I tend to think the opposite. Outlawing actions or behavior of any kind are not decisions to be made lightly. The burden should always fall on the side of restriction, not on the side of liberty. "Why do they want to legalize it?" in my opinion, is not a relevant question. The natural order is the existence of freedom and choice. To remove that freedom, that choice, is what requires a "why?".
FYI, if you get pulled over, possession of < 1 oz. of marijuana in Massachusetts is now considered something akin to a traffic offense, with a $100 fine and nothing added to your criminal record (plus they confiscate the marijuana, obviously).
"MassPackersFan" wrote:
You know, it's interesting, and especially with what djcubez has mentioned, that originally I had planned to annotate my first post with the fact that I'd rather see alcohol banned than marijuana legalised.
I am of the opinion that the prescription of freedom assumes that any given citizen is rational and capable of making choices in their and in others' best interests.
I can appreciate that Americans have a very strong cultural sense of freedom, but I don't think freedom itself is in any sense natural. Restrictions are placed upon individuals naturally. We do not have the choice whether we fly. We can't view the world in UV if we wanted to. But when it comes to society, there seems to be a expectation, a right, to have freedoms. Of course, it's part of the American constitution and ingrained within the culture to protect this freedom. I appreciate that the pursuit of freedom has enabled a great amount of benefits to Americans and society. Of course, I'd rather live in a free state than a totalitarian regime. But freedoms should only be extended so far. There are road rules because with the freedom of choosing how you want to drive, you take away any expectation of how fellow road users will behave which makes driving far more dangerous.
The only thing I can say that I believe to be natural is a survival instinct. I would be willing to give up some minor freedom, in this case the choice of whether to allow marijuana to be legalised, if it means that I do not run the risk of endangering myself or others.
Okay, so the argument is that marijuana is not dangerous. But do you really want to see a society where your children is initiated in a fraternity or sorority by smoking large quantities of pot and drinking copious amounts of alcohol? How do you know, with legalised marijuana, that people aren't mixing a whole concoction of other illicit chemicals, maybe not maliciously, maybe just for the purposes of diluting the dosage for their own profits, when selling to others? Legalisation does provide freedoms, but how do I know that others will use this change in the best interests?
Let me say, I would not care in the slightest if everyone could confine their pot smoking and their wacky effects to their own homes, but I'm more inclined than not to think that the right to smoke it will be abused.
Furthermore, I can understand that laws are a crapshoot, there are some laws that are completely asinine and others that are painfully overdue. But I don't think it's an argument to legalise.
Djcubez brought up an interesting point of shouldn't french fries be made illegal since they are also unhealthy. Perhaps I was overly zealous when debating economic issues, but as I've said I am not fully aware of what that exactly could be. The difference for me is this: 1 person eating their way to their death isn't going to affect me or my family explicitly. A whole population of chip eaters will impact upon health and the government, and all associated costs with that, sure. But a whole population of potential pot smokers, out on the roads, in the clubs or the pubs or just normal shops, colleagues taking 'going out to smoke some pot' during lunch, etc etc. I would argue that the effects of smoking marijuana is more likely to explicitly affect myself and my family than the effects of eating chips is.
I'll perhaps summarise my stance on this thread topic: I don't much care for what others do, unless it affects my family and I. If it does, I'm going to do what I can to prevent any potential harm to them. Thinking back on my original post I should have clarified this point further because this is my main concern.
Oh and I'll also add that yes, I am not particularly fond of people who feel the need to smoke pot or take drugs for whatever reason other than medical (which in itself is dubious in many cases). But that's my own personal proclivities which I cannot defend other than to say that's just how I feel. That's why I would never use it, nor have I taken any such illicit drugs. But I don't really give two hoots about it unless it affects me; I'm not going to go up to people who smoke pot and actively discriminate against them.