In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 310
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I know you're not necessarily making these arguments (maybe you are), but #1 and #2 have been roundly and thoroughly disproved, both in theory and practice. These two points are just not true.
#3 just doesn't apply to us. We don't live in ancient Greece. Additionally, it does not sap their ability to be good, productive, or virtuous. Some people who lack these qualities use drugs, but that loose correlation is as silly as saying that water drives people to murder, because all murderers drink water.
I and many others use drugs (marijuana in my case) in a recreational fashion, and continue to be good, productive and, in my opinion, virtuous.
We also have to get in to the definition of "what is a drug" and "when are they ok". Xanax continues to be prescribed, and the people I know on that are waaaaay more fucked up as human beings than the average pothead or twice a year coke user. Even then, I wouldn't necessarily (not entirely) blame the Xanax. I would blame them for being the type of people who need Xanax. Another example is caffeine. This is a drug. I use it every, single day. I'm addicted. And the vessels through which I consume it can be harmful over a lifetime as well.
Ultimately, the point is that the harm on society due to the prohibition is greater than the harm to society by allowing these substances to be regulated and used without fear of reprisal from law enforcement. There are countless lives ruined simply by the prohibition alone, people who don't even use drugs get caught in the middle and die, or lose loved ones/breadwinners, etc. This comes down to an argument of "don't tell me what to put in my body", especially when the reasons for prohibiting said substances in the first place were political and not based on any sort of science (physical or social).
I'd highly recommend that anyone interested in this topic read the report I posted above. Or if you want to see how deep things go in some places because of our prohibition, El Narco by Ioan Grillo is a good one (and on Kindle).
Drug use kills some people. People who chose to use drugs. The black market kills and affects countless more, people who didn't want to be involved.
For GiantsNTerps, the genesis of one of the arguments I mentioned.
Also, Jesse Jackson didn't like Buckley's joke. lol
William F. Buckley on cigarettes, illegal drugs and hypocrisy, excerpt from 1988 ABC TV special hosted by Ted Koppel
"And I try to har-mo-nize with songs the lonesome sparrow sings...
There are no kings inside the Gates of Eden."
DOY, I know you weren't stating it as your position, but there are not enough negative words in the dictionary to describe the gateway drug argument. I don't even know where to begin with that.
To GiantsNTerps, a, umm, guy I know says it actually helps him in his day to day life. It's not a miracle drug that has only good effects, but it's absolutely a net positive for that fellow.
As with most things in the world, it's not the object, but the person using it. There is nothing about the drug that makes one inherently worse off. Plenty of people benefit from its use and lots of those people would be worse off if not for marijuana. I hate the idea that we should legalize it because "it's not that bad." Fuck that. Let's legalize it because it's good!!!!!!
Can we hear some of the arguments AGAINST legalizing marijuana? Can someone present them in a strong fashion, please?
For the contra, this was pretty recent in the Washington Post. Presented without comment on whether or not it would be an effective political stance.
Republicans would be smart to stand strong against legalizing drugs.
And from almost exactly one year ago, pretty much a contra argument from Will, and the follow-up column which provides a lot of information but doesn't really give a policy prescription. Interesting reads, both.
Will's articles are better than Wehner's, which is not even a slight shock.
I've been examining this issue thoroughly for a while, and I've yet to see one that holds up. Ultimately, it all comes down to pseudo science, "think of the children", "society will unravel" and "everyone will use drugs".
That's literally it. I can't recall ever seeing any other serious argument. It's actually more or less the argument against gay marriage. I think of David Tyree talking about the apocalypse should gays ever be allowed to marry.
Anyone who really weighs all the pros vs cons, thinks critically about the issue, and understands the damage being done to our society by the prohibition will have no choice but to admit that the only practical approach is to start figuring out how to regulate drugs.
I kinda wanted to try it in college but whenever I had opportunities to I was trying to get a job/internship and didn't want to mess something up because of a failed drug test, so I just never did. I'd definitely try it if it was legal.
This post was edited by jsh 12 months ago
How do you regulate driving under the influence of marijuana? To me, this is the only reasonable argument about why not to allow easy access to a new drug.
You don't. You arrest them if you come up with a reasonable way to detect it. It's a reasonable argument, to be sure, but not a big enough one to strike down the legalization. It's a concern that should be addressed.
The fact is though, even now, people drive high. I don't, because I don't drive, but I have been in a car with many "professional smokers" and never felt trepidation (and as a city boy who is afraid of cars, that's saying something, if anecdotal). So, people are going to drive high either way, whether it's legal or not. How do you catch them? I don't know. I honestly don't have a solution. But I also don't know if it's worse than driving under the influence of large amounts of caffeine at night where you get jittery and face the risk of a caffeine-related come down/crash.
Only speaking personally, I don't think my faculties and coordination are drastically affected under the influence of marijuana. That could vary from person to person. It's a legit concern, but it's not enough to keep it banned. Further, I think there's the issue of "will access increase the likelihood of people driving high?" My guess is, on any sort of large scale, no. I don't foresee behavior changing just because it's supposedly easier to get. If anything, I'd say it's currently easy to get, just expensive. I can have an ounce of weed delivered to my house right now if I want with a simple text message.
We've seen in a few countries that making drugs easier to get/regulated/legal hasn't increased usage, so I don't foresee new people taking it up and deciding to behave reckless on any large scale.
WaPo is your friend again!
Good article about the challenges at the state level in Colorado.
"In Ohio and Nevada, where medical marijuana is legal, the limit for driving is two nanograms per milliliter of blood. In Washington state, that limit is five nanograms. A dozen other states, including Illinois, Iowa and Arizona, have zero-tolerance policies for driving under the influence of marijuana and various controlled substances.
In Colorado, both sides agree that people shouldn’t drive impaired; the fight is over what should be used as proof of impairment.
Marijuana advocates argue that, unlike with alcohol, traces of the drug remain in the bloodstream long after an individual has smoked pot, and that a THC test can mistakenly suggest a person is high, especially in a regular smoker who has built up tolerance to the drug. But officials who favor a blood-level limit say tests exist that can pinpoint “active” THC in the bloodstream in the hours immediately after marijuana usage."
Since it legalized pot, the state has been wrestling with how to regulate the drug and drugged driving.
I would honestly be surprised if marijuana contributes to many. At a low to mid-high range, many people's driving improves. They are less aggressive. I've heard people comment that smoking on long trips helps them maintain the speed limit and just enjoy the ride.
I watched a video recently of 3 test subjects getting high and driving a course in CO. It was probably from this board. They all did fine until they were really really high and all of them said they knew they shouldn't be driving at that point. The majority of their "mistakes" were that they drove too slow.
(LOL it's posted right above me)
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by TheColfax 12 months ago
This is probably the only legitimate argument against legalization and I don't think there are a ton of people like you out there.
Agreed. If it were a wide spread, legitimate concern, I think it would be a fair argument. But I tend to agree with you, in that he's probably in the severe minority. Most people who want to try it, try it.
Just for the record, historicus, it's good. Try it.
Why should we not, these, legalize,
And why stop there at just these few?
Could we not reach out and include
Some cyanide and hemlock too?
If you've come here looking for people to argue against legalizing cyanide and hemlock for Coltsfan, good luck.
You were just another youngster who grew up at a time where drug testing for employment was an issue. It still is fwiw.
Many states are doing their homework on the driving issue, and I saw a TV show where people were getting high in front of the Virginia State Police so the Police could test them as they drove a road course, and the results were the same as those in Colorado. At some point where the drivers were truly wasted, they and the police agreed that there was a limit to how much consumption forced the tipping point from safe to not safe (and it was a lot of pot.)
Question for any legal types:
If marijuana becomes completely legal and regulated, federally, would employers have to stop drug testing, or would they be allowed to discriminate against the use of substances based on their own preferences?
I ask because I can't recall employers testing for tobacco or alcohol (both more harmful, for what it's worth).
If it were legal, I'd think employers would not be able to "not give you a job" if it showed up in a pre-employment drug test. They test for a lot of drugs these days so I don't think they'd stop drug testing entirely. OBTW, I am not a legal type, but used to be a business/employer type.
I'm all for legalization of weed, but you're insane if you don't think weed is a gateway drug for some people.
There's absolutely some dumbasses out there who start doing harder drugs because they hear it gives you a "better high" than weed.
I probably would at this point in my life/career if given the chance. The reason I didn't before was that I was applying to gov contractor jobs that require drug tests within 48 hours of accepting an offer, and I didn't know when an offer would be coming.
It's a gateway for people who are already prone to seeking "more". It's not going to make most people say "oh I wanna stick a needle in my arm". People who need a better high aren't going to be affected by its legality. It's only a "gateway" in that it comes first. I'm willing to bet that if someone started out on coke, they'd probably end up smoking weed later at some point, too.
I started using vices in this order: tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, that's it. All of those started in my mid teens. I don't use tobacco anymore, but I'm terrified of hard drugs like cocaine and heroin (I've used coke twice). I'd be happy to use LSD, and I'd say in my case, it has nothing to do with my marijuana usage.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports