The Water Cooler

There still hasn't been a single negative thing said about marijuana in this thread that isn't also true, if not doubly so, of free and legal alcohol. The closest anybody has come has been to point out their currently isn't a reliable system for determining DUI, which is being worked out by the courts in WA and CO as we speak.

Also, marijuana has been de-facto legal in California for a long time, since at least the early 90's when the medical marijuana law was passed. Funny how the entire high tech industry continues to thrive -- wouldn't it have made more sense for these industries to move to Alabama, where the people aren't lazy potheads?

Alcohol and cigarettes are an unfair comparison, because they have reached the point of use where people will not accept the laws and will not comply with them. They're legal not because they aren't dangerous, because it's impractical to make them illegal, so please stop comparing their dangers to pot.

As to people angry that people who sell pot are being arrested, would you feel the same if they were arrested for counterfeiting? It's not a big deal to sell fake Chinese goods, or producing fake bills. But, it's illegal, and it's unfair to others if you make money doing it when you aren't supposed to. Even if you assume that there is nothing wrong with pot, people are still making money by putting an illegal good on the market, no different than someone selling copies of their CDs so they can fund their music habit. Fake CDs do no harm themselves, but they are banned for broad policy reasons, and I think we all understand why its illegal to sell them. This really is no different. If you want to do something illegal to make a dime, you best be willing to do the time.

Wow. You have literally made the exact argument that Colorado and Washington are using FOR LEGALIZATION of marijuana. Yet somehow have the exact opposite conclusion. If the people of Alabama feel that marijuana should remain illegal, so be it. But other states feel the opposite. Hence why the federal government needs to allow the states to decide for themselves.

And if you remember, they tried to make alcohol illegal. Marijuana didn't have use in European cultures that immigrated, so its use didn't become common until much later on.

But a big reason you don't have the violence from the marijuana prohibition that you do the alcohol prohibition, people that are high don't start many fights. The only things I want to beat when high are either some drums or some tail.

Actually their is a big difference in selling copies of CDs and selling weed.

You should familiarize yourself with copyright law. A Copyright gives the copyright holder exclusive rights to making copies of the CDs and selling or distributing the CDs. When you purchase a CD, you enter into a contract with the owner of the CD, who is the copyright holder. You agree to pay them a fee (the price of the CD), and you also (whether you know it or not) agree to adhere to the copyright law that they hold. Breaking this copyright law or not paying for the CD is a breach of contract. This is more or less a type of theft (you agree to do/pay something in exchange for a good or service and then don't hold up your end of the agreement).

Selling marijuana is completely different. If someone grows marijuana in their back yard, they are the owner of the marijuana (just like the copyright holder is the owner of the CD). Since they are the owner of the marijuana they can decide to sell it. So they make an agreement with a person who wants to purchase the marijuana from them. More than likely they will exchange the marijuana for money. The person pays them the money and they receive the marijuana, so now the purchaser is the owner of the marijuana. However, should the purchaser not pay the agreed upon amount of money, he can not become the rightful owner of the marijuana.Not paying the owner of the marijuana the amount agreed upon is the equivalent of selling copied CDs. In both cases, the parties came to an agreement on a plan to exchange a good for something else, and in both cases, the purchaser did not hold up their end of the contract.

So really, the two ideas you're comparing are nothing alike. In the case of the CD, it is (and should be) illegal to sell a copy of a CD, because at the time of purchase, you agreed to give the CD owner money and you agreed to not copy the CD for distribution purposes. Selling marijuana on the other hand is illegal because the state (the U.S.) says it is. They are not the owners of the marijuana, so the exchange of the good should have absolutely nothing to do with them. They are neither the buyer nor the seller, and the exchanging of the good does no direct harm to anyone outside the exchange, therefore they have no rightful reason to intervene.

So to answer your question, no I would not feel the same if they were arrested for counterfeiting. One should be illegal, because it is theft (selling copied CDs). The other (selling weed) , I see no reason why it should be illegal.

Yes, I understand it's a violation of existing commercial laws, and I would never risk my livelihood selling pot just because I believe it "should" be legal. I just believe that laws prohibiting the growth and trade of marijuana is a violation of individual's property rights. If an individual truly owns something, than the government should have absolutely no right to tell the individual what to do with that thing, unless it causes damage to someone else (ie. you own a gun and you shoot someone with it, it would be right and just to take that gun from you). The way I view marijuana, growing and trading it does not cause damage to others, therefore I see no argument against the prohibition. If someone sells me a CD they produced, with the only condition being the money I pay for it, then after I've payed that money, I'm free to do what I wish with it. However, if they sell me a CD they produced and we agree that I can't reproduce it (how buying a copyrighted CD works), then the CD is mine, unless I violate the agreement. If I don't like that condition, I simply don't purchase the CD.

I believe it is morally wrong to break a contract with someone, as in reproducing a CD that you bought under the condition that you would not do so. However, I see nothing morally wrong with trading goods (like marijuana) that cause no damage to anyone outside the trade. All that being said, I would call someone an idiot if they sell marijuana and risk going to prison, but that doesn't change my belief that they should be allowed to do so without repercussion. If the Federal government decided to prohibit chicken, and to imprison anyone who broke this law, I would be furious. There's nothing morally wrong with buying and selling chickens, and to prohibit this would be tragic. But at the same time, you wouldn't see me on the street corner selling chickens.

I think if our law was nothing more than the non-aggression principle, we could avoid violating all individual rights, while still punishing those who cause damage to someone else. Unfortunately, that would mean the exit of our government, and there's a lot of people who have a lot to gain from controlling people through the government.

Edit: I too appreciate the reasoned discussion. It beats the heck out of the guys that come in here, throw out an exclamation and an insult, and there's barely if any hint of the discussion topic in their response.