California is thinking about legalizing it

[Tiberius]

That is irrelevant. When certain items are invented, there will be a demand for them by the public. Such demand can either be met by the government under certain conditions, or denied, causing a black market to appear for such items. It happened with alcohol during the prohibition, and it's happening in England with guns.

We can go on and on about how it would have been better had these things not been invented, but they were, and we have to deal with it. How something got invented is meaningless when it has been invented and is being used by people. There will always be people in a society who act against society's rules, and these are the people who we don't want to have the guns yet are more likely to actually get them.

[Meatball]

To apply one of this forums favourite tricks, let's swap out the word "guns" for hand grenades. Is it still the same conversation?

I really do understand the logic behind open markets on things, but I think when dealing with powerful weapons that can kill on the blink of an eye, it's a whole different ballgame.

[RedFish]

I'm not saying that driving stoned is ok, merely recounting my experiences. I will not get in a car with someone who is stoned. The experience is quite different in a car. I've followed many cars trailing pungent aromas from their windows and the effects are obvious on their driving. I don't dispute that at all.
The problem I have with any of these studies is that it has all been said before, I've read many. The 'legalisation' will only occur when it is Financially Advantageous. As was said earlier, there's a lot of money to be made. Decriminalisation of cultivation for personal use would be my preferred option. To begin with. Cannabis is already legal to grow in the UK, under certain conditions. Cannabis=Hemp=Cannabis. What is OK for Hugh Fearnley Whatsit to grow on his mini-farm is prohibited to me in my flat. Forcing me to go to drug dealers for my supply.
Yes, I am active in the de-criminalisation field, so it's not just hot air...
Quite agree with Adrian on guns...But allowing guns(or crayons) to some of the psychopathic little bastards infesting the UK these days is just not wise. It's also interesting for me to note that my local fishing tackle/bait shop owner often bemoans the lack of interest in gun clubs in the UK. Seems people don't want to learn how to shoot anymore. They've got computer games for that.

[Pippy]

Yeah, guns are important. As long as the cat is out of the bag, you know. If everyone would put down all the guns at once, I would be on board. Until that day I get one if everyone else gets one. Guns are not dangerous, the willpower to kill another or the level of stupidity required to accidentally shoot someone is dangerous.

"Every single negative social effect stems from its illegality. Every one." -RedFish

I agree, except for one slight little point. The illegality dosn't give you emphysema. The physical detriment from drug abuse is not part of it's illegality. But I agree with the principle that by far the worst thing is the legislation. They own both sides of the drug game. It is pretty clear nowadays what America was doing in Chile, Panama, and Columbia. What they are actively doing in Afghanistan. They sell you the drugs (and guns) and then put you in a private jail and make money after charging you for buying the drugs from them. That is worse than a monopoly.

Thanks,
Bread and Circuses,
-Pip

[Tiberius]

To apply one of this forums favourite tricks, let's swap out the word "guns" for hand grenades. Is it still the same conversation?

I really do understand the logic behind open markets on things, but I think when dealing with powerful weapons that can kill on the blink of an eye, it's a whole different ballgame.

What is the alternative solution then? How would you stop criminals from getting hold of guns if they were banned? It's going to be impossible, and if criminals are the only ones who have the guns...well...I can hardly see how that is a good thing.

[Meatball]

What is the alternative solution then? How would you stop criminals from getting hold of guns if they were banned? It's going to be impossible, and if criminals are the only ones who have the guns...well...I can hardly see how that is a good thing.

Likewise, I can't see how less restriction is a good way to keep guns safe and away from criminals.

There's no way to stop illegal weapon trade. I'm not that deluded. It should be the goal to track as many weapons as possible and make it a serious crime to be unable to account for a weapon. Beef up the sentencing guidelines for crimes involving illegal weapons. Come down hard on people like Lil Wayne who glamourize gangster lifestyle and end up serving less than a year for illegally possessing a handgun. Address the issues that drive people to need illegal weapons.

Arming the general population sounds like a terrible idea.

[Tiberius]

I'm not saying that criminals won't have guns if everyone has them. All I'm saying is that I'd prefer to see guns in the hands of everyone rather than just in the hands of criminals. If people carry guns, they have a form of protection and a form of deterrent against being attacked.

[Pippy]

"Arming the general population sounds like a terrible idea. "

So true, we should follow the advice scrawled on Tom Morello's guitar, and 'arm the homeless'.

I was born with a god given right to arm bears.

[chatpilot]

I personally have never been attracted to drugs of any kind legal or illegal, but I am not against someone using them if that is what helps get them by. My problem with legalizing marijuana is that I feel that by allowing its use to certain members of society with particular health issues we are opening the door for its further distribution. Say someone who uses marijuana legally falls upon hard times, what is to stop them from becoming a dealer in order to get by? In a nut shell we would be creating more dealers for the product and it will all be upheld by the government.

[cppman]

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this situation. There are a few things that I am worried about... but as of now, I will probably be voting no on it.

1. If California legalizes marijuana, how will that affect the current drug wars? Will California become a large open exporter for the drug cartels? Especially considering it is so close to Mexico.

2. Will it become commercialized and easier for children to get a hold of?

3. Will people be allowed to smoke in public as you currently can with tabacco? What will be the impact of second-hand smoke? Will people be allowed to smoke in their cars? What about in their homes? What if there are children in their car or home?

4. How and where will the marijuana be sold? Who can buy it? Who can grow it?

5. And this one is a long shot, but how will it affect illegal immigration?