. we the people are the gov't. our representive are not to be trusted if you and I stop paying attention and saying no we get what we get an insolent child that crys because he dosen't get his/her way. we need to as people to take ownership of of our own action
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on October 23rd, 2010
you and evey citizen has no duty to take care of the other so who gives a crap is a choice. we the people are the gov't. our representives are not to be trusted if you and I stop paying attention and stop saying no we get what we get, an insolent child that crys because he/she dosen't get his/her way. we need to as people to take ownership of our own actions, the only responsbilitys of the goverment is stated in our Constitution, they the elected need to get out of our private lifes, we the people can take care ourselfs and each other as we choose, we are quite able, if not better able then they our servants would lead you to believe. all laws our about control of the masses. contenplate for awhile and enlighten your outlook on your true liberties/freedoms.
@ 23skidoo Hale v Henkle is your backup in court.
by Seeya says Dont Ever Give Up on October 23rd, 2010