Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place
Should marijuana be legal?
oilgun:
I voted for legalization. I also think that possession and use of any drug should be, at least, decriminalised. Turning drug users, who are otherwise law abiding citizens, into criminals is not very helpful IMO.
Sheriff Roland:
It's less damaging to the health of a person than tobacco smoking (maybe only because of the amount of tobacco smoked) so the fact that marujuana is illegal is absurd.
Of course I'm in favour of legalizing it's use.
Like David I have used it when I was younger - and even tried it again a few years ago - but I just get paranoid. Not worth the trouble for me. My friends still use it.
Canada was ready to decriminalize it before the Conservatives came into power 4 years ago, but it wasn't a priority issue so it didn't get done. (I'm sure the U.S. government interfered in our national politics at the time, seeing as we have such a transparent border.)
Brown Eyes:
I've been thinking about this a bit and want to elaborate on my earlier, quick answer.
I agree that marijuana is probably no more harmful than alcohol. And, it seems very reasonable to me to expect that marijuana could be regulated in much the same way as alcohol or even tobacco products. People consume potentially harmful/ unhealthy products all the time (including fast food, etc.). In a way, the health factor as a reason for keeping pot illegal becomes difficult to sustain as an argument when you really start thinking about a lot of the legal products out there. In fact if marijuana was legal and regulated... there may be less risk of contaminated pot that can be more dangerous than "pure" marijuana.
I also think that, currently, probably the most dangerous thing about pot is the very fact that it is illegal. By this I mean, it creates a huge subculture of dangerous dealers and related crime. If marijuana was removed as one element of the illegal drug trade.... just think of the amount of time and resources the police, courts, etc. could spend on more significant problems and issues. Also, just think of the amount of money that could be saved in the prison system if people convicted solely of marijuana-related issues weren't there.
southendmd:
Massachusetts recently decriminalized possession of small amounts, by referendum. It's still "illegal", but a civil, rather than criminal, offense, meaning it wouldn't affect one's ability to get a job, for instance.
Here's an article from The Boston Globe:
Mass. voters OK decriminalization of marijuana
November 4, 2008 09:34 PM
By David Abel, Globe Staff
Massachusetts voters today approved a ballot initiative to decriminalize possession of small amounts of marijuana, making getting caught with less than an ounce of pot punishable by a civil fine of $100. The change in the law means someone found carrying as many as dozens of marijuana cigarettes will no longer be reported to the state’s criminal history board.
“The people were ahead of the politicians on this issue; they recognize and want a more sensible approach to our marijuana policy,” said Whitney Taylor, chairwoman of the Committee for Sensible Marijuana Policy, which campaigned for the ballot initiative. “They want to focus our limited law enforcement resources on serious and violent crimes. They recognize under the new law that the punishment will fit the offense.”
The proposition will become law 30 days after it’s reported to the Governor’s Council, which usually meets in late November or early December. But the Legislature could amend or repeal the new law, as they've done with some prior laws passed by the voters, said Emily LaGrassa, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Martha Coakley. The Associated Press called the outcome at about 9:20 p.m.
The proposition will require those younger than age 18 to complete a drug awareness program and community service. The fine would increase to as much as $1,000 for those who fail to complete the program.
Proponents of the initiative, who spent about $1 million promoting it, argued the change in the law would maintain the state's existing penalties for growing, trafficking, or driving under the influence of marijuana, while ensuring that those caught with less than an ounce of pot would avoid the taint of a criminal record. They also argued it would save the state millions of law enforcement dollars and match similar marijuana possession laws in 12 states, all of which have adopted some form of decriminalization.
The opponents, who included the governor, attorney general, and district attorneys around the state, argued that decriminalizing marijuana possession would promote drug use and benefit drug dealers at a time when they say marijuana has become more potent. They warned it would increase violence on the streets and safety hazards in the workplace, and cause the number of car crashes to rise as more youths drive under the influence.
The opponents said that most of those charged with marijuana possession are arrested for other reasons, such as driving under the influence or possessing a more potent drug like crack cocaine. They also said most people arrested for marijuana possession have their records cleared within six months.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/11/question_2_setu.html
Shakesthecoffecan:
::) I, uh, forgot what I was going to say.......
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version