Not only is it extreme its a ridiculous way to punish a victimless crime...and raise taxes..

I think people shouldn't take something away from people that really need it medically rather than useing it to just to get high.

But making something legal for medically purposes and decriminalizing it for recreational..wouldnt take away from anyone.

marijuana should definitely be decriminalized, but not made legal
I would prefer marijuana was legal over alcohol, but part of alcohol being legal, is so they can tell u to get drunk, and watch the idiot box w/ commercials of hot chicks, and useless products we think we need in our grandiose thinking. Probably why I haven't taken a sip of alcohol in well over a year.
The main reason marijuana will never be made legal is because if u say it's legal, then it's okay to smoke before you go to work, some jobs requiring lots of safety. You could smoke before school, and students would be giggling at something the teacher said a half hour ago, and u couldn't stop it, bcuz they're not breaking the law.
Also, on the guns issue, it has been successful in Canada, but you're forgetting about the bad part that comes along w/ being the 'greatest country'. Since we're such a 'great country' we are very competitive, which can be good, but also leads to lots of inadequacy. Inadequacy can lead to lower self esteem, which over time can lead to mania. This probably explains why the U.S. has the highest percentage of Pedophiles, Rapists, Murderers, Child Molesters, Child Abusers, Pornographers & Druggies.

You do realize that if something is decriminalized, then by definition it is made legal?

I don't think that the legality of firearms holds much bearing on a country's number of child molestors or druggies, etc.

I always hav to tell you everything twice:
Decriminalizing means lessening the penalty for the committing of the crime.
Also, what I was trying to say was that Canada doesn't produce near as many sickos as the U.S. so comparing their crime rate to ours is not plausible. In conducting an experiment, you can't say well Canada is mostly crime-free w/out guns, so we would be too. It's a good point for that side of the argument, but it doesn't take all the factors into account
Hey, oojay, aren't you for right to bear arms?
Man, I finally found someone who likes to argue more than I do.

De-criminalized means that it is not a criminal act, if it is not a criminal act then it is not illegal, and thus it is legal. Right?


I am for the right to bear arms, as long as you're not a cinvicted felon or mentally unstable.

I always thought decriminalizing meant to you know, un-criminalize it.

Main Entry: de·crim·i·nal·ize
Pronunciation: (")dE-'kri-m&-n&-"lIz, -'krim-n&l-
Function: transitive verb
: to remove or reduce the criminal classification or status of; especially : to repeal a strict ban on while keeping under some form of regulation



Main Entry: crim·i·nal·ize
Pronunciation: 'kri-m&-n&l-"Iz, 'krim-n&-"lIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
: to make illegal :



If they are opposites, and one means "to make illegal," then the other by default has to mean "to make legal."

I think that def. implies what I was attempting to say. I'm pretty sure I hear people, when talking about this issue say, 'Well, we ought not legalize it, but it should be decriminalized' I could be completely wrong, but even if I am, that's fine I can admit I made a mistake.

That statement is completely contradictory, you are completely wrong.

Criminals do illegal things. If it's legal they aren't criminals. If they aren't criminals then it isn't illegal.

Oh c'mon. It clearly did not contradict itself. I said that I believe that more than likely what I said was right, but I also believe there was a possibility I was wrong, and if I am, then so be it.

1+2=3. If 2+1=3, then 3-1=2. w0rd.

2 to the 5th power > 5 to the 2nd power, but
1 to the 5th power < 5 to the 1st power, weirdtastic

It could still be kept illegal to smoke underage and to be high while operating machines/vehicles. If there is a equivalent to the breathaliser we have for alcohol, with which you could test quickly and unobtrusively whether a person is high, then this it should be possible to test people for majijuana use in the situations where it's always inappropriate or dangerous. If there isn't such a method then you can't really put marijuana a par with alcohol, as it wouldn't have the same control measures available.

Oojay's right in that the verbs criminalize and decriminalize are suggested to be opposites by the de- prefix.

But if criminalize means "to make more illegal".

Then decriminalize means "to make less illegal".

If you take something that is legal and make it more illegal, you are making it illegal. If you take something that is illegal and make it less illegal, it can still be illegal.

By more legal and less legal here, I refer to the severity of punishment meted out for committing the act. More illegal = more severe punishment.

You make my head hurt:confused:

hah. hilary hardly represents the democratic party.

yeah, after all these homosexual-pedophillic sex scandals and fundamentalist christian Bush supporters being busted for buying meth and "other services" from *** male hookers, the republican party desperatly needs something good to happen right? I agree completely. They aren't a bunch of sleezy, good for nothing scumbags, they are just down on their luck.

I promise you, Hilary is no better than Bush. In fact, I'd take Bush over Hilary anyday.

Taking our guns away is a brilliant idea. I don't see how "pre-maturely" pulling out of this war is a problem, since it has been going on for 4 years and hasn't solved a thing. And blastulas, blastocysts, and fetus', are not babies. A blastula has less cells in it than the brain of a fly, significantly less actually, considering that a fly's brain has 100,000 cells, while a blastula has somewhere around 150. You should wince everytime you kill a fly mister morality.

No, taking out guns away would not cause more crime. I think that Great Britain is a great example of this.

America- Guns for all. Result: Around 100,000 handgun related deaths per yer.

Great Britain- Only certified members of target clubs can own them and they have to be locked up constantly. Result: Averaging about 12 handgun deaths per year.


COINCIDENCE? Funny thing is, you probably think it is just a fluke. Silly conservative.

how about for anyone that worked in a factory period. Or anyone that worked in an office. Sure, MJ can help u think more creatively, but I wouldn't want the person preparing my taxes to be all 'now what again, u wanted to claim 0, I'm sorry man, I'm so stoned.' I don't mind potheads too much, but I don't think being stoned & professionalism go too well together, so we'd also hav to make it illegal for anyone in customer service. It would be hard for me to think of a job where it should be legal-outside any of the arts (music, movies, sports). Maybe we should just make it illegal for all jobs. You've still got people wanting to smoke 5 hours before their shift, they come in, 'oh man, I figured it would hav worn off by now' Or they smoked right before they left for their job, 'Oh boss, man, I'm sorry, I smoked 5 hours ago. I was sure it would hav worn off by now' Also hav u ever gone to bed high, and woke up just as high. I think the only solution would be to decriminalize it, or for the other people on this thread, 'make it not as bad of a thing when you get caught with it.'

It can be grown...it isn't like they are going to run out.

Isn't that funny, considering that the United States is the most dominantly Christian country in the world?

No, it doesn't. Decriminalizing would mean that, say, if the penalty for repeat offenders was 5 years in prison, it is reduced to a fine, or a few hours community service. It's still illegal. You just want to twist meanings around to suit your agenda.

LOL @ Bungalowbill

What's a Bungalow Bill?

bungalowbill357 (n)- a georgian arsehole who actually made this place interesting.

The antithesis of all that is good and holy. But pretty good in the battle rap thread.

I was speaking in terms of...making it completely legal if prescribed..as in..there will not be in punishment if you are holding a script for it...

Right now it varies from state to state on the punishments of caught with a certain amount...how it was bagged...where you were if you were selling....if there were firearms..minors..etc...

For example in AZ...if you have any amount up to an ounce (I believe)..and its not bagged to sale and your not in front of school.(living) and its your first time offense...you may only get a 12 drug classes, unsupervised probation and a 400 dollar fine...now with different variables..you can get up to a year in prison...and a fine of 1500 dollars and supervised probation for up to 2 yrs...with it being a victimless crime...there should never be any jail time...

I agree, in terms of possession. Like I've said before, if somebody is operating a machine or doing a job which becomes much more dangerous when they are under the influence of the drug then this should be jailable, or punishable in a way which reflects the potential dangers they are creating.

I don't agree with TheUsedToolGuy that it should be illegal to be high when at work. I think it's the choice of the worker and the company as to what state it's workers should be in. I don't see why it should be any different to being drunk, or being generally incompetent, in that it should only be illegal if its actually DANGEROUS.

It isn't generally in a companys interest for people to be high and therefore unfocussed and unproductive at work. It isn't in the workers interest to be in this state. Being high at work should be a reasonable grounds for in-company disciplining and even dismissal... but not imprisonment! Market forces would generally be enough to stop everybody from being high at work.

who operates machinery while high?

Exactly...anything that would dull your sense...judgement shouldnt be taken if you are going to be putting innocent people in harms way..while driving, while operating machinery, while working with equipment..etc...

I work where they do "random" drug tests...this is to keep people from coming to work stoned..so they say..but my problem with it..is..well..I like to smoke pot..I dont go to work high..but if I wanna go home..get stoned..I should have that right..but if I get a "randomed" then I could lose my job cause I smoke a joint two weeks ago with some friends and pot doesnt exit the system for up to 30 days..

Do you think that if they had the option of a test where they could see if you'd used marijuana in the last 24 hours they would use that instead? Hmmmm, maybe I'll go and find the head of the medical department here and suggest this as a research area, that'd be pretty sweet.

coffee is good, drink it. NOW

Yes I think if pot were legal..deciminlized and the employer didnt want the person(s) coming to work stoned..high on anything the should have a test..accurate..that could narrow down the time of consumption...

But it would have to be less then 24 hrs..cause there is between 12-16 from the time I get off to the time I am scheduled to back at work...

But if it were to remain illegal...well I would be screwed regardless..

wellllllll, marijuana is a natural plant, and so is tobacco, one is legal one is not. If the government was any smart, they'd allow it, and tax it. But then it'd be **** quality. If anything alcohol should be banned. way more destructive / dangerous.

And the s*hitty quality issue is one reason I dont want it completely legalized...but there are always going to be people that wanna grow it and sale it..even in small quanities..

Medically..people should have the best there is to offer...

I don't see much different between coming to work high and coming to work drunk as hell.

It would be more dangerous to come to work drunk, but neither should be condoned.

Ummm no..it would be much more dangerous to come to work drunk then stoned..

I speak from experience..not to be mistaken with ignorance...

I have worked many a job stoned..stoned..very..but cant even walk straigh when really drunk.

I though "drunk" and typed "high." Brainfart:p:

I think it balances out depending on what you're high on or how drunk you are.