-288 votes

Marijuana should NOT be legalized.

This is one of the things I disagreed with Ron Paul about. I understand the economic reasons, but the moral reasons is wrong. Marijuana is an addictive drug and can be abused. I had friends who smoked it growing up and they have done nothing with their lives. It has became their life. Deadbeats. It has ruined society. I can see other uses for it, but most people want it legalized so they can smoke it. I don't want to live around that.




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My concern is maybe there are real gateway drugs

and perhaps the first few uses are the result of free will or individual choice, but then it becomes a form of enslavement. Of course, that can happen with alcohol as well. But does that mean there is no line? is there no substance that is so onerous that it should not be freely available to anyone?

I understand it is a slippery slope when individual choice is criminalized. But as a crazy example, and I know nothing about the stuff, but look at bath soaps or whatever it is. if in fact , it has the effect of turning 5 or 10% of its users into man-eating lunatics, is that were the line is?

Is there such a drug? And please, don't lambast me on the "bath salts" thing because I know nothing about or even if it really exists. I'm just using it as a hypothetical.

SERIOUSLY

The #1 gateway drug is refined white sugar.

There is NO nutritional value in refined white sugar.

It is HIGHLY addicitive, and fed to children who quickly become addicted for life.

It is linked to obesity, tooth decay, hypertention, and diabetes.

Can you imagine your life without refined white sugar? Do you think you would have withdrawls, cravings?

I don't know about addiction to sugar,

But I do know you will develop an increased tolerance to it. When I quit eating sugar and most things sweet for some time, I found that when I did consume a sweet beverage or food it was fairly intense. Sickeningly sweet. So sugar is somewhat similar to a drug, a tolerance is developed and you need more and more sugar to get the same taste.

Seriously?

No drug is more dangerous that refined white sugar?

Twisting Grangers statement is quite reveling.

"The #1 gateway drug is refined white sugar"; Is not even close to "No drug is more dangerous that refined white sugar".

A plant is not the problem.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

Are you addicted to it?

please answer.

The problem is your concern is not reality.

80%+ of the arrests in America are for individuals that have harmed no one. Is that what you want? Are you so scared of individual freedom that you have no problem taking that freedom from other through violence and force?

I personally don't care one bit if all hard drugs are made legally available to those that want them. Who cares if someone does heroin, meth, bath salts or whatever? Doing drugs infringes upon no other individuals life liberty or property.

If an individual(on drugs or not) does harm another's life liberty or property then they should be held accountable.

If Rand doesn't come out for bath salts, Im voting libertarian!

Is that what you want me to say? Are you happy now? Am I enough of a purist for you now?

I simply posed the question, "Are there any known substances so dangerous to the user or to others that their de-criminalization at least gives room for pause for a reasonable person?"

Assuming you qualify as a reasonable person and have detailed knowledge of all the available street dugs you have answered my question. Thank you.

Well if a 'user' is using

Well if a 'user' is using something that harms another then that other should be able to hold the 'user' accountable for that harm. If a 'user' only harms themselves by their 'use' then why would anyone else even care?

I Do NOT Agree With YOU

Then what do you agree with Ron Paul about? People can ruin their lives with pot, overeating, lack of exercise, too much sex, other drugs, smoking, drinking, prescription drugs, HOARDING, dangerous driving, dangerous activities, driving, swimming, running, jogging, knocking down trees.. Liberty attempts to put those risks and responsibility on the individual to police, not the mythical collective.

If you can't see that, then you're simply nowhere near understanding what liberty is. It's not that you don't agree with Ron Paul, it's more that you're ignorant about liberty and he is not.

You have been totally brainwashed.

And that is putting it mildly. I would be happy to expound but so far have restrained myself.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

This has to be a joke. If

This has to be a joke. If you're on the daily Paul then I'm going to assume that you're not actually stupid enough to believe what you wrote.

I dunno...

FreedomsReigning and Liberty_First seemed pretty serious too.

A signature used to be here!

did you friends smoke it when

did you friends smoke it when it was legal or illegal?

This means you are going to

This means you are going to volunteer to pay extra taxes to pay for the incarceration of drug offenders and to feed their children when they are in jail, right. You are also going to pay the salaries of all the police officers who are involved in this war on drugs and the hospital bills of all the people they assault.

It's Not Your Business

This is probably the worst post I've ever seen on Daily Paul. You don't agree with Ron Paul on this because you have fundamentally different views about freedom. You think the state should control its citizens.

YOU are an "I can take of you" individual. I don't need you to take care of me. I don't need you to tell me what I can smoke, or grow naturally out of the ground, or use as a resource. You don't own plants and therefore have no control over what I do with them.

Go away.

*rolls eyes*

Just don't smoke it? Turd.

there's still no reason to make it illegal

I agree that it is socially destructive for those who use it all the time. The pothead stereotype is based on real phenomena that seriously lowers excessive users quality of life because of the overwhelming role they give it in their lives to the point of becoming unambitious and unproductive. It's not physically addictive in the chemical sense, but some people have addictive personalities and could get addicted to buttered toast if they placed the same importance on it that they do on getting high, without any need for chemical addiction.

all that being said: there is no right to use violent coercion to stop them from doing that. we all ought to voluntarily come together and try to form social solutions to convince people not to over-due their pot smoking if they're going to smoke pot and to help people who do get addicted to drugs (especially when it's other drugs with real chemical addiction, which pot does not create) when they want to get off of them. those who do ruin their lives by becoming the unproductive pot-smoking stereotype (which is NOT all pot smokers, just the ones who become obsessed with doing it all the time) have to face the consequences of their life choices, and we can only hope they can find friends and family to lean on to get out of the holes they dig for themselves. if they can't, then voluntary charities and churches are places they can hopefully lean on.

This is the same guy

that made another post about this site not being a libertarian website. a very confused individual.

Let's step back a minute and examine..

what you have to say.
"I understand the economic reasons, but the moral reasons is wrong."
So, which is less moral: voluntarily purchasing and using a product, or a knockless raid by armored police on a family in their home in the small hours of the morning based on information a family member voluntarily purchased a product for personal use or resale?
You can't keep a product people want illegal without accepting this type of police enforcement. I think, though I would not recommend the use of the banned product, the price in liberty on everyone else by keeping it illegal is too costly.

"Marijuana is an addictive drug and can be abused."
I doubt it is addictive. Nobody I know of who has used it and stopped had to check into a clinic to detox. Abuse is a vague term. Anything can be abused. That is no reason to make it illegal.

"I had friends who smoked it growing up and they have done nothing with their lives."
As did I. I also had friends who did not smoke it who were also unsuccessful. Some people I knew who smoked it were at least as successful as anyone. Look at the current POTUS.

Sadly, doing nothing in life is common. It has nothing to do with smoking marijuana. How is that your business?

Did these friends, who smoked it, do so while it was illegal? If so, how did making it illegal improve things? How would that be worse if they had smoked it legally?

"It has ruined society."
How could it have ruined society if it is illegal? If society is ruined, making it illegal did not prevent that. Perhaps, making it legal will improve things. It could not make things worse if society is ruined already, and made so by something that was simultaneously illegal.

"I can see other uses for it, but most people want it legalized so they can smoke it. I don't want to live around that."
I want it legalized because, as you have observed, keeping it illegal has not prevented its use, but it has given police a reason to intrude in people's lives. Keeping it illegal is a waste of law enforcement resources.

The number of people who have died from an overdose of marijuana is zero. People who want to smoke it will smoke it, law or no law. It is none of my business. You may not want to live around it, but you do, admittedly so, even though it is now against the law.

I don't see any purpose to keeping it illegal other than to give bloated local police departments an excuse to buy battering rams and body armor on the taxpayer's dime.

[F]orce can only settle questions of power, not of right. - Clyde N. Wilson

Technically speaking,

Technically speaking, chocolate cake is more addictive. While marijuana can become psychologically addictive, chocolate cake has the possibility of becoming both physically and psychologically addictive. What say you to the health and societal implications of people eating chocolate cake every day? Now THAT is something I do not want to be around, but I do not advocate making any of those substances illegal.

What say you about alcohol?

Certainly you would admit alcohol is more dangerous, more lethal, more addictive and has ruined countless multiples of more lives than marijuana?

And cigarettes are much worse for you?

And sugar?

And saturated fats?

And red meat?

Just because you don't approve of the actions of someone or some people, unless they are physically harming you, what gives you the right to vote a police officer the ability to go and put that person/those people in a cage?

Oh LOL

This website is NOT Libertarian
Submitted by ryno.t1985 on Sat, 04/06/2013 - 20:24

I am going to quit attending this website, because it fails to represent what they say they stand for. I have seen much intolerance, ignorance, and hypocracy on here, that this website has lost much credibilty. Now I can understand why the general public sees Ron Paul supporters as nuts. I can't blame them, because Ron Paul, who is very smart educated person himself, has very ignorant followers (for the most part). The college educated ones are the only exception. So I am going to resign from this website and join a real libertarian website.

Yea....

.....he's one of those "stick to my convictions" type of folk.

I'm sure he's back so he can learn us all sumthin.

Looks like it is 420

Ron Paul's main point isn't about the economics of it, the point is what is the ROLE OF GOVERNMENT. Is it the role of government to protect you from yourself or is that the role of your family. You can say Gov. needs to protect you from these kind of things but really what you're doing is allowing the government to decide for you what you can and cannot do. Why am I against marriage? The same reason, I think that your church should marry you, not the state, I think the family and the church should regulate drugs, not the state. DO MORE RESEARCH BEFORE YOU POST STUPID STUFF LIKE THIS. THIS IS A LIBERTY FORUM AND YOUR ARGUEING AGAINST LIBERTY DUHHHHHH.

You just got PAULED!

Riddle me this?

Why is a plant created by God illegal in the first place? Do think it right to judge God?

Because according to the

Because according to the progressives in charge of our lives: the state is god.

Doltishly Absurd...

I had to come out of posting hibernation to publicly roll my eyes at such doltish logic. I don't know, nor do I have to, a thing about you, nor your finances, nor your social network....the one that seemingly surrounds you with neer-do-well's to "observe"...but I can anecdotally laugh in your ignorant face on this one and forcefully scoff at your lack of segue.

Personally, and without argument, as probatively weightless as your prognostications above are, I know at least five people who have been life-long "potheads", either one of whom could buy and sell you any day of the week without batting an eye.

I make this statement easily, since as an accountant, I possess a rudimentary understanding of income strata, and much like you, can extrapolate certain general and assumptive traits to those that populate given levels of the wealth array. I can do this with a bit more reliability than your assertions which seem to have been formed by opening your kitchen door and looking out back at the fat and raggedy the kids in the alley that, under the din of the boombox keep laughing and flipping you the bird when you crankily yell at them to go get a job.

Knowing the income levels of my acquaintances, and the statistical probabilities I would understandably associate with the type of person who would expose his intellectual emptiness to the world by propounding such ignorant statements...as you have done...I make my buy/sell statement in full confidence of its likelihood.

Funny but, my social circles have me surrounded by 50-60 something professionals and otherwise who have lived highly accomplished lives having been "imbibers" from their teenage years...without an ounce of detriment attributable to their "ouncely" purchases.

Interestingly, and conversely, the people that I have personally observed being constitutionally incapable of climbing over the open flaps of, and out of, their perpetual under-achievement box, and who coincidentally have also been known to dance on the bong, are usually for more stymied and weighted down by the cases of beer in their bellies, and flagons of whiskey depending from their belts then by the light weight baggies in their jeans.

And were one to actually take a look before leaping off of the bridge spanning Foolish Dolt's Gulch, and plunging into the swirling waters of public simple-mindedness, and assumptive irrelevance, one might find that the predicaments and predilections lashing underachievers and substance abusers to their slow moving wagon wheels are formed from the fibrous strands stripped from the branches of the family tree...that planted firmly in the soil of inter-generational, and completely monetarily independent, parental disfunction, neglect, abuse and/or indifference.

You need some serious lessons in cause and affect before you deign to get up off your couch, make it the computer, and bless us with your display of ignorance.

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?

Well played sir! This post is

Well played sir! This post is the embodiment of the humorously ironic juxtaposition between nonsensical arguments against Cannabis that rely solely on emotional appeal and logical fallacy and well-articulated and rational arguments for the legalization of the plant. The irony is only augmented by the fact that the anti-pot crowd has the audacious hypocrisy to call users as well as the pro legalization crowd as "Stupid" and "Lazy" when their very argument suggests the opposite is true.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

I know...right...?

This is one fucked-up world we live in and it is populated by some seriously fucked-up people operating on fucked-up meme's that serve to only fuck-up more people's lives. No wonder that some people just want to get fucked-up...

Wha? .....hey....who stole my country?