California prepares to legalize marijuana on New Year's Day

.... Do they move onto other criminal enterprises? Ones which may harm society even more than heavily inflated drug prices?
 
It was near enough completely legal anyway. When I was in California a couple of months ago everywhere you walked in the cities had the smell of weed in the air
 
It may be legal at the State level, but you can still be arrested by the feds and thrown in federal prison though. And if you run a ganja shop you can't put any business monies through the banking system, so you end up with a metric **** ton of cash with a huge target on it.
 
It's a great move, no one has the right to impose their views onto other people and dictate what drugs they can or can't take. As a civilization we are falling so far behind other countries socially that we'll be seen as the Saudi Arabia of Europe soon.
 
I think you've answered the question you asked, I can't prove anything, but I can assume for example that someone who has never touched drugs, is far less likely to jump in at the deep end.

I have tried Caffeene, tobacco and alcohol also been exposed to tramadol (as prescribed by a doctor) I have not felt the need to seek out additional drug...
 
It's a great move, no one has the right to impose their views onto other people and dictate what drugs they can or can't take.

I think you'll find the state does have that right and in lots of circumstances it is a good thing... I don't think heroin or crack should be legal, I think antibiotics should be controlled etc..
 
I think you'll find the state does have that right and in lots of circumstances it is a good thing... I don't think heroin or crack should be legal, I think antibiotics should be controlled etc..

Morally the state does not have that right. As far as I am concerned if a police officer is trying to arrest an individual for drug use, using lethal force to resist them is justified, just as it would be against any other form of abduction.

Antibiotics are not comparable to psychoactive drugs, they represent a public health issue that affects everyone.
 
Morally the state does not have that right. As far as I am concerned if a police officer is trying to arrest an individual for drug use, using lethal force to resist them is justified, just as it would be against any other form of abduction.

Antibiotics are not comparable to psychoactive drugs, they represent a public health issue that affects everyone.

I think you'll find that crack cocaine, meth and heroin represent public health issues too...
 
I think you'll find that crack cocaine, meth and heroin represent public health issues too...

Not in the same way, if infectious diseases become drug resistant they risk spreading across the population and causing widespread death.

With drugs it's primarily the people that use them that get harmed. Yes some deaths can be attributed to intoxicated driving etc, but we're talking about issues on an entirely different scale here.

EDIT - Plus we need to consider here the deaths that prohibition itself causes as a result of the varying purity of drugs like heroin, resulting in overdoses.
 
Not in the same way, if infectious diseases become drug resistant they risk spreading across the population and causing widespread death.

so in fact we can establish that "morally" the state does actually have a right to regulate some drugs

With drugs it's primarily the people that use them that get harmed. Yes some deaths can be attributed to intoxicated driving etc, but we're talking about issues on an entirely different scale here.

bit more than intoxicated driving - there are a whole host of issues that can accompany areas with lots of heroin addiction or similar
 
It's a great move, no one has the right to impose their views onto other people and dictate what drugs they can or can't take. As a civilization we are falling so far behind other countries socially that we'll be seen as the Saudi Arabia of Europe soon.
Ha ha what are you on about, look into Swiss or Swedens drug laws.
 
With drugs it's primarily the people that use them that get harmed. Yes some deaths can be attributed to intoxicated driving etc, but we're talking about issues on an entirely different scale here.

.

What about the little grannie kicked to death when she woke to find Jonny junky going through her draws.
 
If alcohol is legal, I see no reason why weed shouldn’t be. Alcohol is far more dangerous to society on many levels.
Personally I think your own body, mind is yours to do what you want with. It's the effect this has on the rest of the society when done by people who can't use drugs/drink responsibly.
 
Logically alcohol shouldn't be. Trouble is it's so easy to make.

Could say the same about weed, I’ve seen people growing kilos of the stuff in a spare attic with nothing more than a few lights and some foil stuff (when I say I’ve seen I mean, have see police raid properties, no Asim mac 10)
 
Personally I think your own body, mind is yours to do what you want with. It's the effect this has on the rest of the society when done by people who can't use drugs/drink responsibly.

When society has a responsibility towards you though that crosses a line. If you want to get smashed and have you stomach pumped or trounce your liver it costs me money.
 
Personally I think your own body, mind is yours to do what you want with. It's the effect this has on the rest of the society when done by people who can't use drugs/drink responsibly.

One difference would be someone using alcohol irresponsibly can go on to wipe out a family in a car accident. Someone using weed driving at 20mph on 40mph Road isn’t going to do that more often than not.
 
Could say the same about weed, I’ve seen people growing kilos of the stuff in a spare attic with nothing more than a few lights and some foil stuff (when I say I’ve seen I mean, have see police raid properties, no Asim mac 10)

True enough. I totally agree though that with the legality of alcohol the illegality of weed is nonsensical
 
Back
Top Bottom