Should marijuana be legalised?

I voted yes, for many reasons that I'm bored to write right now...

akamaisondufromage wrote:   You can get done for driving whilst tired.  There was a case here when a man drove for hours and then drove off the road over an embankment and on to the railway in front of a train.  You were saying that DUI shouldn't be illegal and the basis of this is that people who drive stupidly don't get such bad punishments. So what? That doesn't change the fact that driving whilst drunk is very stupid.  I would and did argue that they should be punished severely you would argue that they can both do what ever they want.  So I agree with you when you say its unjust.

You are misrepresenting what I said. I do think people should be punished for driving in a way that endangers others, but the sheer amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream is not a good indication of that. DUI laws are not about driving while drunk, they are about driving after having drunk alcohol. These are not the same thing. People react differently to alcohol. Some may drive perfectly fine after three beers, others may be seriously impaired. It is wrong to punish the two equally.

My point is that if two people were driving in exactly the same way and one was sleepy while the other was drunk, the sleepy person would get a lighter punishment. If both drivers were being reckless, the drunk one will have his license taken away and the sleepy one will get a slap on the wrist. If both drivers were driving safely, the drunk one will get his license taken away, and the sleepy one will not even get a slap on the wrist.

You cannot be arrested for driving tired if your driving is perfectly fine. You can get arrested for driving under the influence if your driving is perfectly fine.

It is the quality of the driving that endangers people, regardless of the cause.



Edited by thellama73 - September 19 2012 at 15:05

thellama73 wrote: akamaisondufromage wrote:   You can get done for driving whilst tired.  There was a case here when a man drove for hours and then drove off the road over an embankment and on to the railway in front of a train.  You were saying that DUI shouldn't be illegal and the basis of this is that people who drive stupidly don't get such bad punishments. So what? That doesn't change the fact that driving whilst drunk is very stupid.  I would and did argue that they should be punished severely you would argue that they can both do what ever they want.  So I agree with you when you say its unjust.  You are misrepresenting what I said. I do think people should be punished for driving in a way that endangers others, but the sheer amount of alcohol in a person's bloodstream is not a good indication of that. DUI laws are not about driving while drunk, they are about driving after having drunk alcohol. These are not the same thing. People react differently to alcohol. Some may drive perfectly fine after three beers, others may be seriously impaired. It is wrong to punish the two equally. My point is that if two people were driving in exactly the same way and one was sleepy while the other was drunk, the sleepy person would get a lighter punishment. If both drivers were being reckless, the drunk one will have his license taken away and the sleepy one will get a slap on the wrist. If both drivers were driving safely, the drunk one will get his license taken away, and the sleepy one will not even get a slap on the wrist. You cannot be arrested for driving tired if your driving is perfectly fine. You can get arrested for driving under the influence if your driving is perfectly fine. It is the quality of the driving that endangers people, regardless of the cause.

Smarty, you're American, so start spelling like one too. 

I would vote for the legalization of the reefer only if I wanted my brain to be even closer to becoming a vegetable, so "No".

Epignosis wrote: In principle, I should vote "No." I am, rather, in favor of the government not telling us what we can and cannot do when the action does not infringe upon the rights, life, or property of another.

That's a good point,  Rob, but I find it's generally too pedantic and subtle to be worth making.

I should vote yes, but after reading all the "arguments" in favour in this thread I voted no.

Yes but we should make alcohol illegal in the process.

Of course it should, and it's full medical potential should be explored in earnest. This may not go down well with the pharma industry though. You can't patent something that grows naturally, as a marketable drug. For this reason clinical trials are few and far between and seldom talked about.

In any case, marijuana doesn't have to be smoked. It can be drunk and ingested. It can be vapourised, and the THC delievered in steam. As far as I'm aware there have never been any actual proven cases of fatal cannabis overdoes, anywhere in the world. Certainly, where the post mortem concluded 'cannabis overdose' I think it is broadly acknoweldged that habitual smoking of the drug is probably not conducive to improved memory, or the safe operating of machinary or automobiles, and may have a tenuous link to mental health problems in teenagers whose brains are Still developing. But the argument that marijuana should be illegal because of the health implications doesn't stand up. Following that logic, most anti depressant drugs and over the counter painkillers should probably be banned.

Blacksword wrote: Of course it should, and it's full medical potential should be explored in earnest. This may not go down well with the pharma industry though. You can't patent something that grows naturally, as a marketable drug. For this reason clinical trials are few and far between and seldom talked about.