It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

SOCIAL: Conservatives say: Legalize pot?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
The controversy surrounding the illegality of marijuana has been around for decades. A lot of people support legalizing it. Others would like to see medical uses of pot made available. The war on drugs has seen little if any success.
It appears that there is growing conservative support to repeal the pot laws.
 




Never before have so many Americans supported decriminalizing and even legalizing marijuana.

Seventy-two percent say that for simple marijuana possession, people should not be incarcerated but fined: the generally accepted definition of "decriminalization." Even more Americans support making marijuana legal for medical purposes.

Support for broader legalization ranges between 25 and 42 percent, depending on how one asks the question.

Two of every five Americans-according to a 2003 Zogby poll-say "the government should treat marijuana more or less the same way it treats alcohol: It should regulate it, control it, tax it, and only make it illegal for children."


www.mapinc.org...
www.mapinc.org...
www.mapinc.org...

Source: THE LIBERATOR ONLINE, August 2, 2004, Vol. 9, No. 13

[edit on 3-8-2004 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I agree very much that pot should be legalized for a couple reasons: 1. it should be the choice of the user, and 2. money would be allocated to serious crimes.

Yet, I wonder why this is isn't Bush's stance. I refer you to this thread on ATS: Bush Targets Marijuana Smokers



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:19 PM
link   
The Libertarians OWN this issue

lp.org...

We have been against the drug prohibition from the start.

The drug war only gives the government more excuses to pry into our privite life, feeds organized crime and fuels drug violence and gang warfare all at a cost of billions of dollars a year.

For most of our history ALL drugs including coc aine, morphine, pot, opium, etc has been legal and it did not destroy us then and wont now.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
The thing is that pot is a weed, it takes little if any effort to grow, process, package, and sell. I don't do it, but it seems we spend too much time and money on the issue. I say decriminalize not legalize it. If you are caught with a small personal supply, fine and slap on the wrist. It goes on your record, but no jail time. People selling pot are getting more time than murderers and that is ridiculus. Then the gangs cant sell it, it becomes personal growth and use, gang violence over turf to sell decreases.

Now we have all the money from the urban taskforce downsizing, and the added fines for possession, we go after SERIOUS drugs like meth, crack, etc. These drugs seriously harm the body. They should be erradicated.

Last Point: Administration should up random drug screenings in the business. I dont care what your on you shouldnt do it if you are at work, or about to work.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   
Why did police arrest 734,498 pot-smokers, instead of tracking murderous terrorists?


www.lp.org...


Its about how the "war on drugs" takes the focus off of more important issues

[edit on 3-8-2004 by Amuk]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I'm all for the "legalization" of pot. Look what prohibition of alcohol did for organized crime. Keeping it illegal is only providing the ones you want to target with funds. Legalization, regulation and taxation is the way to go. It will only benefit the country, providing funds for the public coffers as opposed to crime lords and biker gangs. I must admit that this is being brought forth by a Rep., I was under the impression that Bush's stance is exactly the opposite of legalization or decriminalization.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Whether I believe marijuana should be legalized or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, alcohol companies, specifically the large beer companies in this country will never allow it to happen. They are too large and powerful, and the legalization or even decriminalization of marijuana would cut deeply into their profits. The lobbyists are floating too much money around the capital for it to take place with the current administration and that of the foreseeable future. This of course is a matter of OPINION on my hand, but seems to follow the course to it's logical conclusion in my judgement.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I agree that marijuana should be decriminalized. I would not agree with the position that it should be legalized, and government controled, ie. taxed. Taxing legalized drugs will only create a larger bureaucracy which would basically fund it's self with the revenue, rather then benfitting the rest of society. Where I take issue with the Libertarian position on this is their platform advocates the complete re-legalization of ALL drugs.

Some drugs are dangerous not only to the user, but those around them. A person on PCP is a grave danger to themselves and those around them. Someone who is bitten by the "Meth Monster" will do absouletly anything to get another fix, rob, cheat, or even kill to get more meth. These are the types or drugs that we simply can not legalize, nor even decriminalize.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by William One Sac
Whether I believe marijuana should be legalized or not is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is, alcohol companies, specifically the large beer companies in this country will never allow it to happen. They are too large and powerful, and the legalization or even decriminalization of marijuana would cut deeply into their profits.


Alcohol is a somewhat controlled substance, you have to be a certain age to purchase. Give the booze companies control over it, that would turn them onto it really quickly. The market is already there, the problem is who is benefitting from the sales.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepidAlcohol is a somewhat controlled substance, you have to be a certain age to purchase. Give the booze companies control over it, that would turn them onto it really quickly. The market is already there, the problem is who is benefitting from the sales.


I really hate to disagree with you on this... I would not want to see the beer companies marketing joints. Currently most of their advertising markets to 18 to 21 year olds. I just don't think that pot should be a sponsor of the super bowl half time show. If people want to use it, hell, let'em use it. But allowing alcohol companies to become distributors is leaglizing drug dealers, and I don't want my kids smoking pot, because they saw it on TV.

Edited for spelling by regs.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by regs]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Something is either bad or it is not. How can we say that smoking pot is bad enough to get a slap on the wrist, but not bad enough to throw a man in the pokey for? A pot smoker is either actually hurting others or he is not.
If you think one should be punished at all for drug use, then stand up and demand REAL punishment. If you think jail time is overkill, then legalize it.

Also, this still does little to address the staggering cost of the drug war on the tax payer. While most of the prisoners jailed for non-violent drug related crimes would be sent home (Near 70% of the prison population of our nation), the vacuum created will be filled by the people that deserve to be there instead of walking the streets (the only good I can see from "decriminalization" instead of legalization.) The cost of housing prisoners would remain high. That 50% fo the law enforcement budget related to the war on drugs would remain or rise. Ticketing drug users would become a police hobby, something along the lines of catching speeders, and the police would have their hands full creating the tickets that will keep the "pot court" judge's paychecks rolling in.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:29 PM
link   
Personally, I do not mess with drugs of any shape or form, for the last 7 years. I have enough trouble remembering to take perscription drugs. I am against the use of "hard drugs" such as meth, crack, heroine, etc, however, speaking from experience, I see little diference between small amounts of pot and a couple of beers, depending upon tolerance levels, of course. I do not believe pot should be legalized, though. I think that decriminalization is the route to take, though. A slap and a fine should be administered, but no jail time for the personal use product. It is the scourge of our society that "users" recieve more prison time than some murderers, rapists, and child molesters, in my opinion, that is.

regs out...



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by phreak_of_natureBut allowing alchol companies to become distributors is leaglizing drug dealers, and I don't want my kids smoking pot, because they saw it on TV.


The only thing that will keep your kids off drugs is the relationship that you have with them, I'm sure you have a good one. The fact is it is easier for an underage person to get drugs than it is alcohol. Drug dealers don't ask for proof of age.

Edited for spelling by regs.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by regs]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by zsandmann
Now we have all the money from the urban taskforce downsizing, and the added fines for possession, we go after SERIOUS drugs like meth, crack, etc. These drugs seriously harm the body. They should be erradicated.



Pot is still harmful to the body, and can lead to use of more hardcore drugs.
Link




Marijuana is a dangerous, addictive drug that poses significant health threats to users.

Marijuana users are far more likely to use other drugs like coc aine and heroin than non-marijuana users.

Marijuana contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke. Smoking one marijuana cigarette deposits about four times more tar into the lungs than a filtered tobacco cigarette.


With statements like these how can one support anything that remotely encourages more usage. Decrimilization will only led us down the path to more problems in the future, and the movement should be stopped.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:44 PM
link   
f16,

Cloves seriously harm the body too. Did you know that there have been instances of a person smoking a clove cigarette and within a day or two having massive malignant cancer tumors appear on their body from the cloves. I'm talking about regular, run of the mill, buy them in the coffee shop cloves. I'm not talking about a freak case, but something that has been fairly, if not common, than not exactly rare. Should cloves be made illegal? The common teenager is going to experiment. I did it, not proud of it, but I did do it. Never went to anything more hardcore than pot, either. I think that by decrimanilization it would remove a lot of the curiousity encircling the use of pot, thereby making it a bit less alluring to try. I don't think it should be made legal, however, just I do not think that you should recieve jail time by possessing it. I don't think that a pot smoker should be locked up with child rapists, murderers, and other such hardened criminals.

My $0.02, for what it's worth...
regs out...



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by f16falcon

Pot is still harmful to the body, and can lead to use of more hardcore drugs.




Cheeseburgers are harmful to the body, and can lead to the consumption double quarter pounders with cheese.


Should we continue to regulate based on what is healthy untill "all restaurants are Taco Bell?"



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Regs
I guess my opinion/personal belief is formed because of life experience. I saw friends say "oh i'm only trying it", only to keep on using it, then slowing withdrawing from school and messing up their life, and moving on to more hardcore things. I just dont want to see others suffer the same fate. I guess if it was up to me I'd try to erradicate cigarettes. I've seen relatives, have cancer and heart attacks who've smoked, it's definitly not cool



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout

Originally posted by f16falcon

Pot is still harmful to the body, and can lead to use of more hardcore drugs.




Cheeseburgers are harmful to the body, and can lead to the consumption double quarter pounders with cheese.


Should we continue to regulate based on what is healthy untill "all restaurants are Taco Bell?"


Yes I like the occasional fast food burger, but I do wish that I could stay away from it. People have demonstrated(myself very much included), that we can't control ourselves sometimes. So I believe things need to put in place to warm people of the consequences.

Now I do believe that comparing fast food and drugs is like trying to compare apples and oranges. Because I believe that drugs are much more harmful to the body than fast food(but yes fast food is very bad as well.)



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by phreak_of_natureBut allowing alchol companies to become distributors is leaglizing drug dealers, and I don't want my kids smoking pot, because they saw it on TV.


The only thing that will keep your kids off drugs is the relationship that you have with them, I'm sure you have a good one. The fact is it is easier for an underage person to get drugs than it is alcohol. Drug dealers don't ask for proof of age.

Edited for spelling by regs.

[edit on 3-8-2004 by regs]

You are spot on! What keeps kids from using illeagal drugs is the relationship they have with their parents. But allowing pot to be marketed makes a parent's battle more difficult. If they see Brittany Spears and Justin Timberlake singing and dancing, at the half time show, followed by a commercial... "This has been a presentation of Maui Wowwy", that's a hard one to combat. I am saying that allowing alcohol distributors access to distributing marijuana is a awful road to go down.
People are going to smoke pot. Just a fact. But do they need encouragement from advertising to make that desicion?



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 11:10 PM
link   
www.badnarik.org...

There is Michael Badnarik's official stance on the issue.

I must say that I agree, here is the thing. Take a look at prohibition in the 20s, what happened? Crime lords, gangs, organized crime etc...

Now flash foward to the present, what results due to drugs being outlawed? Crime lords, gangs , organized crime, etc...

This should be a state issue and not a federal one. If South Carolina dosen't want pot the it shouldn't have it, but if South Dakota does, then it should get it.

The "War on Drugs" is just as hopeless as the "War on Terror" in the sense that there is no hope that all Drugs or all Terror (in the definition its been given these days, as in disagreement with US policies) will ever be removed from the earth.

When something is outlawed it holds a mystique. Like with tobacco, like with alcohol... many kids grow up thinking, "I'm 13 but you have to be 21 to drink, if I drink now its like I'm 21" Kids need a rite of passage to make them feel like adults, and this society has no clear cut one. Kids see the mystique of "Wow I can't have drugs they must be good, I want something good" By legalizing drugs you remove the mystique and people who would use it, would use it anyways, people who wouldn't then would not use it. The mystique would be gone and it would lose its strong appeal.


[edit on 8/3/2004 by lockheed]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join