Recreational Pot; has your view changed?

[RiverBend]

I worked over 30 years at a company that did drug testing for cause, accidents, obvious instances, etc, they never took up random lottery testing because they knew they might, or would, loose most of their top management up to their president. But now I am no longer there and don't have to be afraid some jerk might run over my foot with a forklift and get us both tested. But dang it, what was a four finger lid for $20 many years ago is now $100 a 1/4 so still outta that game, love my gin & tonic though only after 7PM, and never if driving anywhere.

 

[BanjoJohn]

My father is a recovering alcoholic for 33 years.
I also have a cousin that's an "any substance abuser" 10 or 12 DUIs, he's on and off the wagon several times a year.

Overweight people are just as sick as alcoholics and drug abusers, in my opinion.

Quality of life is what you choose for yourself.

 

[strongtactics]

I've lost family and friends to both alcohol and drugs. After living with an alcoholic for 8 years I can honestly say I had much rather her been smoking pot than drinking. She's gone and my life is so much better now and I have woman who I love dearly but alcohol is a hell of a drug when it's abused. Moderation is key with anything. Being when I am politically I just don't think it's the government's job to be the police of morality, I think that's a standard as a free man that you should set yourself as long as no one else is being harmed.

And it seems like that part (bolded) is where things begin to get dicey for some folks (based on the comments and opinions provided here). When would someone consider it harming others? That answer probably will vary from person to person, which generates the differing opinions.

As I stated earlier, I wish something as simple as a law would make all of it go away, but it doesn't. In some ways, it complicates things. Do laws against alcohol/drugs protect people? I don't know. If someone drinks and drives and ends up killing someone, then the law against DUI certainly didn't protect the victim, it simply punishes the offender. Does criminalizing something prevent SOME people from doing it? Yes, I am sure that it does. Does it make others WANT to do it? Yes, I am sure that it does as well (somebody mentioned the desire to have the "bad boy" persona earlier, which is true for SOME people). People's motivations and desires vary wildly and as everyone has said, we all have to make the choice daily to use alcohol/drugs or not, although the choice for some is incredibly easy and for others it is not.

 

[BanjoJohn]

And it seems like that part (bolded) is where things begin to get dicey for some folks (based on the comments and opinions provided here). When would someone consider it harming others? That answer probably will vary from person to person, which generates the differing opinions.

As I stated earlier, I wish something as simple as a law would make all of it go away, but it doesn't. In some ways, it complicates things. Do laws against alcohol/drugs protect people? I don't know. If someone drinks and drives and ends up killing someone, then the law against DUI certainly didn't protect the victim, it simply punishes the offender. Does criminalizing something prevent SOME people from doing it? Yes, I am sure that it does. Does it make others WANT to do it? Yes, I am sure that it does as well (somebody mentioned the desire to have the "bad boy" persona earlier, which is true for SOME people). People's motivations and desires vary wildly and as everyone has said, we all have to make the choice daily to use alcohol/drugs or not, although the choice for some is incredibly easy and for others it is not.

The same could be said for gun ownership. If you walk through the woods taking "brush shots" and eventually kill someone, gun laws certainly didn't protect the victim.

Drugs are legal in Amsterdam. Amsterdam doesn't have a drug problem.

 

[redditmodsaregay]

Legalize it, strap all kinds of spendy license requirements and taxes to it and rake in the money from those whiny democrats, they can pay for our free trade schools!

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[Spiderman11]

The same could be said for gun ownership. If you walk through the woods taking "brush shots" and eventually kill someone, gun laws certainly didn't protect the victim.

The purpose of a law is not to prevent an action, but to create a standard by which the violator can be held accountable. Fear of the consequences of being held accountable is the "prevention". Red lights and stop signs don't always stop crashes, are you advocating that we remove all traffic signs and signals because people are still crashing?

 

[redditmodsaregay]

I have a mixed opinion on it. In one way I can see it vastly reducing the population of inmates within the state and even county level detention centers and prisons. I could also see it being used as a gateway drug stopping or atleast slowing down, because at the end of the day there will be someone out there chasing a "better" high still. Legalization in my opinion would require vast regulation on it, i.e. where you can buy it legally, legal age of consumption, where it can legally be grown, ect. Legalization would open a huge can of worms for atleast the first few years of it being legal but at the same time the can almost needs to be opened.

It already has been opened, uncle Sam just won't touch it yet

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

[GeauxLSU]

I've lost family and friends to both alcohol and drugs. After living with an alcoholic for 8 years I can honestly say I had much rather her been smoking pot than drinking. She's gone and my life is so much better now and I have woman who I love dearly but alcohol is a hell of a drug when it's abused. Moderation is key with anything. Being when I am politically I just don't think it's the government's job to be the police of morality, I think that's a standard as a free man that you should set yourself as long as no one else is being harmed.

To be fair, they aren't policing morality. That is a bumper sticker talking point by Rastafarians . They are policing public safety. If drug addicts never left home while under the influence and never harmed anyone else while they melted their brains, there wouldn't be a "war on drugs". While there are plenty of similarities between drugs and alcohol to merit some thought, there also more than enough differences to make the pure analogy pointless.

 

[strongtactics]

The same could be said for gun ownership. If you walk through the woods taking "brush shots" and eventually kill someone, gun laws certainly didn't protect the victim.

Drugs are legal in Amsterdam. Amsterdam doesn't have a drug problem.

Correct on your first point, although I am not sure why you brought that up?

I am not sure about your second point. I don't know what you consider a drug problem and I certainly don't know the statistics for drug deaths, addiction rates, etc for Amsterdam either. Not disagreeing with you, I just can't agree that Amsterdam doesn't have a drug problem without some research on my part. I am sure that in every country, regardless of drug laws, there are overdoses, addicts, etc, so at what point is there a "drug problem?" Again, I am not sure.

 

[BanjoJohn]

The purpose of a law is not to prevent an action, but to create a standard by which the violator can be held accountable. Fear of the consequences of being held accountable is the "prevention". Red lights and stop signs don't always stop crashes, are you advocating that we remove all traffic signs and signals because people are still crashing?

Really? That's what you got from my post?

It's not the signs, it's the vehicles that we must do away with. DJD