id like to know where people stand on the legalization of weed. i personally am for it because it could greatly help the economy, plus hemp makes an extremely strong and long lasting paper so we wouldnt have to cut down trees. there are other reasons but i would like to know everyones opinion on WHY or WHY NOT we should legalize it.
We should legalize it, because it is just easier than trying so hard to focus cops and time and money and everything else into stopping it. And really, all it does is give you a relaxed feeling. It's not a hard drug that really screws with you like meth or cocaine. Plus, hemp makes great paper, like you said, which is much more renewable that tree paper
I think nearly all of AG is for legalization. This is a bit of a re-post. Anyway, I'm a strong anti-drug/alcohol person. Yet, I still feel it should be legalized. I'm sure it would still get some style of age limit and a good tax on it. It would be just like cigarettes and Alcohol. Though I'm against all of that stuff, I know it is available to me and what matters is making the personal choice to not use these items -- Making them illegal once or after they are already popular just begins Mexican drug wars, losers that can't get a job that sell weed, and addicts that try to act cool.
I think it should be legalized. Just look at all of the other counrties that have legalized drugs. Drug use and crime rate has gone down since they did. When its illegal people are afraid to seek help so they use drugs untill they end up dead. If it was legal it would be easier for addicts to get the help they needed. At least those are my views on the subject.
To be honest, I would perfer it illegal. But if it would be legalized, it would be regulated, making it safer to use (but people will still do stupid things under its influence.) There is one quote that I agree with, though.
Legalize it all. They'll weed themselves out.
We might see something like China's Opium Wars back in the... uh... 1800's, was it?
The drug violence in Mexico, South America, and Central America would likely decrease.
Proof for that can be found throughout history. Look at prohibition, for example. Alcohol was made illegal, so gang violence sky rocketed, and you get famous mobsters like John Dillenger, Al-Capone, Baby Face Nelson, and so on. So if stoners could get their Mary-J for free from Central and South America, based on history, (and it's said everywhere that history repeats itself) violence in those areas would decrease.
It should be legal primarily because there is zero evidence that the costs (both monetary and societal) would be higher than prohibition and a wealth of evidence to the contrary.
The Dutch provide perfect example of how recreational marijuana use is almost totally benign. The problem is that the way they go about it is incredibly wrong. Pot is still illegal, they just don't enforce the laws. Why would you have laws you don't enforce?
To be fair I believe the only reason it's still illegal is because of pressure from the US.
it's not legal here. it's tolerated. and to make it tolerated you need a way to sell it (coffeeshops) since these shops are real companys wich sell a illegal product. you need laws to make sure that they can excist. and that the goverment is able put taxes on the marijuana.
making it legal sounds easy but then you get people growing their own marijuana. and that doesn't matteras long they do not grow to much plants because then people start stealing electricity to warm their plants and the smell of drying marijuana in the whole neighborhood.
what we do not want is to legalise the growing of marijuana. thats also the reason why our laws on the matter or not 100% bullet-proof and thats also the reason why we are busy legalising marijuana for the last 30 year. but we are not much furter then back then.
I feel that the U.S. spends far too much money that we don't have to keep something off the streets that isn't doing much harm. We could also put a luxury tax on it like we do with tobacco in a feeble attempt to get out of small amounts of debt.
even the other countrys in europe wants us to stop selling it.
why do you think we were the only country togheter whit 1 other wich i can't remember 1.2.3. that voted against the european Constitution a few years ago?
it was because in that Constitution was no room for our drug policy. thats the reason why europe has no own Constitution yet.
the US has nothing to say about our drugs policy. even the other countrys in europe wants us to stop selling it. but we don't listen to them either.
not evrything is related to the usa --.--'
First of all, you seem to think I'm saying that proudly. If I'm right about that you are entirely mistaken. I find many projections of US political and military influence to be distasteful and in many cases outright wrong.
Secondly, while you're right to say that the US has not shaped Dutch drug laws in any direct manner I think you'd be surprised at the extent to which the US has influenced world drug policies as a whole over the last 60 years. The fact that the Dutch government knows primarily US-driven prohibition policies for soft drugs are entirely counterproductive and has chosen to have nothing to do with them is a good thing.