Marijuana legalization?

[Pogo]

The rules of language have always been subject to change.

I've got no problem with you wanting the definition of liberal to remain what it originally was.....but I think if you are honest about it you will agree that the original definition is not the one commonly used today.

When someone says a country was decimated, I'm not going to assume they mean one in ten people were killed. When they talk about liberals in a political discussion, I'm not going to assume they mean a person who follows Locke.

I guess the point of all this is that when language does change, it has to be by consensus. Not by some political hack out to demonize his perceived enemies. I accept change, but only when it's legitimate change. I'm not going to admire the emperor's new clothes when I can easily see he's buck naked.

Fair enough. I think there has been that consensus, at least based on what I see and hear of the use of liberal. I'm not going to claim any expertise or to have a bunch of data backing that up, though. It's just my impression.

Here's a good example of where loose definitions lead -- this is from another thread but the effect is obvious:

who do we blame for a screwed up society full of angry people who resort to violence???

How about Hollywood, the music industry, ghetto culture, fatherless families, Washington DC--------in other words--liberalism.

So here's a guy who actually uses "liberalism" to refer to cultural aspects... traits that don't even relate to politics, let alone the left or right.

And he's not alone. That's why definitions matter.

(And yet ironically, he may be closer to the real meaning than the conflation of Liberal with left -- in that Liberalism, believing in keeping the government's hands off expression, is what allows Hollywood et al to do what it wants. His mistake is attributing that industry's exploitation of the baser swill of human nature to a political movement. He conflates psychology with politics; the specific cultural direction with the philosophy that simply allows such direction (or any direction) to exist.)

 

[bkeating]

When a word or phrase use becomes common enough, it does become accurate. I feel confident that were you to do a search through these boards, the word liberal would be used the vast majority of the time to describe the political 'left' in the US. If you were to perform a poll of the country, I think that the majority would equate liberal with the political left.

Besides, no matter what political ideology liberal entails, it does not prevent the possibility someone can be a liberal and be close minded. Unless you are saying that open mindedness is a political ideology?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of this is that a liberal would be a person who has lets say, 70% democratic views on a specific topic, and 30% republican views. Also, a conservative republican would be the opposite of a liberal democrat. As for the LIBERATARIAN party, they are the ones that are 'open mindedness.' But at the same time, saying that open mindedness is a political ideology would be a very weak opinionated person, in the sense that they would constantly be changing their minds. When talking about this though, you have to take into consideration ALL views such as economic views, social views, healthcare views, immigration, civil rights and foreign policy just to name a few. I feel like with the political parties in todays world, that you also have to label yourself with a 'sub' party so to speak; like moderate, liberal, conservative ect.

It's late, so let's just single this one out:

Also, a conservative republican would be the opposite of a liberal democrat.

In many respects, probably. But keep in mind there are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats as well. Entertain also the thought that 'liberal' and 'conservative' are not quite exact opposites of each other. When we try to reduce politics to a two-dimensional left/right scale we doom ourselves to failure.

As for labels, in spite of all of the above, I'm against 'em. We do need labels for our endless quest of categorizing everything we see including philosophies; where we get into trouble is applying them to people, as if people are static rather than dynamic.

Okay, thanks. Makes sense

 

[Wry Catcher]

If someone is proposing a new law, at least think it through and make it thorough and specific enough. Also, make it so that the less fortunate in the intellectual department can understand it to avoid the uneducated voter. Legalizing marijuana sends messages to America's youth that drugs are in fact, okay. In Colorado it is becoming a big issue when it comes to the recreational use of marijuana; kids are brining it to school (more so than before) and that causes a problem for school districts. While I understand the tax benefits that this may provide, I do think that there are other, more effective ways of doing so; why marijuana? Marijuana is a drug, plain and simple and to make it legal is sending a subliminal message to the youth that drugs are in fact, okay. Now what is stopping the youth from being scared of other drugs, like Math for example. "Hey, marijuana is legal, depicted as bad before, I like the high, so ill stick a needle in my arm, it'll be legal one day!" The mentality of the youth is going to be extremely corrupt because of the very stupid and irresponsible decisions we as "role models" are making today. I think that marijuana should remain ILLEGAL, however I do believe that it should be extremely decriminalized so that people who DO use it, and caught, that their lives aren't ruined because of a little bit of "pot." Now on a different scale, I do believe that marijuana is in fact a safe drug, don't get me wrong, all I'm saying is legalization of such sends a bad message to our youth; not to mention it IS a gateway drug.

Thoughts?

Let's see alcohol is a very harmful drug deemed to be OK, so is tobacco.

All we are doing is engaging in a hypocritical battle against other drugs that we capriciously deem unacceptable.

We have wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a so called war on drugs that has not worked.

So tell me is letting people who already smoke pot do it legally going to make any difference good or bad?

Yes it will. It will save us billions of dollars and thousands more lives. A mere fraction of the money saved would allow us to offer drug addicts treatment instead of prison time.

Clear, concise and spot on. ^^^

 

[bkeating]

I think those who think you should be locked in a cage for possessing a plant should be locked in cages and see how they like it.

You equate being in full control of one's faculties with being stoned out of your mind. Interesting. It has to make sense to a pothead.

No.

You should be locked in a cage to have your head set straight, see how you like it.

Okay, my head hurts now because I'm trying to comprehend your logic; you believe that by putting someone in a "cage" that when they get out, they now have their head set straight? Elaborate please, because I didn't think that incarceration was the answer. Actually, that would probably steer people in the direction of becoming insane. What the hell are you trying to say?

 

[bkeating]

If someone is proposing a new law, at least think it through and make it thorough and specific enough. Also, make it so that the less fortunate in the intellectual department can understand it to avoid the uneducated voter. Legalizing marijuana sends messages to America's youth that drugs are in fact, okay. In Colorado it is becoming a big issue when it comes to the recreational use of marijuana; kids are brining it to school (more so than before) and that causes a problem for school districts. While I understand the tax benefits that this may provide, I do think that there are other, more effective ways of doing so; why marijuana? Marijuana is a drug, plain and simple and to make it legal is sending a subliminal message to the youth that drugs are in fact, okay. Now what is stopping the youth from being scared of other drugs, like Math for example. "Hey, marijuana is legal, depicted as bad before, I like the high, so ill stick a needle in my arm, it'll be legal one day!" The mentality of the youth is going to be extremely corrupt because of the very stupid and irresponsible decisions we as "role models" are making today. I think that marijuana should remain ILLEGAL, however I do believe that it should be extremely decriminalized so that people who DO use it, and caught, that their lives aren't ruined because of a little bit of "pot." Now on a different scale, I do believe that marijuana is in fact a safe drug, don't get me wrong, all I'm saying is legalization of such sends a bad message to our youth; not to mention it IS a gateway drug.

Thoughts?

Let's see alcohol is a very harmful drug deemed to be OK, so is tobacco.

All we are doing is engaging in a hypocritical battle against other drugs that we capriciously deem unacceptable.

We have wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a so called war on drugs that has not worked.

So tell me is letting people who already smoke pot do it legally going to make any difference good or bad?

Yes it will. It will save us billions of dollars and thousands more lives. A mere fraction of the money saved would allow us to offer drug addicts treatment instead of prison time.

Clear, concise and spot on. ^^^

No, not spot on what so ever. The whole idea that I'm stressing here is the totally wrong message that this would send to the youth of America. It does, for a FACT send the WRONG message, there is very little positivity that our youth can interpret from this and there is absolutely no denying that; no one likes being lied too, and that causes resentment.

 

[Montrovant]

Let's see alcohol is a very harmful drug deemed to be OK, so is tobacco.

All we are doing is engaging in a hypocritical battle against other drugs that we capriciously deem unacceptable.

We have wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a so called war on drugs that has not worked.

So tell me is letting people who already smoke pot do it legally going to make any difference good or bad?

Yes it will. It will save us billions of dollars and thousands more lives. A mere fraction of the money saved would allow us to offer drug addicts treatment instead of prison time.

Clear, concise and spot on. ^^^

No, not spot on what so ever. The whole idea that I'm stressing here is the totally wrong message that this would send to the youth of America. It does, for a FACT send the WRONG message, there is very little positivity that our youth can interpret from this and there is absolutely no denying that; no one likes being lied too, and that causes resentment.

You can give the positive message that adults should be free to make their own choices. You can give the positive message that it is wrong to equate a relatively benign drug like marijuana with heroin. You can give the positive message that the hypocrisy of government drug policy can in fact be changed.

More importantly, whether the message is good or bad should not be the basis for drug law, especially if that message is sent in such a seemingly arbitrary, haphazard way.

 

[JWBooth]

Let's see alcohol is a very harmful drug deemed to be OK, so is tobacco.

All we are doing is engaging in a hypocritical battle against other drugs that we capriciously deem unacceptable.

We have wasted billions of dollars and thousands of lives on a so called war on drugs that has not worked.

So tell me is letting people who already smoke pot do it legally going to make any difference good or bad?

Yes it will. It will save us billions of dollars and thousands more lives. A mere fraction of the money saved would allow us to offer drug addicts treatment instead of prison time.

Clear, concise and spot on. ^^^

No, not spot on what so ever. The whole idea that I'm stressing here is the totally wrong message that this would send to the youth of America. It does, for a FACT send the WRONG message, there is very little positivity that our youth can interpret from this and there is absolutely no denying that; no one likes being lied too, and that causes resentment.

Because they will never be smart enough to make informed decisions on their own, the nanny state must make all their decisions for them.