Only drug users support legalizing drugs

Nah, I believe TC is for marihuana legalization and is just taking the contrarian view so we can hone in our pro legalization arguments.

@aebghdfsc:

Respect.

The crime isn't the ingestion of the drugs, the crime is what people do while under their influence. Someone sitting at home, shooting themselves up with heroin are of no thread to public safety if that's all they do. Someone shooting themselves up with heroin and going out for a drive put the public safety at jeopardy. The safety hazard doesn't come from the usage of the drug, the safety hazard comes from the operation of a motor vehicle under the influence. That already is a crime. Like any other drug, if a user is able to use responsibly, where is the crime?

It depends on the drug, i wouldn't want cocaine to be legalized.

Well, you never know. Legalising it might lessen the problem. It wouldn't be as edgy anymore.

'Only drug users support legalizing drugs'

lol no.

Wow what a terrible post. You must be one of the most uninformed people to ever grace these forums, congratulations.

I'll assume this is about weed

In which case, based on the facts about weed provided by medical personel, I don't see the harm aslong as it's regulated like Alcohol. Meaning age restriction and driving under the influence ought to be fined. If those are implemented then they can smoke weed without me being bothered.

Not just drug users....also the ignorant.

I'm an old man now and I did a lot of partying in my day and had a lot of friends who smoked. Hell some we high more than they were sober. I can tell you from experience nothing good will come from legalizing it other than reducing some of the dealers income.

@WolfgarTheQuiet: You need to enlighten me with some links showing that pot really can cure cancer outright like you claim. The reason why that seems so hard to believe to me is because no matter how much power Big Pharma and Big Tobacco (another player who is allegedly paying off politicians to keep pot illegal) have, if there was documented proof it could cure cancer then rich people who have cancer would just move to places where it is legal so they can be cured and countless organizations would be fighting for its legalization not so casual users can smoke without the fear of being arrested but so cancer patients can be cured.

what awful things have happened in Colorado?

I don't understand why you're asking me about awful things in Colorado.

I did not say anything about awful things happening due to legalizing weed. What I am suggesting is that the more common you make weed the more people will except it and the more people will try it. Weed is a gateway drug regardless of what some might say...I have seen this first hand with a lot of my friends from back in the day. Also to be completely honest heavy weed smokers tend to get to a point where they lack any kind of initiative to make something of themselves.

Obviously not everyone is this way but it does seem to be a trend that I have seen in the past.

Please provide me legitimate sources to back up your claims

You said nothing good would come of legalizing drugs. So I'm asking what bad has come from legalizing it in Colorado?

"The ominously predicted harms from legalization — like blight, violence, soaring addiction rates and other ills — remain imaginary worries. Burglaries and robberies in Denver, in fact, are down from a year ago. The surge of investment and of jobs in construction, tourism and other industries, on the other hand, is real."

"Marijuana prosecutions are way down across the state"

"Cannabis sales from January through May brought the state about $23.6 million in revenue from taxes, licenses and fees."

Coupe things, I don't need to give you anything to make my point, I'm going off of my life. I have been around a good bit of drugs and though I was more of a drinker it was a pretty regular part of my life until I got older.

Also you're not going to see the ramifications after only a year...I'm talking about long term stuff. I'm talking about people who in time want to try something they probably never would have. Or people who just seem to cruse along to lose their "give a s%$t" because all they really want to do is deliver pizzas and smoke every chance they get.

I don't need what you might call a legitimate sources, I know exactly what I'm talking about regardless if you believe me or not.

I never said anything about crime or the idea that it would instantly cause crime to go up. In time, maybe...one year after going legal, no. Give it time and see how it changes things...then remember this conversation. For now you can just go on believing I don't know what I'm talking about.

So you basically have no actual argument or basis for your claims. Guess it's just best to ignore you in that case until you come up with something concrete

I'm telling you what I have seen, I don't need some bs statistics based off of one year to tell me what weed does to people.

You do if you're going to make claims to generalize the entire situation. Using just your personal anecdotes makes no logical sense.

Let me know when you have some actual proof of what you say

Ok, I'll quit basing things off of what I see in life and only go off of statistics I see online.

Not what I said. But I should not have expected much from you anyways

You still have much to learn even at your age BSC14. It's going to be good to see these laws change, I want more jobs where I live, not someone set in their old ways telling me how it was in the "good-old days" when pot was the devil. Luckily more and more people now know it was all a bullshit lie brought about by corporations and their desperation to keep the paper industry and the prison industry booming. Next to none of it was based in reality.

Your opinion is appreciated though...

I understand what you're saying. I'm not really "generating the whole situation". I just stating what I have seen first hand and I know that generally weed and young people are not a good combination. I'm not saying that everyone fits into this example or that crime is going to go off the charts but I do think there are negative ramifications in the long run.

Nice shot taken at me by the way, thanks.

lol...ok.

For the record I think alcohol is worse than weed for heavy users...

Alcoholism is pretty terrible...

Those are typically the people who never had a "give a shit" in the first place. I, too, have been around a lot of pot smokers over the course of my 36 years and they usually come in two varieties: those that had a "give a shit" and those that never did. Those that never did are "delivering pizza and smoking every chance they get." If it wasn't pot, it would be booze or pills or meth or something else. Those that had it are lawyers, and teachers, and software developers...who still smoke pot from time to time.

So, how do you feel about it being legal to sell straight crack to 10 year old kids? Think really hard about WHY that's a bad idea, then read what you just typed out above.

if someone wants to use a drug he will use it regardless if its legal or not. look at cigarretes, the majority of the population doesn't smoke. but having a "war" on drugs just puts non-violent offenders in jail, wastes BILLIONS of your tax-paying dollars, and because of the criminality of drugs that the government invented it leads to people killing one another for drug turf. If drugs were sold in stores it would put all the drug dealers and gangsters out of business reducing crime.

you lost.

The same way I would feel about selling a bottle of whiskey to 10 year old kids. With a black market in place, it's much more likely to happen. I didn't realize I had to be so specific as to state, "Consenting Adult." I figured that was understood.

Just like tobacco and alcohol, any drug sold legally should be done so in a regulated fashion that obviously doesn't entail their availability to children.

Life is awful... all drugs should be legal. Also a big reason your masters don't want drugs to be legal is because drugs make you think differently. God forbid someone actually had a personality in this society. We wouldn't want that would we?

I thought they deluded you into believe you're thinking outside the box. In reality, you're just wearing the box on your head and hitting it with a spoon.

Boy, oh boy, let's generalize! Because, you know, that's always a good and fair way to judge people and not look like an asshat.

@SolidSnake35: Responsible to semi responsible drug use can have a tremendous positive effect on your life. Aside from that I must state again that life is largely awful. It is boring, tedious, repetitive and it is mostly doing things you don't want to do. Of course you can get lucky and escape the typical soulless existence, but it is rare. With that in mind we should let people do drugs granted they don't hurt anyone else.

Of course we could also try to fix this shit society so people don't feel the need to get drunk and high all the time, but that would require actually coming together and having honest conversations... which will most likely never happen. So screw it... if anything we should make more drugs.

My friend has a rare skin disease. Pills & over the counter medication used to ease the pain causes even more irritation to his skin and the only thing that has worked to relieve his pain without more abuse to his skin is medical marijuana. So no, not only "drug users" see the benefit of legalizing such drugs. Dorkus

Never smoked weed, never will and I never will support it, but I do believe a majority of people who support legalizing weed do just want to smoke it, not all but most.

I personally cant stand pot heads and this bullshit of weeds from the earth so its safe bullshit , but yet they claim cigarette and alcohol are worse but legal. Technically you could smoke natural cigarette, tabaco is a plant too and that still causes cancer and alcohol is made from yeast, grapes sometimes potatoes and that's from the earth too.. yet no one makes those claims of it being natural and safe too. Instead its something "safe" like marijuana and should be legal too because its cures cancer. Its all bullshit hype and marketing in the end. Everyone with a brain knows that weed does not cure cancer, if it did why are people still dying from cancer. or a better question why is the richest people still dying from cancer. Why did bob marley die from cancer when he too was a smoker? and please dont say big pharmacy is holding out to make themselves richer etc. thats bs and you know it.

Then pot heads have to drag cancer patients, the economy, taxes, the paper industry etc. in there fight to get high. They dont give one shit about cancer patients or the economy they just want to get high and not be prosecuted. Now they are companlining that they are being taxed too high in colorado,so much for helping the state.

I had a friend who had a brother that had cancer and she was using him as a justification to legalize weed. Even said she got high when she was 12 and her parents oked it, it was natural etc. I just straight asked her, what was she trying to fight for. Recreational use or medical use because they are not the same argument. she ended up getting mad and we aren't friends but damn dont use your brothers cancer to justify getting high.

I don't use drugs. I don't have a problem with pot being legalized. I don't care to be around people while they are high but I don't see what the big deal is if people want to smoke it.

No. I'd send them a one way ticket to Holland if I were you. Damn unsophisticated addicts. They should know better.

Oh. This guy again. You know what that means....

Right there, you've just admitted that it's totally possible for users to be incapable of using responsibly. You previously stated, "if a user is able to use responsibly, where is the crime?" "If" being the critical word. If a 10 year old is able to drink whiskey responsibly, then why's it a crime to sell it to them? Because you're making an assumption that a whole lot of users WON'T be able to use responsibly. So in the interest of public safety, the sale of such a thing gets banned.

When you develop a mature enough brain that can actually think rationally this conversation can continue, until then move along folks nothing to see here im afraid.

Yawn. Another druggie that thinks I'm wrong.

No, you lose for being a druggie.

The biggest problem for me about weed is the culture behind it, and some people take it way too seriously and devote their lives around smoking weed.

Now for most responsible people they can smoke occasionally and still function, hold a job etc.....But for those that smoke everyday and multiple times a day, there is a problem. You can't function normally day to day high and still be productive at a job.

But its the same with alcohol and that's legal.........

I knew you "bronies" were all potheads.

[citation needed]

Besides, I barely touch the stuff. Much prefer to just drink.

You're making a straw man argument. It's a crime to sell to a 10 year old because...

1. They're incapable of making an informed decision
2. They are nowhere near complete in their formative development
3. Substance abuse is correlated to the age at which drugs are used and not the length of time in which they're used.

Of course it's possible for some users to be incapable of using responsibly. Some people are incapable of using cold medication or alcohol responsibly, but we've seen where the total prohibition of these substances have led our society in the past (alcohol) and the present (name a drug); an increase in violent, organized crime.

Prohibition of alcohol led to a decrease in alcohol consumption, which was the entire goal. Look it up. Regardless, the point remains. We determined that most kids can't use alcohol responsibly, we determined that the social consequences are unacceptable, so the sale is banned. The bullet points you've listed merely support that. And we ban the sale of certain things all the time due to an interest in public safety. You can argue that you have the right to put whatever food you want into your body, but if I'm running a restaurant and I get caught selling spoiled food, I'm getting shut down.

1. Now you're posing arguments that are irrelevant. Of course it led to a decrease in alcohol consumption, but its ancillary effects created greater societal harm.
2. That is a completely different argument than someone having the right to put what they want in their own body.

Again, if you want to pose straw man arguments (or slippery slope, red herring, non sequitur, or any other type of fallacious argument), there's nothing we have left to say to one another on this topic.

@aebghdfsc: I don't even know why people bother responding to this troll. He never refutes any point and just insults people. Arguing with him is literally pointless.

I was gonna point out that you should look up what a strawman argument actually is, but since you're apparently aware that you don't know, why do you keep using that word? Anyway, it's debatable whether or not the ancillary effects of prohibition created greater social harm. After all, it's not like the homicide rate skyrocketed during prohibition or anything like that, while alvohol related traffic accidents and alcohol related diseases are a huge problem. You can spend all day debating whether or not it was worth it, the point is that WHEN people think it's not worth it, it gets banned. Again, it's not about what you have the right to put in your own body, it's about what you're allowed to sell to someone else. You can spend all day putting raw chicken in your stomach if that's what you want, but a restaurant can't serve it to you, and they damn well shouldn't be able to. Full legalization of drugs is not just saying "it's my business if I want to put it in my body." That's saying "people should be legally able to sell it to me, regardless of how dangerous it is." And...no. That's based on the perceived risk vs the reward, not some general ideological notion about people being able to do what they want to themselves. And we restrict the sale of all sorts of things based on that, as well we should.

Are you kidding me? The homocide rate most certainly did skyrocket: http://www.albany.edu/~wm731882/future1_final.html

A straw man argument ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. When you posited that a 10 year old shouldn't be sold crack cocaine because they can't use it responsibly, you did exactly that. You misrepresented my position by submitting a silly, exaggerated example.

btw, you yo's who bring up straw and tin need to stfu. i instantly discount fools who use those terms as arguments.

tin foil, strawman, hey, you, don't prove your lack of argument by using a failsafe repreive. lol, to some.

edit: all idiots who think "strawman" and "tinfoil" are proofs should contact me before i hand out great punishment.