Should recreational marijuana be legal in all 50 States?

[YoHoeRose]

Is it legal in your state?

Yes

No

[nightdrot]

The British political philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

The core argument is that legalization is an expansion of liberty, that we already have alcohol and tobacco as intoxicants, and that marijuana is essentially harmless compared to other drugs.

The first point is likely to prove ephemeral. Even legalized, marijuana will be a controlled substance sales of which will, at a minimum, be limited to those 18 (or perhaps 21) years of age or older. To enforce this will requite an enormous regulatory, monitoring and law enforcement apparatus. Throw in that it will undoubtedly be taxed by state and local - and Federal jurisdictions - eager to cash in on the windfall, and the expansion of government bureaucracy and the court system will likely dwarf anything that the current prohibition requires.

Say what you will, the IRS, the FDA, OSHA and other such agencies do not, at the moment play a role in the law with marijuana. It is largely a matter for the courts and law enforcement. Legalize it, and whole panoply of government entities will become involved.

As to comparing it to tobacco and alcohol, do we really want another tobacco or alcohol. How much do those intoxicants cost the country in blood and treasure each year. Insert the known and unknown side effects of marijuana into the mix, it would be an ocean of misery.

One example, since Colorado legalized marijuana, emergency room admissions of children who have stumbled on mom and dad's stash have skyrocketed. Also, intoxicated driving convictions have similarly soared and employers have reported an increase in workplace accidents.

As to marijuana being harmless. This is relative. It is known that frequent users of marijuana are prone to schizophrenia - though it is disputed if marijuana is cause or effect. Minors who use marijuana show decreased IQ levels and behavior problems. These are known problems.

Throw in what we do not know and may learn later. (How long did it take before the linkage between tobacco and lung cancer was established?) Further, once these problems are discovered you can be assured that the demand for government assistance programs to aid the victims will be intense. The middle class loves it indulgences, but hates paying for them.

Add it all up, legalization is a bad idea. That said, given the Americans public's aforementioned proclivity for self-indulgence, it will likely continue to happen.

[MikeInHawaii]

To answer your question about how long it took to establish the link between tobacco and lung cancer…King James IV said something about tobacco ruining the lungs within about 20 years of Sir Walter Raleigh introducing tobacco to the old world. Life insurance companies had different rates for smokers and non-smokers in the 1840s. A Sinclair Lewis novel, I think it was Babbit, said something about it in 1920. My father was born in 1934 and said his high school coaches told athletes they would have no stamina if the smoked.

The effects were known for centuries before big tobacco would admit to them.

[nightdrot]

@MikeInHawaii Sort of makes the point, does it not? Does a good society facilitate the use of the means of the death of its own citizens? Alternatively, do good societies, insofar as is possible, not facilitate the habits of good citizenship and self-restraint in their people?

This merely reinforcing the argument against legalization of marijuana. It has been asked, "What about alcohol and tobacco?" This begs the question, does a good society want another tobacco or alcohol given the costs both impose on society both in terms of the individual and collectively.

Suffice to say, your point amplifies my argument.

[Juxtapose]

Self determination and bodily autonomy are non-negotiable until you violate somebody else's rights (such as driving drunk).

[Juxtapose]

Stop trying to dictate how I live my life with the threat of lethal force.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose No, bodily autonomy are not absolute. You are not free to drink and drive. You are not free to commit suicide. (If there were no laws against it, the state would have no basis to intervene to save your life.) You are not free to go naked in public.

These are just a few examples that don't even really begin to explore where prudence dictates, and where society stipulates, that the lines are drawn. Suffice to say, you are asserting a principle that does not exist in practice or theory.

[KingofCups]

@nightdrot Damn bro it's says add opinion not insert an essay. You come off as sounding very superior - mellow out, smoke a J, and don't be such a tight ass.

[nightdrot]

@KingofCups There is a reason that they give you a 600 or so character limit. They intend for you to use it.

Further, if it is worth offering an opinion, then it is worth offering a logical rationale for that opinion. If that sounds superior, then guilty as charged. Better than sounding superficial and simplistic.

[Juxtapose]

I already mentioned driving drunk and such dude.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose Yes, and you seem to have ignored the implications of your own argument. Sort of my point, you'll understand. You went with a simple and short answer and it was inadequate to your purposes.

[Juxtapose]

I already made my position pretty clear. If your rights do not violate other people's rights (mostly endangering them) then you should have freedom.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose Yes, but that is ambiguous. Driving drunk - to use that example - does not infringe on anyone's rights. It has the potential to do so, but not necessarily so.

If that is the principle, then legalizing drugs can be similarly restricted. After all, have you seen the data on what has happened in states that legalized marijuana? Increased petty theft. Increased traffic accidents. Increased addiction rates.

You seem to think that the answer is simple. Life is seldom so.

[Juxtapose]

Driving drunk directly threatens other people. Smoking weed in my home or whatever other drug does not but nice try.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose Sorry, the data do not support you. Again, look at the data from states where marijuana has been legalized. Drug related auto accidents are up. Addiction rates are up. Spousal abuse increases as does the incidence of child abuse. There has also been a skyrocketing increase in the number of children who are poisoned after they stumbled on mom and dad's stash.

The list goes on.

Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" Suffice to say that the answer is that we choose to be a drug soused people who are content to wallow in self-indulgence does not speak well of us, nor of the durability of self-government.

Suffice to say, at the very least, these questions require more explanation than your simplistic one or two sentence replies allow for.

[Juxtapose]

By your line of logic we should ban cars too lol.

[Juxtapose]

We'd be so much safer without cars.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose No, a balance must be struck and cars serve a useful purpose. They are not needless indulgences that put lives at risk merely for the pleasure of those whose purpose is mere pleasure.

[Juxtapose]

Let individuals rule over themselves unless they are using the road. Government involvement in people's lives should be minimized whenever possible especially when it comes to personal freedom and bodily autonomy.

I can see the logic against drunk driving, I'm using a government paid for road and traffic laws apply to me as a necessary evil, a. k. a restriction. Driving drunk is not driving well at all.

Someone smoking weed is fine, using weed doesn't make them criminals. Have you ever tried anything at all, gotten drunk? Being drunk is far more intoxicating than being high on weed but weed deserves to be a schedule 1 controlled substance? Come on, the government is obviously being malicious and wants to fill up private prisons with pot smokers or other people minding their own business.

I really despise authoritarians who don't know enough to mind their own business.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose You really have no idea what an authoritarian is, do you. (Just for the record, I have Jewish relatives who lived under the Nazis in Poland and then under the communists after that. I also have German relatives who lived behind the Iron Curtain and managed to escape. Trust me, I know what authoritarian - and totalitarian - is.)

Yours is merely an excuse and a pretext for self-indulgence. You do not seem to grasp what is necessary, the intellectual and moral qualities, to make a democratic society work. Not for nothing is it referred to as "ordered liberty."

When the law rewards mere self-indulgence for its' own sake and takes no account of the cost, it undermines the very culture of self-discipline and self-control that makes liberty possible. It then descends from democracy into mere nihilism. Thus what we currently have in the streets of this country.

At any rate, you began this discussion by writing, "Damn bro it's says add opinion not insert an essay."

Congratulations, you have now written your own essay and thus proved my point. Complex questions required well thought out and extended answers. "Let he who has not sinned cast the first stone." As to the rest, a society that indulges excess and intoxication is apt to see lots more of it - with all the consequences that entails.

[Juxtapose]

Wasn't me, it was the other guy man. I never said "bruh" to you.

I am into self determination, not social engineering. I will reply more later but I had to correct you.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose My apologies on the first point.

As to the second, try this: It is not social engineering to establish laws by democratic means that seek to reinforce those habits and customs that sustain a democracy and a stable social order.

What are the cultural and social prerequisites to the successful functioning of a democracy? Is democracy a spontaneous condition or does it require societal and individual discipline?

[nightdrot]

P. S. As per the points above, I give you this quote from Edmund Burke:

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites. ... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

"In that case, Prudence (in all things a Virtue, in Politicks the first of Virtues) will lead us rather to acquiesce in some qualified plan that does not come up to the full perfection of the abstract Idea, than to push for the more perfect, which cannot be attain'd without tearing to pieces the whole contexture of the commonwealth, and creating an heart-ache in a thousand worthy bosoms. In that case combining the means and end, the less perfect is the more desirable"

"These metaphysic rights entering into common life, like rays of light which pierce into a dense medium, are, by the laws of Nature, refracted from their straight line. Indeed, in the gross and complicated mass of human passions and concerns, the primitive rights of man undergo such a variety of refractions and reflections that it becomes absurd to talk of them as if they continued in the simplicity of their original direction."

[Juxtapose]

"When the law rewards mere self-indulgence for its' own sake"

I'm not looking for a reward, I'm looking to keep the government out of my body. You want the government to put a gun to my head and tell me I can't do what I want. You're no better than conservatives who violate women's bodily autonomy by forcing them to carry out pregnancies.

My body is my own, not the government's.

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites"

I could be an amoral sociopath but that does not disqualify me from personal freedom. I should only be stopped by the law when I am hurting somebody at least as directly as drunk driving does.

[Juxtapose]

[Juxtapose]

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose As I say, I am a Hamiltonian, not a Jeffersonian. As to the second quote, that is a risk that I am prepared to let you take. It begs the question though if you are so generous as to make others take it - not to mention begging the question of whether or not a good society is one that waives away unnecessary and optional risks that entail collateral damage to others.

As to the first quote, I go back to Burke - "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do what they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations."

Also, "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites"

[Juxtapose]

It sounds an awful like you don't want people to really make decisions for themselves and you would rather make the choice for them since you view them as too stupid to do it for themselves. You think people left without government guidance are going to poison society.

Our choices in founding fathers definitely shows our different philosophies.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose To your latter point, that is true.

As to your former point, you appear have not to considered the full implications of your thinking. Freedom is a means to the pursuit of virtue, as Aristotle noted. A society that does not point toward virtue is not virtuous, it is decadent.

If you lack self-restraint, you are not apt to pursue virtue but self-indulgence. Although a balance must be struck, society need not indulge bad choices.

Another example, once upon a time, separate lunch counters were perfectly acceptable. After all, the store owner owns the store, should it not be his choice, right or wrong, how he treats his customers? Suffice to say, the society decided that the equal treatment of all customers was more conducive to a moral and democratic order than indulging the store owner's biases.

To marijuana, the society that shrugs in indifference as to what the citizens puts in his/her body in the privacy of his/her home is not apt to see the line drawn there. Today marijuana, why not cocaine tomorrow? Heroin?

Indeed, the data show that in states that legalized recreational marijuana have seen an explosion in addiction rates - the costs of those addictions to be then paid by both the individual and the larger society. This in the form of higher traffic accidents, higher insurance rates and much else besides.

Bottom line, the problem with your argument at the most basic level is both moral - does a good society shrug in indifference at error? - and practical - the line between public and private is not nearly so clear as you imagine. Indeed, again pace my Burke quote, free societies will not endure where there is no habit of restraint.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah actually I want all drugs to be legal especially if people are doing it in the privacy if their own homes and not around kids or anything.

[Juxtapose]

You're still trying to socially engineer society and you're talking about virtue which isn't even required for society to function. Amoral sociopaths have just as much of a place in society as saints so long as they obey the laws.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose No, social engineering is the war on poverty and such, with the expectation of perfect outcomes. I, by contrast, merely wish to delegitimize those behaviors that our not conducive to a harmonious and stable social order.

It is a fine distinction, but an important one. The difference is that I have no expectation that I will prevent all drug consumption. Rather, I wish to stigmatize and delegitimize those behaviors that, as I say, do not conduce to a stable and healthy social order.

Oh, and no, "amoral socipaths" do NOT have a right to be in society. That is why we jail the criminal, the thief, the homicidal maniac, the child abuser and so on. We take them out of society both to protect society, to delegitimize their amorality, and to deter further such amorality.

[Juxtapose]

On the other points I don't think we are ever going to agree on but I will mention something about sociopaths.

An intelligent sociopath is going to realize that it's better to get along to go along, ya know? They will put on a mask and pretend to be the perfectly friendly neighbor and go about their lives not really messing with people because they don't give a shit about anybody. It doesn't automatically mean they are sadistic maniacs, they can be people who have no empathy but really see the practical application of leaving people alone so they will leave them alone.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose Well, typically, if a sociopath does not act like a sociopath, then the law leaves him or her to their own devices. Society typically draws the line at behaviors that are inimical to the social order or at least that has the effect of undermining its standards.

That said, typically, the socially responsible sociopath is what they would call, in the business, an oxymoron.

[Juxtapose]

That's just because the violent sociopaths get the most press. The guy presenting himself as an average Joe isn't going to make headlines even if deep down he doesn't care about anyone but himself.

[nightdrot]

@Juxtapose Well, I will leave that to the psychologists. Suffice to say, enduring democracies do not give legal scope to sociopaths. That is both as a defense and a deterrent.

[WeirdoFriendly]

It is not legal in my state but I used to smoke it anyway. It was a fun time, I will admit. However, for those 3 years that I smoked marijuana (not recreational), I was having blackouts. I didn't know why until a friend was videoing me my last time. I was having a seizure. (Take note that I got this week from a friend and he doesn't lace it with anything). So, after that I just quit all together. I'm not putting my life on the line for an hour or two of fun. Nor do I think anyone else should.

Of course, not everyone has the same reaction towards it, but someone might even after their first time. It all just depends on how well their brain can take it.

I vote no.

[Aerissa_Jade]

States rights issue, up to each state to decide.

Personally I'm okay with it, but the penalties for hurting others while high on it need to be increased a thousand fold first.

Driving while high, felony... five years minimum, no parole. Get high all you want, but do not get behind the wheel. This would also apply to other activities such as target shooting while high, or anything that could hurt others.

Do it but stay home and stay safe and keep others safe.

Of course businesses will always have the right to do random drug tests and can fire you or not hire you, even if it is legal.

[whirled_up_girl]

It's only legal in my state for medical reasons, but sure I have not problem with it being legal for recreational uses. If alcohol is legal than marijuana should be legal too, in my opinion.

[OlderAndWiser]

That decision should be made by each of the fifty states.

[ArtemisSilver]

Makes it an enforcement nightmare though. Should just be misdemeanor in states that are opposed to avoid wasting law enforcement and jail resources.

[OlderAndWiser]

@ArtemisSilver

1. I am not aware of any state in which simpl possession is a felony; are you?

2. Whether it is an enforcement nightmare is a question that each state gets to answer for itself when it makes the laws.

[ArtemisSilver]

I'm not that versed in State laws being that I'm not even American, I just think a unified criminal code makes things simpler in Canada and would benefit the US also.

[ArtemisSilver]

All the little inconsistencies cause you folks lots of trouble. Just look how many people lost faith in the US electoral process in the last few elections for example.

[OlderAndWiser]

@ArtemisSilver The US is simply too large and diverse to be governed by one unified law. What suits people in California and Oregon would be absolutely rejected by the majority of people in Alabama and Georgia. And our country began as 13 separate states functioning as separate nations. When we formed our federal government, the states did not want to cede to much autonomy so, unlike most other countries, the US federal government has more limited powers and more power retained at the state level.

The problem in recent elections has not been the laws per se but the ways in which they were or were not implemented.

[ArtemisSilver]

I'm sure that the leftist fascist government you guys will end up with will have a very harsh universal law. Unless the country splits apart.

[OlderAndWiser]

@ArtemisSilver That would require a major restructuring of our government. I suppose that is not out of the realm of possibilities for the extremists on the left.

[ArtemisSilver]

Don't put it past them, they're running almost every institution already.

[mastema]

@OlderAndWiser South Carolina.

[OlderAndWiser]

@mastema "A person who violates this subsection with respect to twenty-eight grams or one ounce or less of marijuana or ten grams or less of hashish is guilty of a MISDEMEANOR and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned not more than thirty days or fined not less than one hundred dollars nor more than two hundred dollars." SC Code sec. 44-53-370(d)(4)

[MCheetah]

I don't like weed culture or the loser stoners and potheads that occupy it. But keeping marijuana illegal does nothing to help anyone. Just legalize it in all 50 states and tax the f*ck out of it. National debt solved!

So personally, I dislike everything about marijuana. But on a broader social level, I don't see why it should stay illegal considering alcohol and tobacco are legal and just as bad for you. (No, I don't want to hear your stupid arguments about why "weed is like, healthy for you, dude!" I already compromised in saying it should be legalized; don't push your luck.)

[Danzigdawson]

I'm Canadian. It's been legal here since 2018. Our dear conservatives over here were predicting "social chaos" and were having panic attacks over the possibility of teens getting their hands on weed easily (as if it didn't happen when it was illegal).

None of those things happened and now the government has a new, lucrative source of income. Plus, the weed is so much better than the "mystery weed" we used to buy from some shady dealer back in the day...

[bean2k21]

Not only should it be legal but it should be mandatory that everyone gets stoned out of their gourd and listens to reggae music every day.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/kpPQSsi9sw8

[ArtemisSilver]

Yeah, I suppose it should be sold taxed, and regulated, but I really don't like the smell. I would prefer a place to have bylaws to prevent it from bugging my kids wafting in the window. Edibles are much better for you and don't piss off your neighbors.

Personally, I use it VERY infrequently. You never want to develop a dependence on something.

[mastema]

Would be impossible for the smell to be avoided. In Washington DC where it's been legalized for a few years, the stench is almost everywhere. It covers up the bumstench but still it's gross. In large cities in North Carolina you also smell it every time you go out on a drive. Tons of black people are smoking blunts while driving, it's impossible to avoid. And they speed and cause fatal accidents on a daily basis.

[ArtemisSilver]

We treat it the same here as drunk driving

[Hairylegs222]

Of course druggie potheads want it legal. I work at a hospital and it isn't allowed. I confiscate it daily in the emergency room at the metal detector. If it's controlled by the government, then sure legalize it. There should be some kind of test while driving though similar to alcohol. Too high to drive, too high under the influence 🤔 lol

[Fuentes]

Hospital Security?

[Hairylegs222]

@Fuentes Yes, I'm a security officer in there

[Fuentes]

Yeah I did that for two years the amount of GSW's, Meth & Herione found and called in and 5150 take downs I did. Made me dislike vagrants and 5150s lol

[Hairylegs222]

@Fuentes Understandable. Vagrant, unstable, drug addict, or alcoholic patients give us the most trouble. Vagrants are the worst though.

[Jakelyr]

I don't personally see an issue with it being legalized, however as with any intoxicating substance it should be regulated.

like open alcohol containers in a vehicle. i'd have marijuana sold with some kind of seal on the container.

and you definitely shouldn't be allowed to use on the job.

what you do at home is one thing, but you shouldn't allow it to inconvenience others or put them at risk.

[SandyBeaches]

In my state it's legal. How can this be worse than selling shit in back alleys?

[Avicenna]

Honestly, I don't want people jailed for using it, and it would be awesome to see it get taxed, but I'd be concerned about people being high in situations where you don't want them to be instead of when they're sitting on their couch.

[bobby_bush_eater]

I think it should be federally legal. Weed has no known immediate harsh effects, tobacco and alcohol does. Who is the government to say I can't use something that has medicinal benefits and does not caus violence and force people to be undesirable like cocaine, heroine and other drugs. It's an old 1960s stigma and it should've ended 20 years ago.

[Moose304]

Right now Marijuana is a schedule i substance according to the DEA and is technically illegal in all 50 states by FEDERAL Law. Because the Feds are not enforcing these laws more and more states have changed their "state" laws. Truck Drivers and Railroad personnel are still prohibited from smoking pot EVEN OFF DUTY. I support the Feds changing their law and leaving it up to the states.

[normalice]

In any country that purports to be "innocent until proven guilty" the question should always be "why should it be illegal?" And the simple fact is there is no answer, so yes it should be legal.

[bulletbob555]

It should be. Its also needs to change at federal level irregardless so legal states can use the banking system. I visited Florida not too long ago and the dispensary comercials were different. I live in a non legal state so it was different hearing the comercials

[GoodGuyBreakingBad]

Yes, Senator Bernie Sanders if he became US President he wanted to legalize marijuana in all 50 states also recreational marijuana too.

[DannyUk2017]

In UK is not legal, but the ones that Grows/Sell/Use... they do some pretty nasty stuff, Stabbing/Shooting/Raping... seen some of this happening and they were under the Influence! So is a NONO for me...

[MikeInHawaii]

Medical is legal. It’s a joke. Everyone knows who the concierge doctors are who will give anyone a prescription. If you legalize medical, you might as well legalize recreational use.

[mastema]

And the "concierge" doctors are imprisoned.

[monorprise]

As a rule anything that can take from a person the ability to stay no should be subject to anther person's no.

That said this is the job of the domestic governments of the States to sort out.

[exitseven]

Even though i do not smoke it I think putting people in jail for it is stupid.

People who sling hard drugs should be executed however.

[mastema]

Hell no. The responsibility of using hard drugs is on the end user. It's not the 1920s anymore, we know what they do, the results of use, and the social stigma attached to them. It's not the dealers fault, ever.

[exitseven]

@mastema no, they are dealing death to kids too stupid to know better. They should be hung by the balls until dead.

[WhiteSteve]

20% tax on it here, I thought the government liked money?😝

[mastema]

If all they cared about was money then prostitution would be legal.

[Anittaaa]

Have you ever tried to smoke weed? It can really help you in such situations, for example you may look at this cake mix strain review on as it's my favorite one lately and it's soo tasty. I think that you need to check them somewhere too. Good luck.