A
Agoxlea
Guest
The gun analogy is not equivalent. Guns hurt others, marijuana does not. Alcohol however is a great analogy. Most of those in favor of legalizing it are in favor of it being treated very similar to alcohol.
Woman gets 10 Years in Prison for Selling $30 Worth of Weed in Oklahoma
- Thread starter Nate505
- Start date
The gun analogy is not equivalent. Guns hurt others, marijuana does not. Alcohol however is a great analogy. Most of those in favor of legalizing it are in favor of it being treated very similar to alcohol.
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
It can only hurt others if you do certain things with it, just like booze or pot.
GVC
Well-Known Member
Just like ****ing aspirin. BAN ASPIRIN NOW!!!!
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
GVC
Well-Known Member
The same can be said for cannabis. There are literally no deaths recorded anywhere that can be directly attributed to cannabis consumption (obviously, indirect deaths, caused by driving while blazed, for example, are not counted). Zero. Nil. Zilch. You can't find one. Hell, there are recent studies that assert a link between cannabis and a lower incidence of cancer.
There are very few (none?) over the counter medicines, aspirin included, that can make the same claim.
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
I don't follow... why shouldn't a harmless substance be legal?
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
Because just about anything by itself is harmless. What people do with it/while on it can make it dangerous.
In that case almost everything should be legal. People have killed other people with pillows. A substance's toxicity (or lack thereof) may not be the only reason something should be legal, but it definitely should have a large bearing on whether it should. The "while on it" argument never made much sense to me either. Mostly because since when as a society do we cater to the lowest common denominator? Someone can injure/kill themselves rock climbing but we don't ban the activity.
Good questions. I'm not sure why you should rot in jail for either. In the first instance it's actually a Constitutional right, though it depends on the circumstance. For example, possessing a gun in and of itself should not be an offense, but possessing it in a place where they are not allowed should be an offense. The possession isn't the issue in that crime though, it's the place of the possession.
In the second instance it's not a worthy enough offense to spend any jail time for.
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
So we should let people drink and drive/smoke and drive? huh? I think you may worded that awkwardly/wrong.
Possessing dried leaves in and of itself is not illegal. The possession isn't the issue in that crime, its the type of leaves and maybe even the place and status of the possessor.
If you want to say pot should be allowed anywhere, by anyone, why not the same for guns? Why are there places they are not allowed? Just having a gun ANYWHERE doesn't make it dangerous. It may not even be loaded!
DutchJazzer
Banned
but having weed doesnt hurt anybody.
having a gun doesnt hurt other people. unless you start hurting people with it you should go to jail
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
exactly, but there's still laws restricting it.
DutchJazzer
Banned
STOOPID LAWS.
did you know if the pope had the power to make laws condoms would be illegal
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
STOOPID LAWS.
did you know if the pope had the power to make laws condoms would be illegal
thats relevant... so you think anyone should be able to carry a gun anywhere they go? I mean, there's a limit to everything but I dont think its bad that some laws seek to be proactive rather than reactive...
I know you've already been beaten down on this point, but I'd really like to hear an explanation of why you think this is.
There's actually a sizable black market for cigarettes. The US taxes cancer sticks so heavily that they are smuggled from Canada into the US and sold at a large profit. You don't hear much about it but it's a multi-million dollar venture.
JohnStockalypse
Well-Known Member
I certainly wouldn't be surprised. There's black markets for just about anything. Why wouldn't one continue in a market that has been entirely that way for quite some time?
You think drug dealers are gonna suddenly want to give up a percentage of their money to Uncle Sam? They've already shown they don't give **** about following the law...
Yes, obviously immediate potential risks like operating potentially deadly machinery should not be allowed. But that does not encompass the whole "while on it" argument, which also pertains to arguments like "he COULD drive while on it therefore it should be illegal" or "he COULD not watch his child taking a bath while on it the child should drown therefore it should be illegal."
And I realize that possession of just any sort of dried leaf isn't illegal, but possession of certain types are. Making any sort of possession of any leaf material is ridiculously dumb, especially considering possessing many poisonous dried leaves is perfect legal. My stance is pretty consistent. All plant matter should be legal to possess.
I also don't think pot should be allowed by anywhere or anyone. I'm all for age restrictions, and for any sort of business or government agency (a courthouse, a school) to not allow them. My issue is with the fact that it's allowed by nobody nowhere. If I'm in my house frankly it's none of the government's business what sort of dried plant matter I possess. With maybe a very limited exception like possessing castor beans to produce into ricin. But the kicker is that castor beans aren't even illegal!
In this case it isn't the product itself that is the cause of the black market, but the taxes on the product. Much like how someone will go to a different city with a low sales tax when they are buying an expensive television. You could apply it to nearly anything, though with an addictive daily use product like cigarettes it is ideal.
Plus I think you have it backwards. In Canada the taxes are so high that tobacco gets smuggled into there. It also works cross states. The price of a pack of smokes in a state like Kentucky is $4.50 a pack and $12 a pack in New York. So each pack sold nets the black marketeer a cool $7.50 (or maybe $5 if they price their stuff lower to undercut the taxed product). It's actually a pretty sweet gig considering the initial product is legal and is easy to procure. 100 cartons sold would net the seller $5k. Not bad, especially since it wouldn't exactly take a UHaul to smuggle 100 cartons of smokes.