<p>Smoking pot 2-3 times per week isn't what I'd call "occasional" use.</p>
<p>Some people think smoking weed is bad, some think its harmless and fun. Some people thought that slavery was wrong, some thought it was Biblically-sound and natural. Some people think women can't show their faces and put them in burqas, some people think women can do whatever the hell they want. Some people think cheating is wrong, others think that good grades are too important to be deterred from cheating. </p>
<p>Whatever. Morals are relative. Everyone thinks differently. Welcome to the real world.</p>
<p>A lot of my friends are starting to get more into weed and I still love them and will continue hanging out with them. If any of them gets too into it and starts asking me for money 'cause they're all out of dough to buy it, I'm telling them to **** off though. And hope they don't start stealing **** to pay for their weed.</p>
<p>Oh, and sv3a, that was lame dude. Don't tell someone not to use bold letters in bold letters.</p>
<p>usually it's 2 times a week (on saturday and wednesday nights, I don't have class till 2:30 pm on thursdays), this week's special cause it's HOUSEPARTY weekend, officially listed on the academic calendar and school sponsored party weekend hahaha, okay so yeah usualy 2 timesa week, and I've been doing amazingly well in school, and am deliciusly not sketchy so I'm not worried about it catchingup with me. we hide things well and towel the door and blow out the window etc, so i'm not worried. it has had zro effect on my grades thus far and I have my priorities straight enough that if it did start to have an effect i'd stop. I also basically do not drink, so counter smoking up a couple times a week/ not getting sick/ falling asleep relaxed with drinking a lot/vomiting/hangover mmmm yeAH I'LL take smoking thanx</p>
<p>"Oh, and sv3a, that was lame dude. Don't tell someone not to use bold letters in bold letters."</p>
<p>Hmm, I think you missed the point, especially since I had already told them not to use bold letters. Hey, I guess they really do work then!</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
sexual abuse violates the rights of others. If I smoke a big ass rock of crack, I'm harming no one but myself.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That's not true. Who says its sexual abuse? Maybe someone who has sex with kids will insist that it was consensual, he didn't hurt the kid physically, the kid liked it, and he obviously did too so what's the harm? He didn't think he violated anyone's rights.</p>
<p>The crack argument is really stupid. And selfish. Do you really think someone who does crack is just harming their own beings? </p>
<p>Maybe you don't have a mom or dad who would be devastated if their kid was on crack but a lot of other people do. Maybe you don't have a bright future ahead of you, but a lot of people do and know that cocaine use will hurt that. Maybe you have a ton of money to spend or you have people to steal from to pay for your crack, but most people don't and don't want to steal money from others. Maybe you don't have friends that actually would be worried for you and hurt for you if you took crack, but most other people do.</p>
<p>Its remarkably selfish to think that drug use ONLY impacts YOU. It's downright stupid, even. Drug use can and often does impact everyone you know.</p>
<p>Marijuana use generally only impacts the user. Well, I take that back. Due to governmental restrictions on the sale and possession of marijuana, there exists a black market for its distribution, and all related circumstances of such a market exist. So there is a cost that has resulted from the government's restriction of it.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
especially since I had already told them not to use bold letters
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Really, who the **** cares about whether letters are bold? Anyone can bold whatever the hell they want. The sight of bold letters hurt your eyes or something?</p>
<p>Well, at least three people explicitly cared about whether or not the letters are bold, if you go and actually read the posts. It's just not generally admirable to post your arguments in bold as if to say it's some sort of profound statement that rises above the rest. Either way, this is a nonissue now, as he or she has stopped using bold letters.</p>
<p>PEAL, I won't argue with you about the crack issue. I think you're right on that, because coccaine has more significant effects. However, I don't think that cannabis has been shown to cause any real harm to others. It's pretty much impossible to kill yourself using cannabis, and driving related deaths where cannabis was involved also involve alcohol, so it's hard to demonstrate what the true effects cannabis has on these situations at least in the United States (mainly due to illegality and 'moral concerns').</p>
<p>Too bad. The government has no right to tell me what I can or can not take, put in my mouth, and light on fire. Also, as for "needy crackhead" programs: these would obviously need to be abolished before crack is legalized.</p>
<p>Hurting my friend's feelings by taking crack is tragic, but not a violation of his rights. Touching a 9 year old sexually is a violation of his/her rights - a 9 year old can not consent to sex. Simple enough. </p>
<p>I also doubt that the "stigma" of crack would go away. I know where I can get crack - I live in the ghetto. I could probably get away with it. However, I know crack kills you - so do most Americans. Supply increasing does not automatically increase demand.</p>
<p>neverborn, your first paragraph shows a poor understanding of public policy and the role that government plays. You can't simply abolish social welfare programs to make way for legalized crack. As has been established, crack would have detrimental effects on communities, and, as such, the government should prohibit its sale.</p>
<p>And yes, if legalized, some of the stigma of crack use would go away. It would be more freely available and procurement would have no risks. This is not an issue of "supply increasing does not automatically increase demand." The legalization of crack cocaine would move it from the black market to the domain of "normal" goods, which are viewed in a vastly different manner under the law.</p>
<p>equine99, I salute you for reaching a new peak of CC greatness. Posting while drunk? Such dedication. :p</p>
<p>Social welfare problems should be abolished for many other reasons. Legalized crack is one of them.</p>
<p>The rights of the collective do not trump the rights of the individual - if I am harming no one else but myself then I should have the right to do it. IF I steal money from you to buy crack, put me in jail. If I kill someone, hit someone with a car, steal, rob, break into a home, etc. while I'm on crack (or alcohol, or NOTHING) - put me in prison!</p>
<p>Legalization does not mean the substance no longer kills you - everyone will still know this. If crack and heroin were legal tomorrow, would you buy any?</p>
<p>If crack were legal, no, I wouldn't use it. But I can guarantee you that consumption across the entire population would increase. </p>
<p>"If I kill someone, hit someone with a car, steal, rob, break into a home, etc. while I'm on crack (or alcohol, or NOTHING) - put me in prison!"</p>
<p>Ok, great. So when antisocial behaviors increase due to increase crack consumption, who foots the prison bill?</p>
<p>Laws aren't always just used for punishment, but also for preventative measures. We generally don't want that person killed in the first place, which is why we restrict individuals in certain situations that overall lowers the likelihood that you kill someone. This is why we have drunk driving laws, speed limits (to an extent), and the like. Laws are there to strike that balance between safety and reason. We do not live in an anarchist society, thus at least in the US (even elsewhere) the rights of the individual are perhaps more important, but they don't 'trump' the collective.</p>
<p>Speed limits are the biggest crock of **** ever, sv3a - don't get me started on those.</p>
<p>Drunk driving laws sure - driving under the influence of a controlled substance (crack, weed, whatever) - alcohol isn't illegal, crack shouldn't be either.</p>
<p>cav: The state. There will be less people imprisoned for stealing to get $ for crack than the number in prison for nonviolent drug offenses now.</p>
<p>neverborn: there's a reason why the world doesn't work the way you think it should. That's because people who are smarter and more educated than you are making responsible policy decisions for the betterment of society. Sometimes, they're a bit off, as with the prohibition of marijuana, but in many cases they're right on.</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
Gang violence would decrease to almost 0 overnight due to turf wars for selling drugs being made irrelevant. States would have double their money due to 60% of prisoners that are in jail for non violent drug offenses being released.
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>Yeah, but those 60%, if not in jail, but still be running around dealing and distributing drugs that have the potency to seriously damage and kill people. That is why it is illegal. Because its effects are so dangerous and destructive and hurts people. </p>
<p>Maybe you, neverborn, can go on and on about how drugs don't hurt anyone but the individual who takes them. But as a whole and complete society, such destructive behavior being done to an individual should not be tolerated, even if the individual did it to themselves. They should be helped, not thanked for only hurting themselves.</p>
<p>PEALS-05, if crack cocaine were legalized, it almost surely would not be sold on street corners by sketchy dealers. It would be sold through slightly more legitimate means. Not that that matters - the end result would be the same.</p>
<p>I agree with your second paragraph, but marijuana should not be lumped in with crack, meth, etc.</p>
<p>"Speed limits are the biggest crock of **** ever, sv3a - don't get me started on those."</p>
<p>Like I said, only part of the reasons speed limits exist is because of safety concerns- not all of it as we can tell from history. However, the aptitude and experience required for receiving a driver's license in the United States is generally lower than nations where some highways don't have speed limits, like Germany. The discrepancy causes the law to some degree.</p>
<p>"Drunk driving laws sure - driving under the influence of a controlled substance (crack, weed, whatever) - alcohol isn't illegal, crack shouldn't be either."</p>
<p>How can you say that the individual trumps the community and then try to restrict my personal choice to drive when I'm drunk?</p>
<p>Your choice to drive when you're drunk is infringing on the rights of others: you will not be able to react fast enough to other drivers, thus, you are infringing on their right to life.</p>
<p>An individual should not be thanked for doing crack - I never said that. DOn't put words in my mouth PEALS.</p>
<p>cav: Ad hominem attacks aren't debate. Try again. The public good be damned, I will have no part of it.</p>