It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussionhi?(75 posts)(75 posts)
(75 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted June 16, 2019
avatar
tinyE: Do you think the OP had it in mind to start a discussion about drug legalization when he created this thread? :P
I'm pretty sure drugs had a significant part in the creation of this thread, so I'll file that under "definitely maybe".
Posted June 16, 2019
low rated
avatar
tinyE: Do you think the OP had it in mind to start a discussion about drug legalization when he created this thread? :P
avatar
Randalator: I'm pretty sure drugs had a significant part in the creation of this thread, so I'll file that under "definitely maybe".
Good point.
Posted June 16, 2019
low rated
Could we please get back to the topic of this thread.

Thanks.
avatar
DadJoke007: We'll soon need a weed thread to counter the alcohol thread.
avatar
Fairfox: way too softcore

also, your avvy colors remind me of that scottish racist, sexist, xenophobic asswipe on here; might want to think o' changin' it
Are you related to OP? o.O
Post edited June 16, 2019 by richlind33
Posted June 16, 2019
low rated
avatar
Sachys: one of the best ways to reason legalisation with some people (aside of course from the tax revenues).
avatar
hedwards: That's a pants reason to legalize. The reason to legalize would be following a period of research finding that there's no reason to keep the ban.

Unfortunately, here in the US, we seem more interest in legalizing because a great number of people can't be bothered to respect the law rather than because research says that it's safe to do so.

As far as drugs go, pot is undoubtedly on the safe end of the spectrum, but the arguments about safety that people make typically relate to the relatively weak stuff that was smoked in the past, not the stronger stuff that's available these days.

I remember back in college the last several weeks of my junior year being lost to post. Oh wait, no I don't because those 3 weeks are more or less completely out of my memory because of the amount and quality of pot I was smoking.
There's nothing respectable about criminalization for the purpose of social control, and people who talk about "legalization" are far too ignorant to form educated opinions on the subject. There is no such thing as "legalization". The issue relates to *decriminalization*, and the reasons in support of it vastly outweigh those that support the incarceration industry, elite traffickers, and the money launderers -- at taxpayer expense.
Post edited June 16, 2019 by richlind33
Posted June 16, 2019
avatar
CaptainNerd1703: yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet
avatar
fr33kSh0w2012: Are you High?
avatar
morolf: Your avatar picture looks like something I'd like to kick in the head.
avatar
fr33kSh0w2012: His avatar picture make me wan't to find his IP find his real world address arrive and Beat the living daylights out of the REAL PERSON

He is CaptainTroll1703
Irony level is OVER 9000!!! lol
Posted June 16, 2019
avatar
hedwards: Even if people buy into it, it's still a terrible reason to legalize.
avatar
DadJoke007: Why should it be illegal in the first place? You don't need a reason to legalize anything, the only thing you need a damn good reason for is when you wish to enforce your morality upon others with the law.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. Decades ago when it was effectively little different from what grows in ditches, you might have a point, but this stuff isn't anything like that. It should have the same classification that uncleared medications do.

avatar
hedwards: That's a pants reason to legalize. The reason to legalize would be following a period of research finding that there's no reason to keep the ban.

Unfortunately, here in the US, we seem more interest in legalizing because a great number of people can't be bothered to respect the law rather than because research says that it's safe to do so.

As far as drugs go, pot is undoubtedly on the safe end of the spectrum, but the arguments about safety that people make typically relate to the relatively weak stuff that was smoked in the past, not the stronger stuff that's available these days.

I remember back in college the last several weeks of my junior year being lost to post. Oh wait, no I don't because those 3 weeks are more or less completely out of my memory because of the amount and quality of pot I was smoking.
avatar
richlind33: There's nothing respectable about criminalization for the purpose of social control, and people who talk about "legalization" are far too ignorant to form educated opinions on the subject. There is no such thing as "legalization". The issue relates to *decriminalization*, and the reasons in support of it vastly outweigh those that support the incarceration industry, elite traffickers, and the money launderers -- at taxpayer expense.
That may well have been how it started, but the weed of today bears little resemblance to what was originally banned. What we have now is more or less the same thing as an uncleared medication.

I think it's ironic that you're implying that I'm ignorant, and yet you don't know the difference between legalization and decriminalization. The two are not the same thing. Decriminalization means that there'd no longer be jail or prison time associated with it. Sort of like how you don't normally go to jail for speeding. It's not legal, it's punishable by way of a citation.

The fact that you think that it's ignorant to talk about legalization when you so clearly don't know what legalization and decriminalization are more or less reinforces the point I've been making that the pro-legalization people don't understand the issue.
Post edited June 16, 2019 by hedwards
Posted June 16, 2019
low rated
avatar
DadJoke007: Why should it be illegal in the first place? You don't need a reason to legalize anything, the only thing you need a damn good reason for is when you wish to enforce your morality upon others with the law.
avatar
hedwards: This is exactly what I'm talking about. Decades ago when it was effectively little different from what grows in ditches, you might have a point, but this stuff isn't anything like that. It should have the same classification that uncleared medications do.

avatar
richlind33: There's nothing respectable about criminalization for the purpose of social control, and people who talk about "legalization" are far too ignorant to form educated opinions on the subject. There is no such thing as "legalization". The issue relates to *decriminalization*, and the reasons in support of it vastly outweigh those that support the incarceration industry, elite traffickers, and the money launderers -- at taxpayer expense.
avatar
hedwards: That may well have been how it started, but the weed of today bears little resemblance to what was originally banned. What we have now is more or less the same thing as an uncleared medication.

I think it's ironic that you're implying that I'm ignorant, and yet you don't know the difference between legalization and decriminalization. The two are not the same thing. Decriminalization means that there'd no longer be jail or prison time associated with it. Sort of like how you don't normally go to jail for speeding. It's not legal, it's punishable by way of a citation.

The fact that you think that it's ignorant to talk about legalization when you so clearly don't know what legalization and decriminalization are more or less reinforces the point I've been making that the pro-legalization people don't understand the issue.
There is no such thing as "legalization" insofar as the Constitution or legality is concerned. It has no relevance to courts of law. It is a term that relates entirely to public opinion. If this were not the case, *everything* that is not explicitly authorized by law would have to be considered illegal, which is preposterous.
Posted June 16, 2019
low rated
avatar
hedwards: Even if people buy into it, it's still a terrible reason to legalize.
avatar
DadJoke007: Why should it be illegal in the first place? You don't need a reason to legalize anything, the only thing you need a damn good reason for is when you wish to enforce your morality upon others with the law.
Exactly. And "enforcing morality" actually precludes the possibility of being moral, because morality is something that is entirely different from compliance. It is literally impossible to force someone to be moral.
Post edited June 16, 2019 by richlind33
Posted June 16, 2019
avatar
richlind33: There is no such thing as "legalization" insofar as the Constitution or legality is concerned. It has no relevance to courts of law. It is a term that relates entirely to public opinion. If this were not the case, *everything* that is not explicitly authorized by law would have to be considered illegal, which is preposterous.
OK, so now we've established that you're completely unqualified to comment on such things. Glad we cleared that up.

Just because something isn't a violation of a criminal statute, does not mean that it is legal. Most traffic law violations are not punishable by jail time, but it doesn't mean those things are legal.
Posted June 16, 2019
avatar
DadJoke007: We'll soon need a weed thread to counter the alcohol thread.
Each of us could write about how fascinating our hands are.

Also, how nachos sound really good right now.
Posted June 16, 2019
so a thread that starts with "hi" and "yeeeeeet" ends up an argument over marijuana legalization?
Posted June 16, 2019
low rated
avatar
richlind33: Irony level is OVER 9000!!! lol
Why thank you!
Posted June 16, 2019
low rated
avatar
richlind33: There is no such thing as "legalization" insofar as the Constitution or legality is concerned. It has no relevance to courts of law. It is a term that relates entirely to public opinion. If this were not the case, *everything* that is not explicitly authorized by law would have to be considered illegal, which is preposterous.
avatar
hedwards: OK, so now we've established that you're completely unqualified to comment on such things. Glad we cleared that up.

Just because something isn't a violation of a criminal statute, does not mean that it is legal. Most traffic law violations are not punishable by jail time, but it doesn't mean those things are legal.
This doesn't show that "legalization" is legal terminology, but it does raise the question of *deregulation*. If you'd like to discuss that, I'd be happy to listen to what you have to say.

avatar
richlind33: Irony level is OVER 9000!!! lol
avatar
fr33kSh0w2012: Why thank you!
You're very welcome. :o

avatar
tfishell: so a thread that starts with "hi" and "yeeeeeet" ends up an argument over marijuana legalization?
Thread has limitless potential!
Post edited June 16, 2019 by richlind33
Posted June 16, 2019
avatar
hedwards: OK, so now we've established that you're completely unqualified to comment on such things. Glad we cleared that up.

Just because something isn't a violation of a criminal statute, does not mean that it is legal. Most traffic law violations are not punishable by jail time, but it doesn't mean those things are legal.
avatar
richlind33: This doesn't show that "legalization" is legal terminology, but it does raise the question of *deregulation*. If you'd like to discuss that I'd be happy to listen to what you have to say.
Why on Earth would this be a legal term? It's a political term for something that's relevant to a political debate. Legal terms are for things that are relevant for the practice of law. From a legal standpoint, they would look the action up in their database of laws and try to match it against something on the books. Whether it was previously legal or not prior to the action being prosecuted is largely irrelevant if it wasn't illegal at the time the action was alleged to have taken place.

The term in use is legalization as opposed to decriminalization. If you do a search you see that the various groups engaged in the debate as to whether or not there should be penalties use this terminology.

The terms legalization and decriminalization are used because you can have a substance that's illegal to use, but only results in a fine rather than jail or prison. And you can have a substance where it's completely legal and there isn't even a fine associated with it.
Posted June 16, 2019
low rated
avatar
richlind33: This doesn't show that "legalization" is legal terminology, but it does raise the question of *deregulation*. If you'd like to discuss that I'd be happy to listen to what you have to say.
avatar
hedwards: Why on Earth would this be a legal term? It's a political term for something that's relevant to a political debate. Legal terms are for things that are relevant for the practice of law. From a legal standpoint, they would look the action up in their database of laws and try to match it against something on the books. Whether it was previously legal or not prior to the action being prosecuted is largely irrelevant if it wasn't illegal at the time the action was alleged to have taken place.

The term in use is legalization as opposed to decriminalization. If you do a search you see that the various groups engaged in the debate as to whether or not there should be penalties use this terminology.

The terms legalization and decriminalization are used because you can have a substance that's illegal to use, but only results in a fine rather than jail or prison. And you can have a substance where it's completely legal and there isn't even a fine associated with it.
"Legalization" is *a* term in use, not *the* term in use, and is very poorly chosen for the reasons I've stated, which I stand by. But I should also point out that the people I support on this subject do *not* advocate for "legalization", because there are some very good reasons for maintaining and/or modifying some of the regulations in effect.
Post edited June 16, 2019 by richlind33
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussionhi?(75 posts)(75 posts)
(75 posts)