Penalty outweighs the crime

[stuz719]

thc is less unhealthy than alcohol and it can clearly be used as a form of painkiller(i know people who use it for the very same reason), wich was prolly the case for the one in the article.

thc and tobacco (aside from passive smoking) dont affect society nearly as much as heavier druguse and alcohol. crimewise, accidents where people are drunk etc. id like to think of coffee, tobacco, thc and alcohol in the same folder (where alcohol is worst).

and stuz, yea, ofcourse its not healthy, neither is a bigmac. but on the smoking part, sure you take deeper blows, but on the other hand you dont smoke 30 joints a day as smokers smoke cigarettes (some even more).

having alcohol legal and weed illegal is hypocrisy. allow or forbid both.

Agreed THC has its uses as a painkiller, but the effects of cannabis use have, for example, shown to be at least as dangerous in vehicular accidents as alcohol due to its effect on perception and reactions. You seem to be using the positive effects of THC to argue in favour of cannabis/marijuana as a whole, which is a bit like, I'd suggest, arguing for the benefits of having bare live electric wires lying around the house because electricity is good for powering light bulbs.

Part of me can see benefits in legalisation (at least decriminalisation) in terms of being able to tax purchase and reap revenue, but given that at present it is illegal the prices of this addictive drug are controlled outwith the state there could be an argument that addicts are more likely to turn to crime to fund their addiction than they presently are with (legal) drugs such as alcohol, and its prohibition actually restricts the number of addicts therefore reducing the risk of the corollary criminality arising.

In short, while I agree that this case is an absolute mess it shouldn't be used to confuse "recreational" cannabis use with all the associated health risks with the controlled medical use of extracted THC as a painkiller.

 

[JBroll]

Silly thought - how about, instead of trying to be the moral police and continue dictating what people shove in their bodies because we think we know better than them, we penalize actual violations of the rights of others whether they come from alcohol or cannabis or just plain stupidity? I don't like the thought of people driving or operating heavy machinery while stoned out of their minds, but a shitty driver is a shitty driver and the penalties should be for being a shitty driver who endangers others.

Say what you want about 'funding their addiction', but it doesn't seem like too many people are turning to crime to pay for their smokes or booze. If you're going to try arguing from the need to protect people from themselves, you have no reason not to stop where you do and not ban cigarettes or booze.

We're only making drug trafficking more profitable - and thus more dangerous for non-users and non-dealers - by keeping it illegal, and I don't see how we have a choice but to come to the conclusion that the system has failed and stop pretending the government can be the solution to this problem. If the war on drugs was going to work, it should have done something but make the problem worse... I don't know, a few hundred billion dollars ago.

Jeff

 

[oompa]

Agreed THC has its uses as a painkiller, but the effects of cannabis use have, for example, shown to be at least as dangerous in vehicular accidents as alcohol due to its effect on perception and reactions. You seem to be using the positive effects of THC to argue in favour of cannabis/marijuana as a whole, which is a bit like, I'd suggest, arguing for the benefits of having bare live electric wires lying around the house because electricity is good for powering light bulbs.

Part of me can see benefits in legalisation (at least decriminalisation) in terms of being able to tax purchase and reap revenue, but given that at present it is illegal the prices of this addictive drug are controlled outwith the state there could be an argument that addicts are more likely to turn to crime to fund their addiction than they presently are with (legal) drugs such as alcohol, and its prohibition actually restricts the number of addicts therefore reducing the risk of the corollary criminality arising.

In short, while I agree that this case is an absolute mess it shouldn't be used to confuse "recreational" cannabis use with all the associated health risks with the controlled medical use of extracted THC as a painkiller.

well then mate i didnt make myself clear enough i dont try to use the positive effects of thc to argue in favour of it. i tried to say that they are both very similiar. i mentioned that alcohol, if to choose one of them as more hazardous, is the one id pick, for i strongly believe that alcohol is indeed causing way -more- traffic accidents than thc in countries where both are allowed, such as portugal and the netherlands.

many studies support this as well (but ofcourse, there are always studies that support the opposite). ive been to both portugal and the netherlands and it seems to be true, allthough again i am only one observer out of many (didnt go there to study this or anything, its just what i picked up).

here's a quote from what i find is the largest study done yet on this subject:

In another new accident study [3] - the largest yet - French researchers examined 10,748 drivers involved in fatal crashes for traces of drugs and alcohol in blood. The study found that the presence of THC in blood was associated with a somewhat higher risk of responsibility for accidents, but significantly less so than alcohol. The increased risk for THC was dose-dependent, ranging from 1.6 at trace levels to 3 at the highest levels (above 5 nanograms THC per milliliter of blood). In contrast, for alcohol the risk ranged from 3 at the lowest levels (below .05% blood alcohol) to over 40 at the highest levels. The study has proved embarrassing for drug warriors in the French government, who had prematurely rushed to pass a "zero tolerance" DUI law barring any blood traces of THC before the study was complete. The study showed that driving with THC in blood was in fact no riskier than driving at blood alcohol levels below .05%, which is legally permitted in France. The U.S. allows alcohol levels up to .08%.

again to really clearify my standing point: i do believe that they are similar and its a hypocrisy to allow one and forbid the other. by similar i mean on a wider perspective, say put a cup of tea in one end and a shot of crystal meth in the other. tho i personally think alcohol be more dangerous than thc, in that perspective they are similar and should be treated similar, i dont care if we have a tradition for getting drunk way back before jesus. i dont want drunk people at work or behind the wheel, same goes with stoned people, and since people are already having trouble staying sober when they should, this is my biggest problem with legalizing yet another substance of the same quality.

freedom under responsibility but sometimes i wish there was an island where only people that could handle it could go and get drunk and stoned when they wanted to. (i did find an island like this off the coast of indonesia last year, but thats another story )

 

[noodles]

Silly thought - how about, instead of trying to be the moral police and continue dictating what people shove in their bodies because we think we know better than them, we penalize actual violations of the rights of others whether they come from alcohol or cannabis or just plain stupidity? I don't like the thought of people driving or operating heavy machinery while stoned out of their minds, but a shitty driver is a shitty driver and the penalties should be for being a shitty driver who endangers others.

What you are referring to is the concept of "victimless crime", and I agree wholeheartedly that it is ridiculous to enforce such nonsense. The Constitution was drafted on the principal that your rights end where someone else's begin. Our judicial system was never meant to prosecute private citizens for harming themselves. Hell, George Washington said that every farmer should have a still.

 

[noodles]

Agreed THC has its uses as a painkiller, but the effects of cannabis use have, for example, shown to be at least as dangerous in vehicular accidents as alcohol due to its effect on perception and reactions. You seem to be using the positive effects of THC to argue in favour of cannabis/marijuana as a whole, which is a bit like, I'd suggest, arguing for the benefits of having bare live electric wires lying around the house because electricity is good for powering light bulbs.

Well, then why is alcohol legal? Sorry, but I don't think we should legislate in place of promoting personal responsibility. It is the responsibility of the driver to not operate a vehicle impaired. Should this be ignored, then that is where the law comes into play.

Besides, how many stoners do you know that go out, get too stoned, and drive home? Stoners can't even make up their minds on who is supposed to make the munchies run.

 

[Scott]

Besides, how many stoners do you know that go out, get too stoned, and drive home?

Pretty much everyone I know who smokes weed and owns a car.

While it is sad what happened, im still for any and all laws against weed, but mainly for personal reasons, so no real point in arguing it

 

[JBroll]

What you are referring to is the concept of "victimless crime", and I agree wholeheartedly that it is ridiculous to enforce such nonsense. The Constitution was drafted on the principal that your rights end where someone else's begin. Our judicial system was never meant to prosecute private citizens for harming themselves. Hell, George Washington said that every farmer should have a still.

Yeah, I just try to avoid overused catchphrases because people tend to ignore them.

There's also the issue of reduced responsibility from substance abuse - people try to use 'I was drunk' as an excuse for harmful behavior and it is just another one of those things whittling away at personal accountability. I don't give a fuck if someone's drunk when he plows his car into a family of three; they're just as dead as they would be if he were sober or high or on so much acid that he thought that they were exploding elephants, and the problem isn't that his judgment was impaired by alcohol, leaving him helpless and incompetent, but that he was a dumbass who couldn't handle himself on the road and saw horrible consequences for his actions. I don't want to see DUI, I want to see people charged with Driving While Stupid if they can't keep their shit together long enough to get home from the bar.

I'm sure we can also throw in the ineffectiveness of the war on drugs, and possibly the unconstitutionality (stemming from Prohibition arguments), but this thread probably won't go too far.

Jeff

 

[lordofthesewers]

While it is sad what happened, im still for any and all laws against weed, but mainly for personal reasons, so no real point in arguing it

IMHO, if you don't want to back up your opinion, you shouldn't state it, the personal reasons excuse is just a cover for not having facts to back it up this is my personal opinion, and no offense is intended

I'm sure we can also throw in the ineffectiveness of the war on drugs, and possibly the unconstitutionality (stemming from Prohibition arguments), but this thread probably won't go too far.
Jeff

totally agreed.

 

[Scott]

IMHO, if you don't want to back up your opinion, you shouldn't state it, the personal reasons excuse is just a cover for not having facts to back it up this is my personal opinion, and no offense is intended

Actually, the personal reasons excuse is so that I don't have to go on a long rant, explaining why I feel the way I do, when in the end, it won't change anyone else's opinion, but still lets me state that I disagree with what's being said.


Besides, i'm always right anyway. So if I state something different that what someone else thinks, everyone should just know that i'm right without me having to back it up.

 

[DrSmaggs]

over WEED???

Let the man have what little enjoyment he can get!!

that's so terrible

 

[playstopause]

Silly thought - how about, instead of trying to be the moral police and continue dictating what people shove in their bodies because we think we know better than them, we penalize actual violations of the rights of others whether they come from alcohol or cannabis or just plain stupidity? I don't like the thought of people driving or operating heavy machinery while stoned out of their minds, but a shitty driver is a shitty driver and the penalties should be for being a shitty driver who endangers others.

Say what you want about 'funding their addiction', but it doesn't seem like too many people are turning to crime to pay for their smokes or booze. If you're going to try arguing from the need to protect people from themselves, you have no reason not to stop where you do and not ban cigarettes or booze.

We're only making drug trafficking more profitable - and thus more dangerous for non-users and non-dealers - by keeping it illegal, and I don't see how we have a choice but to come to the conclusion that the system has failed and stop pretending the government can be the solution to this problem. If the war on drugs was going to work, it should have done something but make the problem worse... I don't know, a few hundred billion dollars ago.

Jeff

Well said.

That's it. We're fighting the wrong war (wich seems to be the case on many levels...).

 

[JJ Rodriguez]

IMHO, if you don't want to back up your opinion, you shouldn't state it, the personal reasons excuse is just a cover for not having facts to back it up this is my personal opinion, and no offense is intended

He's entitled to state his opinion whether or not he wants to back it up.