and i'm certain it will atleast for the 1st 10 year or so.
The possibility of an employee stealing marijuana from a store and actually getting away is extremely low, like they said. You make it sound like someone could easily just grab some from the back of the store and take it home without anyone noticing. And what's the ten year thing about o.O Also, marijuana would be a product. Do you mean that people would take it more lightly because it's legal? I know I wouldn't, but if they do, so what? People are going to do things without thinking them through no matter what. As long as it doesn't harm you, let them do and think what they want. I would say the word drug generally has a negative connotation, but I don't think it should be this way. I think people should actually be educated about pot in a way that doesn't just say it's bad. Why is it bad? Because they said so. People should form their own opinions and not just go with what they hear.
You mean like alcohol... Most people don't see alcohol as a big deal or a drug. And it's both.
I agree with you, but people just don't care. While I don't think alcohol should be outlawed, I think it's a very bad thing when not used responsibly, but as it's been stated that alcohol is more harmful than pot, so it's really not like alcohol. < long sentence
this is the problem i c when it gets legal. people will see it as a product not as drugs.
This statement doesn't make sense because drugs ARE products.
I guess my point is that we can't be afraid that people will be irresponsible. They will. However, we shouldn't build a society that caters towards the irresponsible, the careless, and the reckless. We must allow people to do what they think is right.
We shouldn't create special shops to sell marijuana, anyone should be able to sell it. If there's a problem with a kid stealing marijuana from the back, then we can handle it as a community under a local level. Until then, we can't hold out arms out in front of others saying "wait, something bad might happen." There will be problems. However, we must not only look at the possible problems, but we should also look at the advantages. People who are not thieves and responsible can buy and smoke marijuana. We should allow them to do so without forcing them to go to special shops, getting special licenses, or whatever other "safety precaution means there are.
I'm not against special, far from it. However, it should be up to the people, not the government.
hmmm yea thats not what i ment whit stashes. i ment the stash in the backroom. inmagion a teenager working at wall-markt and walks upon the weed stash in the back-room. he can simply take it and bring some for his friends. maybe wall-markt put a camera on it or whatever. but most smaller stores wont. all those stashes waiting to be put in the store are the places they will get it from.
Even if there's not a security camera, the owner will realize that he's missing inventory and could fire that worker and press charges for theft.
This statement doesn't make sense because drugs ARE products.
It makes perfect sense. People get desensitized to what things are when they become normal. When you ask someone what methamphetamine is the general answer you're going to get is that it is a drug. They're saying that when you ask the same question for what alcohol is you'll get that it's a drink. There is a connotative difference with our society and how it views "drinks" compared to "drugs." They may be the same, but their connotative classification in society might have them labeled differently. The mindset is thus, "I'm not doing drugs... I'm simply sipping on a drink." An intelligent person such as yourself sees that the item is both a drug and a product. Do you think that the rest of the world is just as intelligent as you? As a little kid, I always classed alcohol differently from drugs. Drugs for me was something that you either shot up, it came in a child proof canister(liquids), snorted, or a pill you popped. I think the signs that say "no drugs OR ALCOHOL" have the alcohol part tacked in there b/c people use the excuse of "I didn't know alcohol was a drug!!?!?!?" as a means of justifying bringing it into wherever it is. Whether that's sincere ignorance or a lie, that lack of acknowledging that certain things are both drugs and products still exists. ...unless you really think that everyone else is just as smart as you are.
It makes perfect sense...but it may or may not be true.
then we can handle it as a community under a local level.
you mean by the local community government and it's police, right? Isn't it illegal to punish someone for an action the gov't has deemed a crime w/o putting them through the judicial system? Being a vigilante is kinda against the rules, isn't it?
It makes perfect sense. People get desensitized to what things are when they become normal. When you ask someone what methamphetamine is the general answer you're going to get is that it is a drug. They're saying that when you ask the same question for what alcohol is you'll get that it's a drink. There is a connotative difference with our society and how it views "drinks" compared to "drugs." They may be the same, but their connotative classification in society might have them labeled differently. The mindset is thus, "I'm not doing drugs... I'm simply sipping on a drink."
You're right, people do look at alcohol as if it's not a drug. However, this isn't reason to keep marijuana illegal for a number of different reasons. One reason actually worth pointing out is that alcohol was prohibited at one point in time and prohibition didn't stop people from drinking. Alcohol was demonized as a way to prevent people from being desensitized, and all we ended up with was violence.
you mean by the local community government and it's police, right?
Even though the local community government and its police can be used, it isn't by any means the only solution. What are some other solutions? I don't know, I can't read into the future. I think the best way to come up with a solution is to allow people to solve problems through creative non-coercive means, rather than appointing someone who apparently knows what is best for everyone and treat everyone as potential criminals by limiting their freedoms. That being said, one idea I have, but by no means is the only solution, is that a community who is unhappy with how a business is operating could try to persuade others not to buy from said business until changes are made. For example, if a group of people believes a shop should start selling marijuana behind the counter instead of having it on a shelf, then those people can try to convince others to write to the business owners, and maybe even threaten to buy from a different business. IF it doesn't work, then apparently the problem isn't something most people are concerned with. I understand that there are flaws, but I'm sure there are people out there who can come up with even better non coercive solutions.
My point is that I don't believe anyone should ever be put in a position where a. they can claim to know what is best for the people, and b. force their "I know what's best" solution on people who disagree with them, or anyone for that matter. For example, a doctor may know what's best for you, but it's okay because he doesn't have the power to force you to take certain medication or to live on certain diets. The only truth that everyone should be held by is one that no one may use force to get what they want from others and that they may not harm other people and their property (unless it's consensual e.g. wrestling, helping a neighbor cut down a tree, using plates as clay clay pigeons).
One reason actually worth pointing out is that alcohol was prohibited at one point in time and prohibition didn't stop people from drinking. Alcohol was demonized as a way to prevent people from being desensitized, and all we ended up with was violence.
Interesting how much that mirrors the prohibition of other drugs.
I just read something interesting on reddit that's related to this topic. It's about the changes of the law in Canada:
The omnibus legislation imposes one-year mandatory minimums for sexually assaulting a child, luring a child via the Internet or involving a child in bestiality. All three of these offences carry lighter automatic sentences than those for people running medium-sized grow-ops in rental property or on someone else's land.
A pedophile who gets a child to watch pornography with him, or a pervert exposing himself to kids at a playground, would receive a minimum 90-day sentence, half the term of a man convicted of growing six pot plants in his own home.
The maximum sentence for growing marijuana would double from seven to 14 years, the same maximum applied to someone using a weapon during a child ****, and four years more than for someone sexually assaulting a kid without using a weapon.
A substance used in the diagnosis, treatment, or prevention of a disease or as a component of a medication.
and also
A chemical substance, such as a narcotic or hallucinogen, that affects the central nervous system, causing changes in behavior and often addiction.
If you do kick her while your high I'm gonna change my mind about potâ¦. but what's wrong with the dictionary definition? why make a new one?; if your definition is not a generally accepted definition, and you're using the word differently from others, you might as well use a different one or make up your own⦠at least i think so
Well, the point of this is to see what people think of drugs. Sure anyone can tell me that it is a substance that affects the brain. But asking waht drugs are often gets people to express how they feel without much reasoning, which is a good place to start
to be honest i belive the legalization of marijuana would cut down not only on the crime rait but also on the number of prisoner population as well. its just like after proabition was lifted. once weed is legal it will nolonger have to be hadled by organized (or unorganized for that mater) crime and the governement would make a killing in taxes! also decent people would not be polluting the jails that are being funded by yours and mine tax dollars.
