Is the prohibition of marijuana an infringement of civil liberties?
Should an adult be allowed to cultivate and smoke his/her own marijuana in his/her own residence? If you don't believe so, do you also believe that alcohol should be prohibited? If not, why?
Answers:
if we still had civil liberties, we wouldnt get arrested for a prohibtion that will never work
alcohol prohbition was an expirement, and all it did was create crime and the mob. we dont learn from mistakes.
we should never get arrested for doing things we enjoy to do, contradicting the establishment of this country, religous freedom and such.
2009 it may change
Yes marijuana should be legal. No one dies from pot b/c you literally have to smoke a pound in an hour to die THAT'LL NEVER HAPPEN. Also they don't legalize it b/c of the fact they cant make money on it. GOVERNMENT IS GREEDY.
It's an infringement of MY rights when some stoner crashes into my car at night! I can't stand to hear the feeble excuses of drug users, alcoholics, or anyone else. They are weak, and they want us to bend the rules so they can continue their disgusting habits.
Will you grow poppies next? Weed should be sold and regulated. Personal use would be ok.
Too many kids get this stuff when it is the open market place, by druggies.
I think so. In a nutshell; the US Constitution says that you are free to do whatever you want unless you are infringing the rights of others under the Constitution.
How can anyone smoking this plant be infringing upon the rights of others?
Sadly, the country has become a nation of laws and restrictions rather than a land of freedom.
Which civil liberty? You appear to be suggesting there's a civil liberty to grow and smoke marijuana, and I disagree.
They tried alcohol prohibition and that didn't work so now they tax it.
IMO, they should also legalize pot and regulate/tax it through state approved vendors, i.e., the current crop of liquor stores.
That is just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
Doing whatever you want just because you want to do it ISN'T a definition of "civil liberty".
Up until the late 50's, cannibus was completely legal. Many ppl grew it for hemp.made into ropes and other items.
Many of those ppl felt, and still do, that they can grow whatever they want on their property. I say puff away, my friend...you aint hurting nobody.
thats why i love being a libertarian a person should do what ever he or she wants to his OWN body, the law shouldest regulate it. if they wanna smoke thats fine, drink? fu*k yea. but like i said the government loves being in control over someones own life. people should be able to choose what they want, if they want to wear seat belts or not, if they want to take drugs or not. but the only thing the government should control is the sale , you can take drugs, who cares?? but if your gonna sell it to people then thats what they should arrest you for and govern.
but yes people should be allowed to grow there own weed and smoke it whenever the hell they want, besides alcohol is 100 times more deadly. when have you ever herd someone dieing or getting into a car accdent from weed? i NEVER have, and if i ever did it was like one time in a life time. how many times have you herd of someone died and getting into a car accdent for being drunk? all the dam time.
i would really like to know that .. how is being drunk more safe then smoking weed?? at least when your high it lasts only for a few hours, when youre drunk it lasts for the rest of the day.
yea you CANT control it just like that dude said up above , because the government loves money and wont profit off it.. greedy fuckers
http://www.lp.org/issues/introduction.sh...
Alcohol is easier to control and regulate. You can't regulate a giant field of weed that any kid can walk right into and start picking.
It's an illegal substance, so NO, it's not an infringement of civil liberties.
I'm afraid there is no "right to consume mind-altering substances" in the Constitution. You could argue that it falls under the "right to privacy/right to be left alone" that the Supreme Court has found implicit in the Bill of Rights, but you won't get very far.
On the other hand, I agree with you that marijuana prohibition is an atrociously expensive mistake. All these years after we saw the disaster caused by alcohol prohibition, and we haven't learned.
Of course no one should drive while stoned. No one should drive while drunk, either. Does the person who objected to legalization for fear of stoned drivers advocate alcohol prohibition as well? If so, I commend him on the courage of his convictions, but I'd really like to know how he plans to implement and enforce it.
That alcohol is legal and marijuana illegal is pure historical accident. Legalize it, tax it, and take the money you save on enforcement and on imprisoning people for pot-related crimes, as well as the tax income, and use it for the drug addiction treatment we're currently underfunding.
I would say that as long as that adult is not selling their marijuana for profit there really should not be an issue. I know that marijuana is an illegal substance, but, in my opinion, it is only illegal because of the drug dealers mixing harder drugs in with it to keep their business going. I have never tried marijuana myself, but if it helps people with their problems (especially people who use it for medical reasons), then I don't really see the harm if it is used in the privacy of one's own home without the want for profit or the possibility of endangerment to the public (kind of like don't drink and drive).
As for the second part of your question, I don't think that alcohol should be prohibited. If it was, and people had to leave their home to drink, then it would be a lot more dangerous for those same people to get home. So, as I kind of mentioned above, either of the substances has the possibility of causing harm to others, but if the use of either substance is kept strictly to the home, then there really should not be a problem.
As a side note, going back to the drug dealers, my friend has an addition regarding the power of drug dealers:
and those said drug dealers were some of the heaviest monetary contributers to the campaign AGAINST legalizing it those few years back. if it were legal, they wouldn't make nearly as much money. it should only be legal for adults, and of course only when the adult is in not driving or in public, etc. i don't see it as being much more damaging than alcohol can be, so i don't see how one's legal and not the other on the grounds of what it does as a substance. it's not like it's heroin.
The answers post by the user, for information only, FreeLawAnswer.com does not guarantee the right.
Answer question:
More Law Questions and Answers: