I figured we have had enough threads on the main board that have been derailed by this subject.

I'll preface this by saying I haven't smoked weed in years and have zero intention of doing so in the future. Marijuana prohibition just doesn't make sense to me. My question for people that are adamantly in favor of marijuana prohibition is simple -- why?

I used to be heavily against pot legalization but the more I thought about it the older I've become the more I believe in less government intervention the more I am for legalization. I believe it may be more along the lines of alcohol at this point it may need a controlled re-introduction back into society but I haven't made up my mind on that yet. Having been an abuser of alcohol and having smoked weed I believe alcohol is much more dangerous than weed. I do not think that it needs to be another form of income for the government either. There should be no taxes associated with it. Though leave it up to the government and they'll make them the same as cigarettes

These are my random thoughts as I'm driving home and dictating to my phone

Why is it illegal in the first place?

After the Mexican Revolution of 1910, Mexican immigrants flooded into the U.S., introducing to American culture the recreational use of marijuana. The drug became associated with the immigrants, and the fear and prejudice about the Spanish-speaking newcomers became associated with marijuana. Anti-drug campaigners warned against the encroaching "Marijuana Menace," and terrible crimes were attributed to marijuana and the Mexicans who used it.

During the Great Depression, massive unemployment increased public resentment and fear of Mexican immigrants, escalating public and governmental concern about the problem of marijuana. This instigated a flurry of research which linked the use of marijuana with violence, crime and other socially deviant behaviors, primarily committed by "racially inferior" or underclass communities. By 1931, 29 states had outlawed marijuana.

Should it still be illegal?

If you can remove its disgusting smell, I guess legalize it. You (apparently) can't protect people from themselves.

Whether it's legalized or not, I think it's stupid to throw people in prison for selling weed. Just a burden on the taxpayers

Legalize.

I agree that it's not as harmless as some claim but if we are truly honest, there are no more side effects to marijuana than alcohol or tobacco.

All of those, in small doses, have few long term consequences. All of them, if used regularly or abused, can become major problems in many forms (socially, economically, health, safety, etc).

The best way to handle it (in my opinion) is to regulate it the same as booze. You should be able to carry on your person approximately X amount once you are over the age of X and if you are involved in an accident, etc, then your intoxication levels should be allowed to be a consideration for negligence (just as they are in alcohol).

In other words, regulate it so that it's legal in small doses for recreational use and regulate so there are consequences for overuse that causes harm to another.

I'm pretty libertarian but I'm ok with a tax to cover the cost of the regulatory burden. I'm not a fan of taxes as a cash grab.

Volunteer said:

---

There are certainly similarities between alcohol and weed, but there is also one major difference. The primary purpose of drinking alcohol is not necessarily to get hammered. I am well aware that some drink for the sole purpose of getting drunk but the vast majority drink for social reasons and/or because they like the taste. Past a certain age and maturity level, getting drunk rarely, if ever, results. Contrast this to weed where the sole purpose of its use is to get high.

From a public safety standpoint, we already have a fair number of drunks driving cars. If legalization of weed creates a larger population of users, will this further increase the number of impaired drivers on the road?

---

Is any of this backed up statistically?

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

This.

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

There are certainly similarities between alcohol and weed, but there is also one major difference. The primary purpose of drinking alcohol is not necessarily to get hammered. I am well aware that some drink for the sole purpose of getting drunk but the vast majority drink for social reasons and/or because they like the taste. Past a certain age and maturity level, getting drunk rarely, if ever, results. Contrast this to weed where the sole purpose of its use is to get high.

From a public safety standpoint, we already have a fair number of drunks driving cars. If legalization of weed creates a larger population of users, will this further increase the number of impaired drivers on the road?

---

Is any of this backed up statistically?

---

Don't know of any specific statistics regarding getting drunk. But I have observed through the years that when we are younger it is much more common to get drunk. I know I certainly did, as did all my friends. And, there is this I found:

Among drivers with BAC levels of 0.08 % or higher involved in fatal crashes in 2008, more than one out of every 3 were between 21 and 24 years of age (34%). The next two largest groups were ages 25 to 34 (31%) and 35 to 44 (25%).

This suggests that 90% of fatal crashes among drivers with BAC content at 0.08%, or greater, are between the ages of 21 and 44. You will also note that the percentage decreases as the age increases. While this is not a perfect statistical reference, I think it's a pretty good indication of how age and getting drunk are related.

---

I am curious what your definition of getting drunk is...are we talking about people drinking themselves into a blackout state? Having a few too many? Getting a buzz? Having a couple drinks after a stressful day at work to "take the edge off"?

I just have a hard time believing that "...the vast majority drink for social reasons and/or because they like the taste."

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

There are certainly similarities between alcohol and weed, but there is also one major difference. The primary purpose of drinking alcohol is not necessarily to get hammered. I am well aware that some drink for the sole purpose of getting drunk but the vast majority drink for social reasons and/or because they like the taste. Past a certain age and maturity level, getting drunk rarely, if ever, results. Contrast this to weed where the sole purpose of its use is to get high.

From a public safety standpoint, we already have a fair number of drunks driving cars. If legalization of weed creates a larger population of users, will this further increase the number of impaired drivers on the road?

---

Is any of this backed up statistically?

---

With ALL due respect, and you should know that from me to you, your question is often asked by younger people to us older people

Naturally younger people would want stats to back up what they are interested in, as they haven't lived long enough to have long term experience on many topics and require stats to replace that experience. Decades and decades of watching, feeling and being affected negatively and positively etc on alcohol/pot allows us older folks to not feel a need to search for stats to come to a conclusion. I've personally known questionably alcoholic doctors that produce studies(stats) that show so many glasses of beer and/or wine will allow you to live more healthy. I'm sure pot has its stat advocates too!? Long and short, especially in today's sometimes biased media research, it allows studies/stats or polls to go out that are prejudiced and I'd consider many to be outright lies sometimes unfortunately

Volunteer was nice enough to site a study showing 90% fatal accidents are by 21-45 year olds with .08 or above. That's enough evidence for me if I wanted "facts."

I also think age has a bias on this topic. When young you haven't experienced as many negatives of alcohol/pot yet. Plus your strong physical health allows you to feel 10' tall and bulletproof. Time will change that as you age and you drink or whatever less and less most likely. Perhaps some of the stats that favor pot are being put out by younger people trying to show a positive side to pot? Idk

When I was younger I drank and smoked freely. For me, it was holding me back in my marriage, friendships, business and most importantly, my spirituality. I stopped it and have prospered in all those areas far beyond what I would've thought possible. I've seen friends go either negatively or positively in these areas based on continuing to use or not, for several decades. That's experience! I don't need stats for what my eyes see and my heart feels

Again, no disrespect to you at all my fellow baseball loving friend. I'm just an older version of you, that has drawn my conclusions on this topic and see pot and alcohol to be detrimental to a persons progress in life and maturity

Best to all though and to each their own ........

Mike, the question isn't whether or not alcohol or pot can have a negative effect on someone's life...it most certainly can. So can fast food, cigarettes, dip, gambling, porn, and many other vices. The question is what role do we want the government to play in terms of protecting people from themselves? I am perfectly capable of making these types of decisions on my own.

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

---

Just my opinion - But yes, people do sit around and judge or evaluate or whatever other loaded word you want to use. I am willing to acknowledge naivete (even though I couldn't spell it on mobile in my last post) and have an open conversation without loaded words. Also, you've moved the line from drunk to buzzed. As a society, we have clearly defined being drunk as a negative. As a Christian, there is a line between drinking and being drunk.

I am also a huge fan of liberty but don't agree with complete liberty because the government does make many regulations you probably do agree with when it comes to other people. For example, you probably enjoy sleeping in a quiet neighborhood at 3am even though someone else wants to play music turned to 11. You also probably enjoy zoning laws that tells a developer they cannot build a factory on their own property next to your house.

There are limits that help us function as a civil society. Again, just my opinion, but legalizing a product whose only intent is to get high, causing impairment, is not a great move.

Christopher Johnson said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

---

Just my opinion - But yes, people do sit around and judge or evaluate or whatever other loaded word you want to use. I am willing to acknowledge naivete (even though I couldn't spell it on mobile in my last post) and have an open conversation without loaded words. Also, you've moved the line from drunk to buzzed. As a society, we have clearly defined being drunk as a negative. As a Christian, there is a line between drinking and being drunk.

I am also a huge fan of liberty but don't agree with complete liberty because the government does make many regulations you probably do agree with when it comes to other people. For example, you probably enjoy sleeping in a quiet neighborhood at 3am even though someone else wants to play music turned to 11. You also probably enjoy zoning laws that tells a developer they cannot build a factory on their own property next to your house.

There are limits that help us function as a civil society. Again, just my opinion, but legalizing a product whose only intent is to get high, causing impairment, is not a great move.

---

So do you think legislating morality is a valid role for the government?

I moved the line from being drunk to buzzed because there are varying levels of intoxication...just like with marijuana. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is getting hammered and not everyone who smokes pot is trying to do their best Jeff Spicoli impression. If we're going to use high as all-encompassing term for pot users, wouldn't it be fair for drunk cover those that are buzzed or have had 1 too many Big Os at George's?

Not sure I'm following your loud music example. If my neighbor is blasting music and I can't sleep, that affects me. If my neighbor is smoking a joint in his house, my life isn't affected in any way, shape, or form. That is kind of the whole idea of this liberty thing...my liberty ends where your liberty begins, and vice versa.

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

---

Just my opinion - But yes, people do sit around and judge or evaluate or whatever other loaded word you want to use. I am willing to acknowledge naivete (even though I couldn't spell it on mobile in my last post) and have an open conversation without loaded words. Also, you've moved the line from drunk to buzzed. As a society, we have clearly defined being drunk as a negative. As a Christian, there is a line between drinking and being drunk.

I am also a huge fan of liberty but don't agree with complete liberty because the government does make many regulations you probably do agree with when it comes to other people. For example, you probably enjoy sleeping in a quiet neighborhood at 3am even though someone else wants to play music turned to 11. You also probably enjoy zoning laws that tells a developer they cannot build a factory on their own property next to your house.

There are limits that help us function as a civil society. Again, just my opinion, but legalizing a product whose only intent is to get high, causing impairment, is not a great move.

---

So do you think legislating morality is a valid role for the government?

I moved the line from being drunk to buzzed because there are varying levels of intoxication...just like with marijuana. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is getting hammered and not everyone who smokes pot is trying to do their best Jeff Spicoli impression. If we're going to use high as all-encompassing term for pot users, wouldn't it be fair for drunk cover those that are buzzed or have had 1 too many Big Os at George's?

Not sure I'm following your loud music example. If my neighbor is blasting music and I can't sleep, that affects me. If my neighbor is smoking a joint in his house, my life isn't affected in any way, shape, or form. That is kind of the whole idea of this liberty thing...my liberty ends where your liberty begins, and vice versa.

---

That's true, unless he/she decides to get in the car and drive to 7-11 for some Nacho Flavored Doritos and ends up crashing into your mailbox or, worse yet, killing someone you know.

IMO weed is no worse than alcohol. It's no better either. Alcohol causes thousands and thousands of deaths each year and many many more serious illnesses, losses in productivity, family breakups, and a multitude of other not so good things. The cost to society is well into the billions each year. If the use of pot was as great as the use of alcohol I suspect the costs to society would be similar.

I don't think pot users should be put in jail, but I am opposed to its legalization because I actually believe the illegal nature of marijuana acts to curb the volume of use. Our society is not in dire need of more people in an altered state.

Florda_mike said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

There are certainly similarities between alcohol and weed, but there is also one major difference. The primary purpose of drinking alcohol is not necessarily to get hammered. I am well aware that some drink for the sole purpose of getting drunk but the vast majority drink for social reasons and/or because they like the taste. Past a certain age and maturity level, getting drunk rarely, if ever, results. Contrast this to weed where the sole purpose of its use is to get high.

From a public safety standpoint, we already have a fair number of drunks driving cars. If legalization of weed creates a larger population of users, will this further increase the number of impaired drivers on the road?

---

Is any of this backed up statistically?

---

With ALL due respect, and you should know that from me to you, your question is often asked by younger people to us older people

Naturally younger people would want stats to back up what they are interested in, as they haven't lived long enough to have long term experience on many topics and require stats to replace that experience. Decades and decades of watching, feeling and being affected negatively and positively etc on alcohol/pot allows us older folks to not feel a need to search for stats to come to a conclusion. I've personally known questionably alcoholic doctors that produce studies(stats) that show so many glasses of beer and/or wine will allow you to live more healthy. I'm sure pot has its stat advocates too!? Long and short, especially in today's sometimes biased media research, it allows studies/stats or polls to go out that are prejudiced and I'd consider many to be outright lies sometimes unfortunately

Volunteer was nice enough to site a study showing 90% fatal accidents are by 21-45 year olds with .08 or above. That's enough evidence for me if I wanted "facts."

I also think age has a bias on this topic. When young you haven't experienced as many negatives of alcohol/pot yet. Plus your strong physical health allows you to feel 10' tall and bulletproof. Time will change that as you age and you drink or whatever less and less most likely. Perhaps some of the stats that favor pot are being put out by younger people trying to show a positive side to pot? Idk

When I was younger I drank and smoked freely. For me, it was holding me back in my marriage, friendships, business and most importantly, my spirituality. I stopped it and have prospered in all those areas far beyond what I would've thought possible. I've seen friends go either negatively or positively in these areas based on continuing to use or not, for several decades. That's experience! I don't need stats for what my eyes see and my heart feels

Again, no disrespect to you at all my fellow baseball loving friend. I'm just an older version of you, that has drawn my conclusions on this topic and see pot and alcohol to be detrimental to a persons progress in life and maturity

Best to all though and to each their own ........

---

I understand and appreciate your life experiences and I'm sure many, if not most, are applicable, but your post essentially states you choose to disregard proven facts and statistics in lieu of your anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure how it's possible to have a real, substantive conversation using this logic.

BaylorBJM said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

There are certainly similarities between alcohol and weed, but there is also one major difference. The primary purpose of drinking alcohol is not necessarily to get hammered. I am well aware that some drink for the sole purpose of getting drunk but the vast majority drink for social reasons and/or because they like the taste. Past a certain age and maturity level, getting drunk rarely, if ever, results. Contrast this to weed where the sole purpose of its use is to get high.

From a public safety standpoint, we already have a fair number of drunks driving cars. If legalization of weed creates a larger population of users, will this further increase the number of impaired drivers on the road?

---

Is any of this backed up statistically?

---

With ALL due respect, and you should know that from me to you, your question is often asked by younger people to us older people

Naturally younger people would want stats to back up what they are interested in, as they haven't lived long enough to have long term experience on many topics and require stats to replace that experience. Decades and decades of watching, feeling and being affected negatively and positively etc on alcohol/pot allows us older folks to not feel a need to search for stats to come to a conclusion. I've personally known questionably alcoholic doctors that produce studies(stats) that show so many glasses of beer and/or wine will allow you to live more healthy. I'm sure pot has its stat advocates too!? Long and short, especially in today's sometimes biased media research, it allows studies/stats or polls to go out that are prejudiced and I'd consider many to be outright lies sometimes unfortunately

Volunteer was nice enough to site a study showing 90% fatal accidents are by 21-45 year olds with .08 or above. That's enough evidence for me if I wanted "facts."

I also think age has a bias on this topic. When young you haven't experienced as many negatives of alcohol/pot yet. Plus your strong physical health allows you to feel 10' tall and bulletproof. Time will change that as you age and you drink or whatever less and less most likely. Perhaps some of the stats that favor pot are being put out by younger people trying to show a positive side to pot? Idk

When I was younger I drank and smoked freely. For me, it was holding me back in my marriage, friendships, business and most importantly, my spirituality. I stopped it and have prospered in all those areas far beyond what I would've thought possible. I've seen friends go either negatively or positively in these areas based on continuing to use or not, for several decades. That's experience! I don't need stats for what my eyes see and my heart feels

Again, no disrespect to you at all my fellow baseball loving friend. I'm just an older version of you, that has drawn my conclusions on this topic and see pot and alcohol to be detrimental to a persons progress in life and maturity

Best to all though and to each their own ........

---

I understand and appreciate your life experiences and I'm sure many, if not most, are applicable, but your post essentially states you choose to disregard proven facts and statistics in lieu of your anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure how it's possible to have a real, substantive conversation using this logic.

---

I don't think I said I'd disregard facts did I? But I would consider the source of stats before agreeing with them. Polls from election were biased stats in a way for example. Media sways belief with biased tainted stats they inflate as they wish and they know the power of their words

Are young people taught to not listen to words formed from lifelong experience of older people. Is that how it is today? The wise listen to history. And is our youth also being taught to disrespect it by calling it "anecdotal?" Just wondering....

BaylorBJM said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

There are certainly similarities between alcohol and weed, but there is also one major difference. The primary purpose of drinking alcohol is not necessarily to get hammered. I am well aware that some drink for the sole purpose of getting drunk but the vast majority drink for social reasons and/or because they like the taste. Past a certain age and maturity level, getting drunk rarely, if ever, results. Contrast this to weed where the sole purpose of its use is to get high.

From a public safety standpoint, we already have a fair number of drunks driving cars. If legalization of weed creates a larger population of users, will this further increase the number of impaired drivers on the road?

---

Is any of this backed up statistically?

---

With ALL due respect, and you should know that from me to you, your question is often asked by younger people to us older people

Naturally younger people would want stats to back up what they are interested in, as they haven't lived long enough to have long term experience on many topics and require stats to replace that experience. Decades and decades of watching, feeling and being affected negatively and positively etc on alcohol/pot allows us older folks to not feel a need to search for stats to come to a conclusion. I've personally known questionably alcoholic doctors that produce studies(stats) that show so many glasses of beer and/or wine will allow you to live more healthy. I'm sure pot has its stat advocates too!? Long and short, especially in today's sometimes biased media research, it allows studies/stats or polls to go out that are prejudiced and I'd consider many to be outright lies sometimes unfortunately

Volunteer was nice enough to site a study showing 90% fatal accidents are by 21-45 year olds with .08 or above. That's enough evidence for me if I wanted "facts."

I also think age has a bias on this topic. When young you haven't experienced as many negatives of alcohol/pot yet. Plus your strong physical health allows you to feel 10' tall and bulletproof. Time will change that as you age and you drink or whatever less and less most likely. Perhaps some of the stats that favor pot are being put out by younger people trying to show a positive side to pot? Idk

When I was younger I drank and smoked freely. For me, it was holding me back in my marriage, friendships, business and most importantly, my spirituality. I stopped it and have prospered in all those areas far beyond what I would've thought possible. I've seen friends go either negatively or positively in these areas based on continuing to use or not, for several decades. That's experience! I don't need stats for what my eyes see and my heart feels

Again, no disrespect to you at all my fellow baseball loving friend. I'm just an older version of you, that has drawn my conclusions on this topic and see pot and alcohol to be detrimental to a persons progress in life and maturity

Best to all though and to each their own ........

---

I understand and appreciate your life experiences and I'm sure many, if not most, are applicable, but your post essentially states you choose to disregard proven facts and statistics in lieu of your anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure how it's possible to have a real, substantive conversation using this logic.

---

Not trying to start a fight. I am genuinely interested in a sampling of the proven facts and statistics to which you refer.

Volunteer said:

---

BaylorBJM said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

There are certainly similarities between alcohol and weed, but there is also one major difference. The primary purpose of drinking alcohol is not necessarily to get hammered. I am well aware that some drink for the sole purpose of getting drunk but the vast majority drink for social reasons and/or because they like the taste. Past a certain age and maturity level, getting drunk rarely, if ever, results. Contrast this to weed where the sole purpose of its use is to get high.

From a public safety standpoint, we already have a fair number of drunks driving cars. If legalization of weed creates a larger population of users, will this further increase the number of impaired drivers on the road?

---

Is any of this backed up statistically?

---

With ALL due respect, and you should know that from me to you, your question is often asked by younger people to us older people

Naturally younger people would want stats to back up what they are interested in, as they haven't lived long enough to have long term experience on many topics and require stats to replace that experience. Decades and decades of watching, feeling and being affected negatively and positively etc on alcohol/pot allows us older folks to not feel a need to search for stats to come to a conclusion. I've personally known questionably alcoholic doctors that produce studies(stats) that show so many glasses of beer and/or wine will allow you to live more healthy. I'm sure pot has its stat advocates too!? Long and short, especially in today's sometimes biased media research, it allows studies/stats or polls to go out that are prejudiced and I'd consider many to be outright lies sometimes unfortunately

Volunteer was nice enough to site a study showing 90% fatal accidents are by 21-45 year olds with .08 or above. That's enough evidence for me if I wanted "facts."

I also think age has a bias on this topic. When young you haven't experienced as many negatives of alcohol/pot yet. Plus your strong physical health allows you to feel 10' tall and bulletproof. Time will change that as you age and you drink or whatever less and less most likely. Perhaps some of the stats that favor pot are being put out by younger people trying to show a positive side to pot? Idk

When I was younger I drank and smoked freely. For me, it was holding me back in my marriage, friendships, business and most importantly, my spirituality. I stopped it and have prospered in all those areas far beyond what I would've thought possible. I've seen friends go either negatively or positively in these areas based on continuing to use or not, for several decades. That's experience! I don't need stats for what my eyes see and my heart feels

Again, no disrespect to you at all my fellow baseball loving friend. I'm just an older version of you, that has drawn my conclusions on this topic and see pot and alcohol to be detrimental to a persons progress in life and maturity

Best to all though and to each their own ........

---

I understand and appreciate your life experiences and I'm sure many, if not most, are applicable, but your post essentially states you choose to disregard proven facts and statistics in lieu of your anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure how it's possible to have a real, substantive conversation using this logic.

---

Not trying to start a fight. I am genuinely interested in a sampling of the proven facts and statistics to which you refer.

---

I did not refer to any specifics, only mentioned the word in the general sense. Mike said on more than one occasion in his post he puts more weight into personal experience than actual hard statistics.

At best, that type of logic is careless. At worst, it's reckless.

Pro legalization. Cant believe people are in prison for years costing taxpayers billions and thousands of people have died in drug wars over this plant.

You can get a gram of high quality, job producing and safe stuff in Colorado for like $5 including all the huge taxes on it. The same quality stuff coming in from Mexico here in Texas would be $20. And who knows what it cost in life or whatever else to get it here.

BaylorBJM said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

BaylorBJM said:

---

Florda_mike said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

There are certainly similarities between alcohol and weed, but there is also one major difference. The primary purpose of drinking alcohol is not necessarily to get hammered. I am well aware that some drink for the sole purpose of getting drunk but the vast majority drink for social reasons and/or because they like the taste. Past a certain age and maturity level, getting drunk rarely, if ever, results. Contrast this to weed where the sole purpose of its use is to get high.

From a public safety standpoint, we already have a fair number of drunks driving cars. If legalization of weed creates a larger population of users, will this further increase the number of impaired drivers on the road?

---

Is any of this backed up statistically?

---

With ALL due respect, and you should know that from me to you, your question is often asked by younger people to us older people

Naturally younger people would want stats to back up what they are interested in, as they haven't lived long enough to have long term experience on many topics and require stats to replace that experience. Decades and decades of watching, feeling and being affected negatively and positively etc on alcohol/pot allows us older folks to not feel a need to search for stats to come to a conclusion. I've personally known questionably alcoholic doctors that produce studies(stats) that show so many glasses of beer and/or wine will allow you to live more healthy. I'm sure pot has its stat advocates too!? Long and short, especially in today's sometimes biased media research, it allows studies/stats or polls to go out that are prejudiced and I'd consider many to be outright lies sometimes unfortunately

Volunteer was nice enough to site a study showing 90% fatal accidents are by 21-45 year olds with .08 or above. That's enough evidence for me if I wanted "facts."

I also think age has a bias on this topic. When young you haven't experienced as many negatives of alcohol/pot yet. Plus your strong physical health allows you to feel 10' tall and bulletproof. Time will change that as you age and you drink or whatever less and less most likely. Perhaps some of the stats that favor pot are being put out by younger people trying to show a positive side to pot? Idk

When I was younger I drank and smoked freely. For me, it was holding me back in my marriage, friendships, business and most importantly, my spirituality. I stopped it and have prospered in all those areas far beyond what I would've thought possible. I've seen friends go either negatively or positively in these areas based on continuing to use or not, for several decades. That's experience! I don't need stats for what my eyes see and my heart feels

Again, no disrespect to you at all my fellow baseball loving friend. I'm just an older version of you, that has drawn my conclusions on this topic and see pot and alcohol to be detrimental to a persons progress in life and maturity

Best to all though and to each their own ........

---

I understand and appreciate your life experiences and I'm sure many, if not most, are applicable, but your post essentially states you choose to disregard proven facts and statistics in lieu of your anecdotal evidence.

I'm not sure how it's possible to have a real, substantive conversation using this logic.

---

Not trying to start a fight. I am genuinely interested in a sampling of the proven facts and statistics to which you refer.

---

I did not refer to any specifics, only mentioned the word in the general sense. Mike said on more than one occasion in his post he puts more weight into personal experience than actual hard statistics.

At best, that type of logic is careless. At worst, it's reckless.

---

Careless and reckless???

Are you even serious?

Here's my "facts!"

I'm 61. There's numerous people I grew up with in Waco that are now dead. Most all of them have led promiscuous lifestyles and many met fate with drugs and/or alcohol involved. Of those still living that I'm in touch with or know of they either drink moderately or have stopped or never have drank. I'm not aware of many at all that still smoke pot, maybe they're just anti-social though as I suspect a couple still smoke and keep to themselves. I'd love to see them and talk to them but no one can find them!?

I got in a little trouble smoking and drinking after college, then quit and have never been in trouble with family, finances or law. Coincidence?

I'm as anti gov as any libertarian here, but I've also seen death and misery and destruction in families from drugs and alcohol. So I'm ok with legal remedies as a deterrent. If there were enough money for treatment centers instead of prisons I'd be much better with that attempted remedy. Education helps. Drugs and alcohol kill and ruin lives and families and fortunes. I've seen it. I've lived it. Those are my facts. Those are my stats. I believe them because I've lived them and there's no need to read em somewhere when you've got decades of proof. If that's "reckless and careless" then call my MO in life, today, reckless and careless

Learn from the past and improve your future. Get your head out of the sand if you're just trying to justify your own bad behavior with drugs or alcohol. Don't be a stat the dies young like many of my friends did. Learn young from the deaths of your friends due to alcohol and/or drugs. You don't need to read some stat to know this. You've lived it even if your 30.

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

---

Just my opinion - But yes, people do sit around and judge or evaluate or whatever other loaded word you want to use. I am willing to acknowledge naivete (even though I couldn't spell it on mobile in my last post) and have an open conversation without loaded words. Also, you've moved the line from drunk to buzzed. As a society, we have clearly defined being drunk as a negative. As a Christian, there is a line between drinking and being drunk.

I am also a huge fan of liberty but don't agree with complete liberty because the government does make many regulations you probably do agree with when it comes to other people. For example, you probably enjoy sleeping in a quiet neighborhood at 3am even though someone else wants to play music turned to 11. You also probably enjoy zoning laws that tells a developer they cannot build a factory on their own property next to your house.

There are limits that help us function as a civil society. Again, just my opinion, but legalizing a product whose only intent is to get high, causing impairment, is not a great move.

---

So do you think legislating morality is a valid role for the government?

I moved the line from being drunk to buzzed because there are varying levels of intoxication...just like with marijuana. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is getting hammered and not everyone who smokes pot is trying to do their best Jeff Spicoli impression. If we're going to use high as all-encompassing term for pot users, wouldn't it be fair for drunk cover those that are buzzed or have had 1 too many Big Os at George's?

Not sure I'm following your loud music example. If my neighbor is blasting music and I can't sleep, that affects me. If my neighbor is smoking a joint in his house, my life isn't affected in any way, shape, or form. That is kind of the whole idea of this liberty thing...my liberty ends where your liberty begins, and vice versa.

---

That's true, unless he/she decides to get in the car and drive to 7-11 for some Nacho Flavored Doritos and ends up crashing into your mailbox or, worse yet, killing someone you know.

IMO weed is no worse than alcohol. It's no better either. Alcohol causes thousands and thousands of deaths each year and many many more serious illnesses, losses in productivity, family breakups, and a multitude of other not so good things. The cost to society is well into the billions each year. If the use of pot was as great as the use of alcohol I suspect the costs to society would be similar.

I don't think pot users should be put in jail, but I am opposed to its legalization because I actually believe the illegal nature of marijuana acts to curb the volume of use. Our society is not in dire need of more people in an altered state.

---

I view using marijuana in the privacy of your own home and getting behind the wheel in a state of impairment as related, but ultimately separate issues. The former does not put peoples lives in jeopardy while the latter certainly does...which is why driving impaired would of course remain illegal. This line of reasoning that marijuana prohibition should remain intact to keep stoned drivers off the roads isn't all that different than the rhetoric used by gun control advocates.

I'll be interested to see how this theory that legalization will lead to a significant hike in the number of marijuana users plays out...one would think we should be able to get some pretty good data over the next few years from the states that have already legalized recreational use. My gut tells me that the vast majority of the people that desired to smoke marijuana on a regular basis were doing so prior to legalization.

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

---

Just my opinion - But yes, people do sit around and judge or evaluate or whatever other loaded word you want to use. I am willing to acknowledge naivete (even though I couldn't spell it on mobile in my last post) and have an open conversation without loaded words. Also, you've moved the line from drunk to buzzed. As a society, we have clearly defined being drunk as a negative. As a Christian, there is a line between drinking and being drunk.

I am also a huge fan of liberty but don't agree with complete liberty because the government does make many regulations you probably do agree with when it comes to other people. For example, you probably enjoy sleeping in a quiet neighborhood at 3am even though someone else wants to play music turned to 11. You also probably enjoy zoning laws that tells a developer they cannot build a factory on their own property next to your house.

There are limits that help us function as a civil society. Again, just my opinion, but legalizing a product whose only intent is to get high, causing impairment, is not a great move.

---

So do you think legislating morality is a valid role for the government?

I moved the line from being drunk to buzzed because there are varying levels of intoxication...just like with marijuana. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is getting hammered and not everyone who smokes pot is trying to do their best Jeff Spicoli impression. If we're going to use high as all-encompassing term for pot users, wouldn't it be fair for drunk cover those that are buzzed or have had 1 too many Big Os at George's?

Not sure I'm following your loud music example. If my neighbor is blasting music and I can't sleep, that affects me. If my neighbor is smoking a joint in his house, my life isn't affected in any way, shape, or form. That is kind of the whole idea of this liberty thing...my liberty ends where your liberty begins, and vice versa.

---

That's true, unless he/she decides to get in the car and drive to 7-11 for some Nacho Flavored Doritos and ends up crashing into your mailbox or, worse yet, killing someone you know.

IMO weed is no worse than alcohol. It's no better either. Alcohol causes thousands and thousands of deaths each year and many many more serious illnesses, losses in productivity, family breakups, and a multitude of other not so good things. The cost to society is well into the billions each year. If the use of pot was as great as the use of alcohol I suspect the costs to society would be similar.

I don't think pot users should be put in jail, but I am opposed to its legalization because I actually believe the illegal nature of marijuana acts to curb the volume of use. Our society is not in dire need of more people in an altered state.

---

I view using marijuana in the privacy of your own home and getting behind the wheel in a state of impairment as related, but ultimately separate issues. The former does not put peoples lives in jeopardy while the latter certainly does...which is why driving impaired would of course remain illegal. This line of reasoning that marijuana prohibition should remain intact to keep stoned drivers off the roads isn't all that different than the rhetoric used by gun control advocates.

I'll be interested to see how this theory that legalization will lead to a significant hike in the number of marijuana users plays out...one would think we should be able to get some pretty good data over the next few years from the states that have already legalized recreational use. My gut tells me that the vast majority of the people that desired to smoke marijuana on a regular basis were doing so prior to legalization.

---

It's also illegal to drive while intoxicated and yet people continue to drive drunk. I don't know if legalization of pot will increase usage, but I certainly think it is possible. But one thing is certain, if weed is legal then we will see stoned drivers behind the wheel just as we have drunk drivers in cars. I also recognize that even though weed is presently illegal, we already have stoned drivers on the roads. If pot usage increases with legality - a theory which is neither confirmed or rebutted - then the number of impaired drivers will go up.

BJM I tried on another thread, I guess he just doesn't want to get it. Mike I (we) understand bias/influence in polls. Just like we do in anecdotes. Level of bias in anecdotes is HIGHER than that in polls. Ideally, you consider all and go with most probable. Please spend time looking over the level of evidence chart referenced in the other thread if you are going to keep commenting on it.

I think using the "getting behind the wheel" example is faulty given autonomous changes currently being implemented and those coming up removing human error altogether. In addition, most poo-poo texting and driving which is more dangerous than drinking/smoking and driving based on what I have seen.

If the war on drugs was a raging success, or we legislated obesity/cigarette smoking/alcohol/etc the same it would make sense to me. Given inconsistencies as well as the fact that if you have a social circle of any kind you can get some by the weekend I would rather tax it to help out with more serious problems. The side benefits of medical and ag applications is intriguing to me too as there seems to have been a historical movement to keep those down for protection of $$$ by some.

Prairie_Bear said:

---

BJM I tried on another thread, I guess he just doesn't want to get it. Mike I (we) understand bias/influence in polls. Just like we do in anecdotes. Level of bias in anecdotes is HIGHER than that in polls. Ideally, you consider all and go with most probable. Please spend time looking over the level of evidence chart referenced in the other thread if you are going to keep commenting on it.

I think using the "getting behind the wheel" example is faulty given autonomous changes currently being implemented and those coming up removing human error altogether. In addition, most poo-poo texting and driving which is more dangerous than drinking/smoking and driving based on what I have seen.

If the war on drugs was a raging success, or we legislated obesity/cigarette smoking/alcohol/etc the same it would make sense to me. Given inconsistencies as well as the fact that if you have a social circle of any kind you can get some by the weekend I would rather tax it to help out with more serious problems. The side benefits of medical and ag applications is intriguing to me too as there seems to have been a historical movement to keep those down for protection of $$$ by some.

---

^^^^^
..... as he taps away at post that's largely .... anecdotal

Pot calling kettle black?

Also, I'm sorry but many and possibly most polls out today are at least strongly anecdotal if you'll simply go to the trouble of investigating the search thoroughly

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

---

Just my opinion - But yes, people do sit around and judge or evaluate or whatever other loaded word you want to use. I am willing to acknowledge naivete (even though I couldn't spell it on mobile in my last post) and have an open conversation without loaded words. Also, you've moved the line from drunk to buzzed. As a society, we have clearly defined being drunk as a negative. As a Christian, there is a line between drinking and being drunk.

I am also a huge fan of liberty but don't agree with complete liberty because the government does make many regulations you probably do agree with when it comes to other people. For example, you probably enjoy sleeping in a quiet neighborhood at 3am even though someone else wants to play music turned to 11. You also probably enjoy zoning laws that tells a developer they cannot build a factory on their own property next to your house.

There are limits that help us function as a civil society. Again, just my opinion, but legalizing a product whose only intent is to get high, causing impairment, is not a great move.

---

So do you think legislating morality is a valid role for the government?

I moved the line from being drunk to buzzed because there are varying levels of intoxication...just like with marijuana. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is getting hammered and not everyone who smokes pot is trying to do their best Jeff Spicoli impression. If we're going to use high as all-encompassing term for pot users, wouldn't it be fair for drunk cover those that are buzzed or have had 1 too many Big Os at George's?

Not sure I'm following your loud music example. If my neighbor is blasting music and I can't sleep, that affects me. If my neighbor is smoking a joint in his house, my life isn't affected in any way, shape, or form. That is kind of the whole idea of this liberty thing...my liberty ends where your liberty begins, and vice versa.

---

That's true, unless he/she decides to get in the car and drive to 7-11 for some Nacho Flavored Doritos and ends up crashing into your mailbox or, worse yet, killing someone you know.

IMO weed is no worse than alcohol. It's no better either. Alcohol causes thousands and thousands of deaths each year and many many more serious illnesses, losses in productivity, family breakups, and a multitude of other not so good things. The cost to society is well into the billions each year. If the use of pot was as great as the use of alcohol I suspect the costs to society would be similar.

I don't think pot users should be put in jail, but I am opposed to its legalization because I actually believe the illegal nature of marijuana acts to curb the volume of use. Our society is not in dire need of more people in an altered state.

---

I view using marijuana in the privacy of your own home and getting behind the wheel in a state of impairment as related, but ultimately separate issues. The former does not put peoples lives in jeopardy while the latter certainly does...which is why driving impaired would of course remain illegal. This line of reasoning that marijuana prohibition should remain intact to keep stoned drivers off the roads isn't all that different than the rhetoric used by gun control advocates.

I'll be interested to see how this theory that legalization will lead to a significant hike in the number of marijuana users plays out...one would think we should be able to get some pretty good data over the next few years from the states that have already legalized recreational use. My gut tells me that the vast majority of the people that desired to smoke marijuana on a regular basis were doing so prior to legalization.

---

It's also illegal to drive while intoxicated and yet people continue to drive drunk. I don't know if legalization of pot will increase usage, but I certainly think it is possible. But one thing is certain, if weed is legal then we will see stoned drivers behind the wheel just as we have drunk drivers in cars. I also recognize that even though weed is presently illegal, we already have stoned drivers on the roads. If pot usage increases with legality - a theory which is neither confirmed or rebutted - then the number of impaired drivers will go up.

---

Yes, unfortunately people abuse their personal liberties...but is that a valid reason to restrict them?

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

---

Just my opinion - But yes, people do sit around and judge or evaluate or whatever other loaded word you want to use. I am willing to acknowledge naivete (even though I couldn't spell it on mobile in my last post) and have an open conversation without loaded words. Also, you've moved the line from drunk to buzzed. As a society, we have clearly defined being drunk as a negative. As a Christian, there is a line between drinking and being drunk.

I am also a huge fan of liberty but don't agree with complete liberty because the government does make many regulations you probably do agree with when it comes to other people. For example, you probably enjoy sleeping in a quiet neighborhood at 3am even though someone else wants to play music turned to 11. You also probably enjoy zoning laws that tells a developer they cannot build a factory on their own property next to your house.

There are limits that help us function as a civil society. Again, just my opinion, but legalizing a product whose only intent is to get high, causing impairment, is not a great move.

---

So do you think legislating morality is a valid role for the government?

I moved the line from being drunk to buzzed because there are varying levels of intoxication...just like with marijuana. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is getting hammered and not everyone who smokes pot is trying to do their best Jeff Spicoli impression. If we're going to use high as all-encompassing term for pot users, wouldn't it be fair for drunk cover those that are buzzed or have had 1 too many Big Os at George's?

Not sure I'm following your loud music example. If my neighbor is blasting music and I can't sleep, that affects me. If my neighbor is smoking a joint in his house, my life isn't affected in any way, shape, or form. That is kind of the whole idea of this liberty thing...my liberty ends where your liberty begins, and vice versa.

---

That's true, unless he/she decides to get in the car and drive to 7-11 for some Nacho Flavored Doritos and ends up crashing into your mailbox or, worse yet, killing someone you know.

IMO weed is no worse than alcohol. It's no better either. Alcohol causes thousands and thousands of deaths each year and many many more serious illnesses, losses in productivity, family breakups, and a multitude of other not so good things. The cost to society is well into the billions each year. If the use of pot was as great as the use of alcohol I suspect the costs to society would be similar.

I don't think pot users should be put in jail, but I am opposed to its legalization because I actually believe the illegal nature of marijuana acts to curb the volume of use. Our society is not in dire need of more people in an altered state.

---

I view using marijuana in the privacy of your own home and getting behind the wheel in a state of impairment as related, but ultimately separate issues. The former does not put peoples lives in jeopardy while the latter certainly does...which is why driving impaired would of course remain illegal. This line of reasoning that marijuana prohibition should remain intact to keep stoned drivers off the roads isn't all that different than the rhetoric used by gun control advocates.

I'll be interested to see how this theory that legalization will lead to a significant hike in the number of marijuana users plays out...one would think we should be able to get some pretty good data over the next few years from the states that have already legalized recreational use. My gut tells me that the vast majority of the people that desired to smoke marijuana on a regular basis were doing so prior to legalization.

---

It's also illegal to drive while intoxicated and yet people continue to drive drunk. I don't know if legalization of pot will increase usage, but I certainly think it is possible. But one thing is certain, if weed is legal then we will see stoned drivers behind the wheel just as we have drunk drivers in cars. I also recognize that even though weed is presently illegal, we already have stoned drivers on the roads. If pot usage increases with legality - a theory which is neither confirmed or rebutted - then the number of impaired drivers will go up.

---

Yes, unfortunately people abuse their personal liberties...but is that a valid reason to restrict them?

---

Yes, I think it actually is. As a nation we do it all the time. Speed limits are restrictions that have been established because some nuts would think it okay to drive at ridiculously high speeds. The law does not allow a person to have multiple spouses - even when all parties consent. Prostitution is illegal virtually everywhere in this country even though it involves the state telling an individual what they can't do with their own body. Ditto for allowing an individual to seek a doctor's assistance in ending life when terminal illnesses are evident. It is also illegal to walk naked down the street or to smoke in most places.

We have a pretty long history of restricting personal liberties when they are in conflict with the perceived interests of society. This applies even when the majority of disallowed personal liberties would not conflict with those interests. For example, it's tough to understand why a person would not be allowed to have more than one spouse, if that is what the parties involved wished. What would it really hurt? The rationale, however, is that many of those involved in bigamy are not really consenting. Therefore preventing all bigamy eliminates the problem.

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

---

Just my opinion - But yes, people do sit around and judge or evaluate or whatever other loaded word you want to use. I am willing to acknowledge naivete (even though I couldn't spell it on mobile in my last post) and have an open conversation without loaded words. Also, you've moved the line from drunk to buzzed. As a society, we have clearly defined being drunk as a negative. As a Christian, there is a line between drinking and being drunk.

I am also a huge fan of liberty but don't agree with complete liberty because the government does make many regulations you probably do agree with when it comes to other people. For example, you probably enjoy sleeping in a quiet neighborhood at 3am even though someone else wants to play music turned to 11. You also probably enjoy zoning laws that tells a developer they cannot build a factory on their own property next to your house.

There are limits that help us function as a civil society. Again, just my opinion, but legalizing a product whose only intent is to get high, causing impairment, is not a great move.

---

So do you think legislating morality is a valid role for the government?

I moved the line from being drunk to buzzed because there are varying levels of intoxication...just like with marijuana. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is getting hammered and not everyone who smokes pot is trying to do their best Jeff Spicoli impression. If we're going to use high as all-encompassing term for pot users, wouldn't it be fair for drunk cover those that are buzzed or have had 1 too many Big Os at George's?

Not sure I'm following your loud music example. If my neighbor is blasting music and I can't sleep, that affects me. If my neighbor is smoking a joint in his house, my life isn't affected in any way, shape, or form. That is kind of the whole idea of this liberty thing...my liberty ends where your liberty begins, and vice versa.

---

That's true, unless he/she decides to get in the car and drive to 7-11 for some Nacho Flavored Doritos and ends up crashing into your mailbox or, worse yet, killing someone you know.

IMO weed is no worse than alcohol. It's no better either. Alcohol causes thousands and thousands of deaths each year and many many more serious illnesses, losses in productivity, family breakups, and a multitude of other not so good things. The cost to society is well into the billions each year. If the use of pot was as great as the use of alcohol I suspect the costs to society would be similar.

I don't think pot users should be put in jail, but I am opposed to its legalization because I actually believe the illegal nature of marijuana acts to curb the volume of use. Our society is not in dire need of more people in an altered state.

---

I view using marijuana in the privacy of your own home and getting behind the wheel in a state of impairment as related, but ultimately separate issues. The former does not put peoples lives in jeopardy while the latter certainly does...which is why driving impaired would of course remain illegal. This line of reasoning that marijuana prohibition should remain intact to keep stoned drivers off the roads isn't all that different than the rhetoric used by gun control advocates.

I'll be interested to see how this theory that legalization will lead to a significant hike in the number of marijuana users plays out...one would think we should be able to get some pretty good data over the next few years from the states that have already legalized recreational use. My gut tells me that the vast majority of the people that desired to smoke marijuana on a regular basis were doing so prior to legalization.

---

It's also illegal to drive while intoxicated and yet people continue to drive drunk. I don't know if legalization of pot will increase usage, but I certainly think it is possible. But one thing is certain, if weed is legal then we will see stoned drivers behind the wheel just as we have drunk drivers in cars. I also recognize that even though weed is presently illegal, we already have stoned drivers on the roads. If pot usage increases with legality - a theory which is neither confirmed or rebutted - then the number of impaired drivers will go up.

---

Yes, unfortunately people abuse their personal liberties...but is that a valid reason to restrict them?

---

Yes, I think it actually is. As a nation we do it all the time. Speed limits are restrictions that have been established because some nuts would think it okay to drive at ridiculously high speeds. The law does not allow a person to have multiple spouses - even when all parties consent. Prostitution is illegal virtually everywhere in this country even though it involves the state telling an individual what they can't do with their own body. Ditto for allowing an individual to seek a doctor's assistance in ending life when terminal illnesses are evident. It is also illegal to walk naked down the street or to smoke in most places.

We have a pretty long history of restricting personal liberties when they are in conflict with the perceived interests of society. This applies even when the majority of disallowed personal liberties would not conflict with those interests. For example, it's tough to understand why a person would not be allowed to have more than one spouse, if that is what the parties involved wished. What would it really hurt? The rationale, however, is that many of those involved in bigamy are not really consenting. Therefore preventing all bigamy eliminates the problem.

---

Vol, I always appreciate how you respectfully present your opinions in an organized fashion. You're one of my favorite posters on this board. Clearly you and I differ on this matter, but that is ok. I don't think that the government should be involved in most of the things you listed, so I think you and I just differ on what we think the size and scope of the government should be.

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Volunteer said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

Crash Davis said:

---

Christopher Johnson said:

---

I am against putting pot users in jail.

I'm going to say the following as someone who has never tried pot and acknowledge some navet on the subject:

But, I don't understand why we would legalize a product whose sole purpose is to get you high. We look down on people who drink to get drunk. Why would we would we legalize something whose purpose is to do the same?

---

First, I don't think I agree with your "we look down on people who drink to get drunk" statement. Is that a universal truth now? When you're sitting up at George's are you looking around judging everyone in there that has a buzz?

We should legalize it because we don't need a paternalistic government that tries to protect us from ourselves. I'm a huge fan of individual liberty. I have no intention of ever smoking pot again, but this idea that I can't choose to do so without risking legal consequence is preposterous.

---

Just my opinion - But yes, people do sit around and judge or evaluate or whatever other loaded word you want to use. I am willing to acknowledge naivete (even though I couldn't spell it on mobile in my last post) and have an open conversation without loaded words. Also, you've moved the line from drunk to buzzed. As a society, we have clearly defined being drunk as a negative. As a Christian, there is a line between drinking and being drunk.

I am also a huge fan of liberty but don't agree with complete liberty because the government does make many regulations you probably do agree with when it comes to other people. For example, you probably enjoy sleeping in a quiet neighborhood at 3am even though someone else wants to play music turned to 11. You also probably enjoy zoning laws that tells a developer they cannot build a factory on their own property next to your house.

There are limits that help us function as a civil society. Again, just my opinion, but legalizing a product whose only intent is to get high, causing impairment, is not a great move.

---

So do you think legislating morality is a valid role for the government?

I moved the line from being drunk to buzzed because there are varying levels of intoxication...just like with marijuana. Not everyone who drinks alcohol is getting hammered and not everyone who smokes pot is trying to do their best Jeff Spicoli impression. If we're going to use high as all-encompassing term for pot users, wouldn't it be fair for drunk cover those that are buzzed or have had 1 too many Big Os at George's?

Not sure I'm following your loud music example. If my neighbor is blasting music and I can't sleep, that affects me. If my neighbor is smoking a joint in his house, my life isn't affected in any way, shape, or form. That is kind of the whole idea of this liberty thing...my liberty ends where your liberty begins, and vice versa.

---

That's true, unless he/she decides to get in the car and drive to 7-11 for some Nacho Flavored Doritos and ends up crashing into your mailbox or, worse yet, killing someone you know.

IMO weed is no worse than alcohol. It's no better either. Alcohol causes thousands and thousands of deaths each year and many many more serious illnesses, losses in productivity, family breakups, and a multitude of other not so good things. The cost to society is well into the billions each year. If the use of pot was as great as the use of alcohol I suspect the costs to society would be similar.

I don't think pot users should be put in jail, but I am opposed to its legalization because I actually believe the illegal nature of marijuana acts to curb the volume of use. Our society is not in dire need of more people in an altered state.

---

I view using marijuana in the privacy of your own home and getting behind the wheel in a state of impairment as related, but ultimately separate issues. The former does not put peoples lives in jeopardy while the latter certainly does...which is why driving impaired would of course remain illegal. This line of reasoning that marijuana prohibition should remain intact to keep stoned drivers off the roads isn't all that different than the rhetoric used by gun control advocates.

I'll be interested to see how this theory that legalization will lead to a significant hike in the number of marijuana users plays out...one would think we should be able to get some pretty good data over the next few years from the states that have already legalized recreational use. My gut tells me that the vast majority of the people that desired to smoke marijuana on a regular basis were doing so prior to legalization.

---

It's also illegal to drive while intoxicated and yet people continue to drive drunk. I don't know if legalization of pot will increase usage, but I certainly think it is possible. But one thing is certain, if weed is legal then we will see stoned drivers behind the wheel just as we have drunk drivers in cars. I also recognize that even though weed is presently illegal, we already have stoned drivers on the roads. If pot usage increases with legality - a theory which is neither confirmed or rebutted - then the number of impaired drivers will go up.

---

Yes, unfortunately people abuse their personal liberties...but is that a valid reason to restrict them?

---

Yes, I think it actually is. As a nation we do it all the time. Speed limits are restrictions that have been established because some nuts would think it okay to drive at ridiculously high speeds. The law does not allow a person to have multiple spouses - even when all parties consent. Prostitution is illegal virtually everywhere in this country even though it involves the state telling an individual what they can't do with their own body. Ditto for allowing an individual to seek a doctor's assistance in ending life when terminal illnesses are evident. It is also illegal to walk naked down the street or to smoke in most places.

We have a pretty long history of restricting personal liberties when they are in conflict with the perceived interests of society. This applies even when the majority of disallowed personal liberties would not conflict with those interests. For example, it's tough to understand why a person would not be allowed to have more than one spouse, if that is what the parties involved wished. What would it really hurt? The rationale, however, is that many of those involved in bigamy are not really consenting. Therefore preventing all bigamy eliminates the problem.

---

Vol, I always appreciate how you respectfully present your opinions in an organization fashion. You're one of my favorite posters on this board. Clearly you and I differ on this matter, but that is ok. I don't think that the government should be involved in most of the things you listed, so I think you and I just differ on what we think the size and scope of the government should be.

---

Respectful debate is a positive thing. I appreciate your position. Truth is, I suspect weed will be legalized within the next 5-10 years. Personally, I think it's a mistake to do this, but I also recognize that there are many Americans who hold a different view.